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 March 2024 (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 methodologyAutonomy, Bodily Integrity || Madras High Court (Madurai Bench)
1 Judge
Decision Date - 02.01.2019
Citation - (2019) 2 MLJ 498, MANU/TN/1008/2019
Case Type - Criminal Revision Petition (PD) (Madurai Bench)
Case Status - Disposed.
Legal Provisions - S. 112 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872
View Case
"The contention with regard to violation of fundamental right cannot hold good in view of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sharda vs. Dharmpal. The Hon'ble Supreme Court observed that where divorce is sought on grounds such as impotency, schizophrenia etc., normally without there being medical examination, it would be difficult to arrive at a conclusion as to whether the allegation made by one spouse against the other spouse seeking divorce on such a ground is correct or not. In order to substantiate such allegation, the petitioner would always insist on medical examination. If the respondent avoids such medical examination on the ground that it violates his/her right to privacy or for that matter to personal liberty as enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution of India, then it may, in most of such cases become impossible to arrive at a conclusion. If the Court passes an appropriate order for medical examination, the question of such action being violative of Article 21 of the Constitution of India would not arise. ... The nine Judges Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in K.S. Puttaswamy vs. Union of India, unanimously held that right to privacy is a fundamental right, but left the conclusions set out in para 81 in Sharda vs. Dharmpal (supra), untouched."
Read moreA court's order for medical examination is not violative of the right to privacy under Article 21 of the Constitution of India, 1950.
Read moreAutonomy, Bodily Integrity || Madras High Court (Madurai Bench)
1 Judge
Decision Date - 22.04.2019
Citation - AIR 2019 Mad 265, MANU/TN/1403/2019
Case Type - Writ Petition (Madurai Bench)
Case Status - Disposed.
Legal Provisions - S. 5 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955
View Case
"In the case on hand, the second petitioner herein has chosen to express her gender identity as that of a woman. As held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court this falls within the domain of her personal autonomy and involves her right to privacy and dignity. It is not for the State authorities to question this self determination."
Read moreRight to express gender identity is a part of right to privacy under Article 21 of the Constitution of India, 1950.
Read moreDignity || Madras High Court (Madurai Bench)
1 Judge
Decision Date - 28.05.2019
Citation - 2019 CriLJ 4041, MANU/TN/3075/2019
Case Type - Writ Petition (Madurai Bench)
Case Status - Disposed.
Legal Provisions - S. 122 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872.
Rule 529 and 531 of Tamil Nadu Prison Rules, 1983
View Case
"Rule 531 (2)... which was introduced in the year 2000 will have to be read down in view of the recent rulings of the Hon'ble Supreme Court as set out earlier. Unless it is so read down, the right to dignity inhering in the prisoner and his spouse would certainly be infringed. ... While private prison cottages may be a distant prospect, the privacy and dignity of the prisoners should be scrupulously protected. Conversations between prisoner and his spouse should be unmonitored."
Read moreRight to life, personal liberty includes right of convicts or jail inmates to have conjugal visits with privacy.
Read moreSurveillance, Search and Seizure || Madras High Court (Madurai Bench)
1 Judge
Decision Date - 03.07.2020
Citation - 2020 (4) MLJ (Crl) 133, MANU/TN/3574/2020
Case Type - Writ Petition (Madurai Bench)
Case Status - Disposed.
Legal Provisions - Tamil Nadu Restriction of Habitual Offenders Act, 1948.
Chapter XLII of the Police Standing Orders
View Case
"The need for effective policing (through history-sheeting), and, the arbitrary and malafide exercise of police power in history-sheeting (an individual), are conceptually different. Having stated that history sheeting has the potential to imperil the fundamental right of the person history-sheeted under Article 21, then in terms of Article 21, any limitation on the right to life could be attempted only as per the 'procedure established by law'. ... If prevention of crime is the central theme that provides a justification for history-sheeting, and if the decision to history sheet is only an administrative action, it then follows that whenever an administrative action forsakes fairness and ignores objectivity, arbitrariness invites itself to hold the action in contempt of the Constitutional doctrine of equality. Conversely, every action that violates the fundamental rights cherished under Part III of the Constitution, proprio vigore will be arbitrary."
Read moreJudgment provides for guidelines to the police history-sheeting without violating the right to privacy.
Read moreRight to be Forgotten || Madras High Court