-

Privacy High Court Tracker

Open Spreadsheet

The CCG Privacy High Court Tracker is a resource consisting of decisions on the constitutional right to privacy passed by all High Courts in India. The Privacy High Court Tracker captures cases post the pronouncement of the Justice (Retd.) K.S. Puttaswamy vs. Union of India (Puttaswamy) judgment. In Puttaswamy, the Supreme Court of India reaffirmed the existence of the right to privacy in India’s Constitution as a fundamental right. 

The Privacy High Court Tracker is a tool to enable lawyers, judges, policymakers, legislators, civil society organisations, academic and policy researchers and other relevant stakeholders, to engage with, understand and analyse the evolving privacy law and jurisprudence across India. The cases deal with the following aspects of privacy (1) autonomy, (2) bodily integrity, (3) data protection, (4) dignity, (5) informational privacy, (6) phone tapping, (7) press freedom, (8) right to know and access information, and (9) surveillance, search and seizure. 

The tracker currently only consists of cases reported on Manupatra, and those reported upto 15 December 2023 (CCG will continue to update the tracker periodically). Only final judgements are included in the tracker, and not interim orders of the High Courts. 

Show methodology

Kerala High Court

Mini K.T. vs. Senior Divisional Manager (Disciplinary Authority), Life Insurance Corporation of India and Ors.

Dignity || Kerala High Court

1 Judge

Case Details

Decision Date - 21.12.2017
Citation - ILR 2018 (1) Kerala 355, MANU/KE/1919/2017
Case Type - Writ Petition (Civil)
Case Status - Disposed.
Legal Provisions - Articles 14, 15, 16, 21 of the Constitution of India, 1950
View Case

Important Quote

"In Justice K.S. Puttaswamy's case (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court while adverting to the privacy of individual observed that privacy is an essential aspect of dignity. ... To understand the dignity of a woman, the societal background has to be considered. ... No action is possible against a woman employee for her absence from duty on account of compelling circumstances for taking care of her child. No service regulations can stand in the way of a woman for claiming protection of her fundamental right of dignity as a mother. ... motherhood is an inherent dignity of woman, which cannot be compromised."

Read more
Notes

No action is possible against a woman employee for her absence from duty on account of compelling circumstances for taking care of her child. Privacy is an essential aspect of dignity of women as mothers.

Read more

Oommen Chandy vs. State of Kerala and Ors.

Dignity, Informational Privacy || Kerala High Court

1 Judge

Case Details

Decision Date - 15.05.2018
Citation - ILR 2018 (2) Kerala 732, MANU/KE/1039/2018
Case Type - Writ Petition (Civil)
Case Status - Disposed.
Legal Provisions - S. 8B of the Commissions of Inquiry Act, 1952
View Case

Important Quote

"On account of its nature as a right that is personal to an individual, I am of the view that the newly recognised fundamental right to privacy, which takes within its fold the right to protection of ones reputation as well, would merit classification as a fundamental right that protects an individual, not only against arbitrary State action, but also against the actions of other private citizens, such as the press or media."

Read more
Notes

Incorporation of the contents of a letter produced before the Inquiry Commission, containing sexual allegations against a party, making it vulnerable to a discussion by the public and the media amounts to infringement of the right to privacy.

Read more

C.S. Chacko vs. Union of India and Ors.

Autonomy, Informational Privacy || Kerala High Court

2 Judge

Case Details

Decision Date - 02.08.2018
Citation - AIR 2018 Ker 166, MANU/KE/1957/2018
Case Type - Writ Petition (Civil)
Case Status - Disposed.
Legal Provisions - Article 25 and 26 of the Constitution of India, 1950
View Case

Important Quote

"Our Constitution, through its preamble, proclaims liberty of thought, action, belief, faith and worship as cherished concepts, that are guaranteed to all persons through Articles 25 and 26 thereof. It is through the exercise of these very liberties, that the petitioner chose to be a member of the 6th respondent Church, or to continue to be one. His actions were also in accordance with the exercise of his fundamental right to choose the religion that he wanted to adopt. Having done so, he cannot be heard to say that his continuance as a member of the Church is on account of any compulsion that is imposed on him."

Read more
Notes

Practice of compulsory confession amongst Orthodox Syrian Christians not violative of right to privacy.

Read more

Gopalakrishnan P. vs. State of Kerala

Informational Privacy, Dignity, Data Protection || Kerala High Court

1 Judge

Case Details

Decision Date - 14.08.2018
Citation - 2018 (4) KLT 1159, MANU/KE/2817/2018
Case Type - Criminal Misc. (Main)
Case Status - Disposed.
Legal Provisions - S. 173 and 207 of CrPC, 1973
View Case

Important Quote

"In the case of Justice K.S. Puttaswamy (Retd.) and Another vs. Union of India and Others, the Constitutional Bench of the Supreme Court had held that the fundamental rights emanate from basic notions of liberty and dignity and the enumeration of some facets of liberty as distinctly protected rights under Article 19 does not denude Article 21 of its expansive ambit. It was held that, validity of a law which infringes the fundamental rights has to be tested not with reference to the object of state action, but on the basis of its effect on the guarantees of freedom... When there is a conflict between Fundamental Rights of a person and statutory rights of another person, Fundamental Rights will prevail."

Read more
Notes

Furnishing copy of memory card to accused is a serious transgression into the right to privacy of victim of sexual abuse.

Read more

The Cochin Institute of Science and Technology vs. Jisin Jijo and Ors.

Autonomy || Kerala High Court

2 Judge

Case Details

Decision Date - 04.06.2019
Citation - ILR 2019 (2) Kerala 796, MANU/KE/2179/2019
Case Type - Writ Appeal
Case Status - Disposed.
Legal Provisions - Article 21 of the Constitution of India, 1950
View Case

Important Quote

"In K.S. Puttaswamy and Another vs. Union of India and Others, reported in the Supreme Court found that the focus of the guarantee of fundamental rights was the individual and that the fundamental right to life envisaged under Article 21 was a right to a life with dignity. The right of a person to individual autonomy in matters of personal choice and preferences was seen as integral to his dignity and thereby his fundamental right under Article 21 of the Constitution."

Read more
Notes

The freedom to choose the college of his/her choice for pursuit of studies is a facet of fundamental right to privacy.

Read more

State of Kerala and Ors. vs. Shyam Balakrishnan and Ors.

Surveillance, Search and Seizure || Kerala High Court

2 Judge

Case Details

Decision Date - 08.07.2019
Citation - ILR 2019 (3) Kerala 466, MANU/KE/2603/2019
Case Type - Writ Appeal
Case Status - Disposed.
Legal Provisions - S. 149 of CrPC, 1973
View Case

Important Quote

"In the exercise of its powers of judicial review under Article 226 of our Constitution, while acting as a sentinel on the qui vive to protect the fundamental rights of our citizens, this Court exercises a primary review over State action with an emphasis on the doctrine of proportionality. A charge that State action has violated the fundamental right of a citizen calls for a heightened scrutiny of the said action by the Constitutional Courts to determine whether the action of the State in restricting the liberty of the citizen was strictly required by the exigencies of the situation. ... A good end does not justify a bad means more so when the means adopted are such that violate the personal freedom and privacy of individuals."

Read more
Notes

The action of the police authorities in detaining and interrogating a person and thereafter searching his residence, without following due procedure is violative of the right to privacy.

Read more

Raju Sebastian and Ors. vs. Union of India and Ors.

Informational Privacy, Data Protection || Kerala High Court

2 Judge

Case Details

Decision Date - 04.09.2019
Citation - AIR 2020 Ker 3, MANU/KE/3533/2019
Case Type - Writ Appeal
Case Status - Disposed. Judgment of the Single Judge in Nana Auto Fuels and Ors. vs. Union of India and Ors. MANU/KE/2762/2018 overruled..
Legal Provisions - Article 21 of the Constitution of India, 1950
View Case

Important Quote

"Privacy attaches to the person and not the place where the information is kept. The right to privacy is not lost as a result of confidential information being parted with by the customer to the custody of the bank. ... Any information which discloses remittances made to the Income Tax Department towards discharge of tax liability would constitute personal information. A demand for furnishing income tax returns filed by a person would constitute invasion of the privacy of a person."

Read more
Notes

A demand for furnishing income tax returns filed by a person would constitute invasion of the privacy of a person.

Read more

Faheema Shirin R.K. vs. State of Kerala and Ors.

Autonomy, Right to Know and Access Information || Kerala High Court

1 Judge

Case Details

Decision Date - 19. 09. 2019
Citation - AIR 2020 Ker 35, MANU/KE/3799/2019
Case Type - Writ Petition (Civil)
Case Status - Disposed.
Legal Provisions - Article 21 of the Constitution of India, 1950
View Case

Important Quote

"The right to have access to Internet becomes the part of right to education as well as right to privacy under Article 21 of the Constitution of India."

Read more
Notes

The right of a student to have access to internet is also part of the right to privacy.

Read more

Vilasini and Ors. vs. State of Kerala and Ors.

Dignity || Kerala High Court

1 Judge

Case Details

Decision Date - 14.02.2020
Citation - 2020 (4) KLT 863, MANU/KE/0546/2020
Case Type - Writ Petition (Civil)
Case Status - Disposed.
Legal Provisions - Rule 7, Kerala Abkari Shops Disposal Rules, 2002
View Case

Important Quote

"The task of the constitutional court while determining the issue related to privacy falls on factual criteria to classify the action complained. This task essentially is a fact finding. ... violation of privacy must have an immutable character available to the group or collective. ... In a challenge based on infringement of privacy, the first task upon the constitutional court is to classify the nature of the action complained. On the classification of such action, the Court has to find out whether such action complained is sufficient to harm the citizen from enjoying his life with dignity or amenities which he was enjoying before the action complained ... Privacy rights cannot be recognized to promote the individual interest to deny the rights of others. ... No toddy shop shall be located in a residential area infringing the right of privacy of the individual to have respect for his private and family life, his home and his correspondence as referred in Article 8 of European Convention on Human Rights. ... No new licence or renewal shall be granted to toddy shops in a residential area without assessing privacy rights impact."

Read more
Notes

Lays down the 'Threshold Severity Test' for impact on privacy rights. Privacy impact assessment must be made by the State before grant or renewal of licence to toddy shop in residential areas.

Read more

Neethu Narendran vs. State of Kerala

Autonomy, Bodily Integrity || Kerala High Court

1 Judge

Case Details

Decision Date - 30.04.2020
Citation - 2020 (3) KLT 155, MANU/KE/1771/2020
Case Type - Writ Petition (Civil)
Case Status - Disposed.
Legal Provisions - S. 3 of Medical Termination of Pregnancy Act, 1971
View Case

Important Quote

"In Justice K.S. Puttaswamy vs. Union of India, the Supreme Court has approved the constitutional right of a woman to make reproductive choices as part of her personal liberty under Art. 21 of the Constitution of India. Their Lordships went further and expanded the doctrine of right to privacy to even include the right of a woman to enjoy or not to enjoy motherhood. The concept of a woman having autonomy of the body and mind which includes the ability to make decisions on vital matters of concern to her life have been elevated to the status of her right to privacy."

Read more
Notes

Women's autonomy of body and mind is part of right to privacy.

Read more

X vs. S

Informational Privacy || Kerala High Court

2 Judge

Case Details

Decision Date - 18.09.2020
Citation - MANU/KE/3082/2020
Case Type - Original Petition (Family Court)
Case Status - Disposed.
Legal Provisions - The Code of Medical Ethics formulated by the Indian Medical Council as per the provisions of S. 20A of the Indian Medical Council Act as amended in 1964.
S. 23 of the Mental Healthcare Act, 2017
View Case

Important Quote

"When a court of law orders production of records relating to an individual, it cannot be regarded as an intrusion into the right to privacy of that individual for then it will fall under the expression "except by procedure established by law" of Article 21. ... Before ordering the production of treatment records of a mentally ill person, court must apply its mind judicially and ascertain whether the documents sought for have a material bearing on the case. If it is found that the documents relating to the treatment records of a mentally ill person has a material bearing on the case, the court must then consider whether non production will cause prejudice to the person seeking production. If answers to both the aforesaid questions are in the affirmative only then will the court be justified in ordering production of treatment records of a mentally ill person."

Read more
Notes

When the power is exercised by a Court of law calling for medical records of an individual, the same cannot be regarded as an intrusion into the right to privacy.

Read more

Xxxxx vs. State of Kerala

Autonomy, Dignity || Kerala High Court

1 Judge

Case Details

Decision date - 13.08.2021
Case citation - MANU/KE/1845/2021
Case type - Civil Misc. Writ Petition
Case status - Writ petition allowed
Legal provisions - Articles 14, 19 and 21 of the Constitution of India, 1950; Sections 8(1) and 16 of the Registration of Births and Deaths Act 1969.
View Case

Important Quote

"In Puttaswamy's case (supra), it was held that ... one of the connotations of “privacy” includes decisional autonomy which comprehends intimate personal choices such as, those governing reproduction as well as choice expressed in public such as, faith or modes of dress."

Read more
Notes

Requirement to provide the name of the sperm donor violates the mother's right to privacy.

Read more

Abhilash R. Nair vs. Sreebha P.S. and Ors.

Bodily Integrity, Autonomy || Kerala High Court

1 Judge

Case Details

Decision date - 17.12.2021
Citation - 2022 (1) KLT159
Case Type - Criminal Original Petition
Case Status - Dismissed
Legal Provisions - Article 20, 21 of the Constitution of India, 1950
View Case

Important Quote

"Courts should always be cautious in making an innocent child from being bastardised if his mother and spouse were living together during the time of conception even if the result of DNA test is found to be against mother and child. In the present case, the petitioner is stoutly denying of having had any contact at all with the first petitioner and totally denying the case of the petitioners. In the above circumstances, it would become absolutely necessary to order DNA test to find out the truth regarding the paternity of the second petitioner."

Read more
Notes

DNA test ordered by the court to determine paternity of a child does not violate the right to privacy of the child.

Read more

Alli Noushad vs. Rasheed and Ors.

Informational Privacy || Kerala High Court

2 Judge

Case Details

Decision - 18.02.2022
Citation - MANU/KE/0556/2022
Case Type - Criminal Appeal
Case Status - Disposed
Legal Provisions - S.122 of the Evidence Act, 1872
View Case

Important Quote

"The sacrosanctity of a family, which includes its privacy, is what is essentially sought to be protected by virtue of Section 122. If that be so, the aspect involved herein, touching the fidelity of PW17, is all the more a finer and important one, which requires to be preserved from being divulged, having regard to the purpose and purport of Section 122 of the Evidence Act. Evidence regarding quarrel and the reason behind it are matters which fit into the prohibited compartment of communication between spouses, and therefore, inadmissible. We thus conclude that, that part of the evidence tendered by PW17 which pertains to the quarrel between accused and PW17 is liable to be eschewed as inadmissible under Section 122 of the Evidence Act."

Read more
Notes

Conversation between husband and wife is protected under section 122 of the Evidence Act, 1822 as priviliged conversation between a married couple and would be inadmissable as evidence in court.

Read more

Ismail P.M. vs. Muhammad Ameer-Ul-Islam and Ors

Dignity, Informational Privacy || Kerala High Court

2 Judge

Case Details

Decision Date - 15.03.2022
Citation - 2022 (2) KLT 562,
MANU/KE/1318/2022
Case Type - Criminal Misc. Application
Case Status - Disposed
Legal Provisions - S. 372, 374, 377, 378 of CrPC, 1973. Article 32 of the Constitution of India, 1950

Important Quote

"We find merit in the objection of the learned Special Government Pleader that the issuance of copies of records of the subject Sessions case may invade the privacy and dignity of the victim, though 'no more', this being a case of brutal rape, followed by murder. We prefer to believe that privacy and dignity of individual outlives his/her life."

Read more
Notes

Issuing certified copies of a judgment and other documents to a stranger would violate the victim's right to privacy and dignity.

Read more

Ramachandran vs. State of Kerala Represented by Sub-Inspector of Police, Through Public Prosecutor

Autonomy, Bodily Integrity || Kerala High Court

2 Judge

Case Details

Decision Date - 30.03.2022
Citation - (2022) 2 KLT 779,
MANU/KE/1121/2022
Case Type - Criminal Appeal
Case Status - Disposed
Legal Provisions - S. 375 Explanation 2, 90, 376(2)(f), 114A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860
View Case

Important Quote

"Non-disclosure of material facts by the accused affecting the consent would amount to violation of the sexual autonomy of the woman. Sexual autonomy consists of two requirements. First, the possession of relevant information and second the ability to act in accordance with the personal assessment of that information. The material facts known to the accused if not shared with the woman at the time of committing the sexual act, certainly would encroach upon her right to protect her decisional autonomy."

Read more
Notes

Sexual relations contingent upon the promise to marry would amount to rape only if consent was obtained through non-disclosure of material facts which violated the decisional autonomy of the victim.

Read more

T.N. Suraj vs. State of Kerala and Ors

Informational Privacy, Right to Know and Access Information || Kerala High Court

1 Judge

Case Details

Decision Date - 19.04.2022
Citation - MANU/KE/1456/2022
Case Type - Writ Petition (Criminal)
Case Status - Disposed
Legal Provisions - S. 167(1), 327(3) of the CrPC, 1973. Article 19(a), 21 of the Constitution of India, 1950. S. 116, 118, 120B, 302C of the Indian Penal Code, 1860
View Case

Important Quote

"The right of the public to know the details of the criminal case through the media, the media's right to freedom of speech and expression, the right of the victim to bring out the truth through a fair trial, presumption of innocence which the accused or the suspect has until proved guilty, the right to reputation, privacy which are facets of Article 21 of the Constitution of India available to the parties and above all the indefeasible right for a due administration of justice in accordance with the law.....Reports/telecast having the effect of prejudicing mankind against the parties and the court before the case is heard clearly interferes with the course of justice."

Read more
Notes

Publishing or broadcasting information by the media that can cause prejudice to the parties in a case amounts to violation of their right to privacy and reputation.

Read more

Suo Motu vs. Travancore Devaswom Board, Nanthancode and Ors

Informational Privacy || Kerala High Court

2 Judge

Case Details

Decision Date - 22.04.2022
Citation - MANU/KE/1371/2022
Case Type - Devaswom Board Petition
Case Status - Disposed
Legal Provisions - Article 14, 19, 21of the Constitution of India, 1950. Rule 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 of the Information Technology (Reasonable Security Practices And Procedures And Sensitive Personal Data Or Information) Rules, 2011. S. 2, 3, 4 of the Kerala Hindu Places Of Public Worship (Authorisation Of Entry) Act, 1965
View Case

Important Quote

"Any access to the database in Virtual-Q platform by the Kerala Police, for crowd control during festival seasons and also monthly poojas, in order to avoid a stampede or an untoward, or for taking any preventive action in case any specific threat or security input, would not amount to an unwarranted invasion of the privacy of pilgrims."

Read more
Notes

Accessing the database with the information of pilgrims visiting the temple for crowd control during festival seasons and monthly poojas, to avoid a stampede or for taking any preventive action in case of specific threat or security input, would not amount to an unwarranted invasion of the privacy of pilgrims.

Read more

XXX and Ors. vs. The Registrar of Births and Deaths and Ors.

Autonomy || Kerala High Court

1 Judge

Case Details

Decision Date - 19.07.2022
Citation- MANU/KE/2257/2022
Case Type - Civil Misc. Writ Petition
Case Status - Disposed
Legal provisions - Article 12, 21 of the Constitution Of India - Article 12, 21. S.7 of the Guardians And Wards Act, 1890. S. 11, 15, 23 of the Registration Of Births And Deaths Act, 1969
View Case

Important Quote

"From the above discussions, it is clear that it is the right of a person to include his mother's name alone in the birth certificate, identity certificates and other documents. As I observed earlier, there are children of rape victims and children of unwed mothers in this country. Their right of privacy, dignity and liberty cannot be curtailed by any authority. The mental agony of such person is to be imagined by every citizen of this country while intruding into their privacy. In some cases it will be a deliberate act and in other cases it may be by mistake. But the State should protect citizens of all such kind as equal to other citizens without disclosing their identity and privacy. Otherwise, they will face unimaginable mental agonies."

Read more
Notes

The court granted a request for the removal of the father's name from the birth certificate, leaving the mothers name as the only parent. It held that in cases where a child was born out of forced sexual conduct, it was essential to uphold the child's right to privacy and dignity by expunging the name of the father from the records.

Read more

Aryamol P.S. vs. Union of India and Ors.

Bodily Integrity, Autonomy || Kerala High Court

1 Judge

Case Details

Order Date - 26.09.2022
Citation - MANU/KE/2816/2022
Case Type - Civil Misc. Writ Petition
Case Status - Ongoing
Legal provisions - Article 14, 19, 21 of the Constitution of India, Rule 3B of the Medical Termination of Pregnancy (MTP) Rules, 2003.
View Case

Important Quote

"...women, whose marital status changed during the ongoing pregnancy (widowhood or divorce), are also included. Indisputably, the petitioner's matrimonial life has completely changed during the pregnancy. She was allegedly ill treated compelling to leave the company of her husband and start residence at her parental house. Moreover, alleging cruelty meted by the 7th respondent and his mother, the petitioner has filed a criminal complaint. It is also pertinent to note that, even before this Court, the 7th respondent did not express any interest in taking back the petitioner. It is therefore to be considered whether, in spite of the above drastic changes in her matrimonial life, the petitioner could be denied permission for terminating her pregnancy, on the premise that she is not legally divorced and her marital status has therefore not changed. If interpreted and understood in the above manner, the drastic change in the matrimonial life of a pregnant woman is equivalent to the 'change of her marital status."

Read more
Notes

The 'change of marital status' ground to seek abortion under Section 3B of the MTP Rules would not be exclusive only to widowhood or divorce but could be interpreted to include drastic changes in matrimonial life including ill treatment, cruelty, etc.

Read more

John George Nechupadom and Ors. vs. Kerala State Information Commission and Ors.

Right to Know and Access Information || Kerala High Court

1 Judge

Case Details

Decision Date - 02.12.2022
Citation - MANU/KE/3462/2022
Case Type - Writ Petition
Case Status - Disposed
Legal provisions - S. 198, 255, 268, 269, 309, 310, 311 of the Companies Act, 1956 [repealed]. Article 12, 141, 226 of the Constitution of India. S. 2(h), 6, 8(1) of the Right to Information Act, 2005.
View Case

Important Quote

"In the instant case, the party respondents have been seeking information of the minutes of the Board meeting. The minutes of the Board meeting, after its approval are sent to the registrar of Company. It is therefore a public document and thus cannot be said to be personal information as exempted under section 8(1)(j) of the Act."

Read more
Notes

Public documents such as minutes of board meetings cannot be exempt from the RTI Act on the grounds that they are 'personal information'.

Read more

H. Vincent vs. The State of Kerala and Ors.

Dignity || Kerala High Court

1 Judge

Case Details

Decision Date - 07.12.2022
Citation - MANU/KE/3499/2022
Case Type - Criminal Misc. Petition
Case Status - Allowed
Legal provisions - S. 161, 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. S. 349, 350, 351, 353, 509 of the Indian Penal Code 1860.
View Case

Important Quote

"For a prosecution under section 509 of IPC, there must be a definite allegation of insult to the modesty of woman or intrusion into the privacy of a woman. Mere insult or false allegation will not attract the offence under section 509 of IPC. The subject of insult for a prosecution under Section 509 of IPC must be the modesty of the woman and not the woman as such."

Read more
Notes

Merely insulting a woman would not automatically amount to insulting the modesty of a woman, or an intrusion into her privacy.

Read more

Nandini K. v. Union of India

Autonomy || Kerala High Court

1 Judge

Case Details

Decision Date - 19.12.2022
Citation - 2022 SCC OnLine Ker 8235
Case Type - Civil Writ Petition
Case Status - Disposed
Legal Provisions - S. 21(g) of the Assisted Reproductive Technology (Regulation) Act 2021; Article 21 of the Constitution of India, 1950
View Case

Important Quote

"The personal choice of individuals to procreate and build family is held to be a facet of his/her fundamental right. This right is being restricted by fixing an upper age limit for availing ART services. While the State has the power to impose reasonable restrictions, such restriction can always be tested on the touchstone of liberty guaranteed under Article 21. It is now settled that legislative action can be challenged on the ground of lack of legislative competence, violation of fundamental rights or any other constitutional provision and manifest arbitrariness. [...] The prohibition under Section 21(g), if understood to be preventing even continuance of ART services already commenced, would definitely amount to unreasonable and unjustified restriction on the reproductive choice of the commissioning couple and would militate against the liberty guaranteed under Article 21."

Read more
Notes

Preventing individuals to continue availing ART services, once the services have commenced, unjustifiably restricts the right to reproductive choices of the individuals guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution. Further, the National ART Board was directed to alert the Central Government to ensure the upper age limits fixed under the ART Act are fair, reasonable, and justifiable as per established constitutional standards.

Read more

Vysakh K.G. v. Union of India

Right to be Forgotten || Kerala High Court

2 Judge

Case Details

Decision Date - 22.12.2022
Citation - 2022 SCC OnLine Ker 7337
Case Type - Civil Writ Petition
Case Status - Disposed
Legal Provisions - Article 226 of the Constitution of India, 1950
View Case

Important Quote

"As adverted to earlier, the right to be forgotten can be claimed as a right to erase past memory. The public records relating to the petitioners who were either accused or parties to the criminal proceedings cannot be erased forever. The digital space is a dynamic space allowing vibrant data to be refreshed without the constraints of time and space. The boundaries of privacy have no limitations in the digital space. In the real world, humans have limitations created by space and time. In the normal course of human conduct, time will erase memory. This particular problem in a digital space of allowing information to remain forever would certainly affect the right claimed as a right to be forgotten. The internet has unlimited capacity to remember. The Court cannot generally balance the interest claimed by the individuals and the information available in the digital domain for eternity. The Court, no doubt, would be able to form an opinion after adverting to the attending circumstances of a particular case to order the removal of personal data or erasure of such data from digital space after considering the factors relating to such cases."

Read more
Notes

The right to be forgotten cannot be sought against publishing of recent proceedings, as they are public records. However, the court may permit a party to invoke the rights to de-index (and erasure, where applicable) and to remove the personal information of the party from search engines based on the facts and circumstances. Furthermore, in family and matrimonial cases or other similar cases, the Registry of the court will be required to protect the privacy of the parties, as may be required based on the facts and circumstances of the case.

Read more

Sebin Thomas v. Union of India

Informational Privacy, Press Freedom || Kerala High Court

2 Judge

Case Details

Decision Date - 11.04.2023
Citation - 2023 SCC OnLine Ker 2215
Case Type - Writ Petition
Case Status - Disposed
Legal Provisions - Article 21 of the Constitution of India; S. 3, 4, 5, 5A, 5B, 21, 22, 23 and 24 of the Cinematograph Act, 1952
View Case

Important Quote

"Once the matter becomes a matter of public record, the right to privacy is no longer subsisting and it becomes a legitimate subject for comment for press and media among others. [...] This Court is in agreement with the submission of the 5th respondent only because the story gets inspiration from the life story of a proclaimed offender. That does not mean that the story is completely the life story of that person and the publication of that story would affect the privacy right of that particular person."

Read more
Notes

A publication goes beyond the purview of right of privacy if such publication is based on public records including court orders. Hence, the publication is not in violation of the right to privacy, if it relies on information available in public records and court proceedings.

Read more

Xxx v. State of Kerala

Autonomy, Bodily Integrity || Kerala High Court

1 Judge

Case Details

Decision Date - 5.06.2023
Citation - 2023 SCC OnLine Ker 3673
Case Type - Writ Petition
Case Status - Disposed
Legal Provisions - Article 21 of the Constitution of India; Sections 10 r/w 9(n), 14 r/w 13(b) and 15 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012; Section 67B (a), (b), (c) of the Information Technology Act, 2000; Section 75 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015.
View Case

Important Quote

"The right of a woman to make autonomous decisions about her body is at the very core of her fundamental right to equality and privacy. It also falls within the realm of personal liberty guaranteed by Article 21 of the Constitution. Painting on the upper body of a mother by her own children as an art project cannot be characterised as a real or simulated sexual act, nor can it be said that the same was done for the purpose of sexual gratification or with sexual intent. To term this innocent artistic expression to be ‘usage of a child in real or simulated sexual act’ is harsh."

Read more
Notes

The right to privacy includes the right to have autonomy over one's body and, accordingly, make decisions about one's body. This includes the instant case, where a mother asked her children to paint over her upper body as an artistic expression.

Read more

Faizal K.V. v. State of Kerala

Bodily Integrity || Kerala High Court

1 Judge

Case Details

Decision Date - 20.07.2023
Citation - CRL.MC No. 5660 of 2023, 2023 SCC OnLine Ker 6179
Case Type - Criminal Miscellaneous Case
Case Status - Dismissed.
Legal Provisions - Sec. 112 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872.
View Case

Important Quote

"Thus the law emerges is that merely because parties have dispute about paternity, it does not mean that the court should direct DNA or such other test to resolve the controversy. In such circumstances, the parties should be directed to lead evidence to prove the dispute of factum of paternity and only when the court finds it impossible to draw an inference based on such an evidence or the controversy in issue cannot be resolved without DNA test, it may direct the DNA test and not otherwise."

Read more
Notes

DNA test of a child cannot be ordered simply to clear the doubts in a person's mind regarding the paternity of the child.

Read more

V.O. Mathew v. Aliesha

Bodily Integrity || Kerala High Court

1 Judge

Case Details

Decision Date - 20.07.2023
Citation - CRL.MC No. 5660 of 2023, 2023 SCC OnLine Ker 6179
Case Type - Criminal Miscellaneous Case Case Status - Dismissed.
Legal Provisions - Sec. 125 of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, Sec. 112 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872.
View Case

Important Quote

"When a prima facie case of cohabitation is made out by the 1st petitioner from the materials produced and relied on and the respondent stands thoroughly failed to establish a prima facie case of alleged immoral life led by the 1st petitioner with other persons named in his objection, the prayer of the 1st petitioner to issue direction to the respondent to subject himself to the blood test for determination of DNA cannot be thrown aside. If an order of the nature is declined that would have the impact of bastardising the minor girl child among the public. Undoubtedly that would caste a social stigma upon the child as well as the mother respectively as ‘bastard’ and ‘immoral’."

Read more
Notes

A DNA test can be ordered to confirm the paternity of a child where a prima facie assumption regarding paternity is made out on the basis of the facts and circumstances of the case.

Read more

Priya Varghese v. Joseph Skariah

Autonomy, Dignity || Kerala High Court

1 Judge

Case Details

Decision Date - 22.06.2023
Citation - WA No. 27 of 2023, 2023 SCC OnLine Ker 4390
Case Type - Writ Appeal
Case Status - Writ Allowed.
Legal Provisions - Art.21 of the Constitution of India.
View Case

Important Quote

"On its part, the media cannot be unmindful of the harm that is caused to a litigant’s dignity and reputation through unjustified comments and remarks, often based on the oral remarks made by a judge during the adjudication proceedings, notwithstanding that the litigant ultimately succeeds in those proceedings... While the right to a fair trial has long been recognised as forming part of the fundamental right of a citizen under Article 21 of the Constitution, in recent times, the right to privacy has also been recognised as forming part of the said right through the judgment of the Supreme Court in K.S. Puttaswamy & Anr v. Union of India & Ors. – [(2017) 10 SCC 1]. Even prior to the said judgment, the right to protect one’s reputation was recognised as forming part of the fundamental right under Article 21 of the Constitution in Board of Trustees of the Port of Bombay v. Dilipkumar Raghavendranath Nadkarni – [(1983) 1 SCC 124]."

Read more
Notes

Right to privacy also includes the right to one's reputation, which merits protection from private players such as media.

Read more

X v The Health Secretary and Ors.

Autonomy, Bodily Integrity || Kerala High Court

1 Judge

Case Details

Decision Date - 07.08.2023
Citation - WP(C) NO. 19610 OF 2022
Case Type - Civil Writ Petition
Case Status - Disposed of
Legal Provisions - Transgender Persons (Protection of Rights) Act, 2019, Art. 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India.
View Case

Important Quote

"As observed by the Supreme Court, democracy requires its citizenry to respect and develop the free spirit of human beings, which is responsible for all progress in human history. If democracy is based on recognition of the individuality and dignity of man, the right of a human being to choose his/her sex or gender identity, which is one of the most basic aspects of self determination, dignity and freedom has to be recognised. Conversely, intervention with an individual's right to choose sex or identity will definitely be an intrusion into that person's privacy and an affront to his/her dignity and freedom."

Read more
Notes

The Court refused to grant permission to parents for conducting genital reconstructive surgery since the conduct of the surgery without the child's consent would violate their dignity and privacy. The parents of a child cannot decide their child's gender without their consent.

Read more

XXX v State of Kerala

Autonomy, Bodily Integrity || Kerala High Court

1 Judge

Case Details

Decision Date - 05.06.2023
Citation - CRL.REV.PET NO. 433 OF 2022
Case Type - Criminal Revision Petition
Case Status - Petition Allowed
Legal Provisions - Sections 10 r/w 9(n), 14 r/w 13(b), 15 of the Protection of Children of the Sexual Offences Act, 2012. Section 67B (a),(b),(c) of the Information Technology Act, 2000. Section 75 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015. Article 19(1)(a), 21 of the Constitution of India.
View Case

Important Quote

"The petitioner only allowed her body to be used as a canvas for her children to paint on. The right of a woman to make autonomous decisions about her body is at the very core of her fundamental right to equality and privacy. It also falls within the realm of personal liberty guaranteed by Article 21 of the Constitution... In K.S. Puttaswamy v Union of India, a nine-judge Bench of the Apex Court, while unanimously recognising the right to privacy as a fundamental right under the Constitution, declared that bodily autonomy is an integral part of the right to privacy." "Painting on the upper body of a mother by her own children as an art project cannot be characterised as a real or simulated sexual act, nor can it be said that the same was done for the purpose of sexual gratification or with sexual intent."

Read more
Notes

Painting on the upper body of a mother by her children cannot be characterised as a sexually explicit act. Allowing her children to use her body as a canvas to paint on falls within the mother's right to bodily autonomy, which is an integral part of right to privacy.

Read more

Aneesh v State of Kerala

Autonomy || Kerala High Court

1 Judge

Case Details

Decision Date - 05.09.2023
Citation - CRL.MC NO. 7421 OF 2022
Case Type - Criminal Miscellaneous Case
Case Status - Case Allowed
Legal Provisions - Section 292 of the Indian Penal Code
View Case

Important Quote

"I am of the considered opinion that, watching of an obscene photo by a person in his privacy by itself is not an offence under Section 292 IPC. Similarly, watching of an obscene video by a person from a mobile phone in his privacy is also not an offence under Section 292 IPC. If the accused is trying to circulate or distribute or publicly exhibits any obscene video or photos, then alone the offence under Section 292 IPC is attracted."

Read more
Notes

The Court held that criminalising a person for watching obscene content in private would amount to an intrusion of privacy.

Read more

XXXX v. State of Kerala

Autonomy, Informational Privacy || Kerala High Court

1 Judge

Case Details

Decision Date - 07.12.2023
Citation - WP (Crl.) No. 445 of 2022, 2023:KER:77356
Case Type - Criminal Writ Appeal
Case Status - Appeal disposed.
Legal Provisions - Sections 120A, 120B, 109, 342, 366, 354, 354B, 357, 376D, 506(i), 201, 204, 212 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, Sections 66-E and 67-A of the Information Technology Act, 2000, and Section 119 of the Kerala Police Act, 2011 and Sec. 195(1) r/w Sec.340 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.
View Case

Important Quote

"If any officer of a law enforcement agency happens to seize or recover any electronic record related to a crime and realizes or has reason to believe that it must be taken into custody, he shall seize it with the utmost caution, preventing any chance of destruction to the electronic records and their contents. This process should be conducted maintaining the highest level of secrecy and privacy regarding the contents. The process shall be documented separately in a mahazer."

Read more
Notes

A memory card containing the sexually explicit footage of the survivor of a sexual assault was accessed illegally by the accused and illegally transmitted, while the same was in judicial custody. This led the court to issue guidelines for law enforcement agencies while handling sexually explicit materials for the purposes of evidence.

Read more
×

Methodology

The Privacy High Court Tracker has been developed using judgements pulled from the Manupatra case law database. Through its search function, CCG identified cases that relied upon the Puttaswamy judgment and were pertaining to the right to privacy, and filtered them by each of the 25 High Courts in India. These were then further examined to identify those cases whose decisions concerned a core aspect of privacy. CCG identified the following aspects of privacy (1) autonomy, (2) bodily integrity, (3) data protection, (4) dignity, (5) informational privacy, (6) phone tapping, (7) press freedom, (8) right to know and access information, and (9) surveillance, search and seizure. Cases where only incidental or passing observations or references were made to Puttaswamy and the right to privacy were not included in the tracker. The selected cases were then compiled into the database per High Court, with several details highlighted for ease of reference. These details consist of case name, decision date, case citation and number, case status, legal provisions involved, and bench strength. The tracker also includes select quotes concerning the right to privacy from each case, to assist users to more easily and quickly grasp the crux of the case. 

For ease of access to the text of the judgments, each case on our tracker is linked to the Indian Kanoon version of the judgment (wherever available) or an alternative open-access version of the judgment text.

We welcome your feedback. In addition, you may write to us at - ccg@nludelhi.ac.in with the details of any privacy case we may not have included from any High Court in India.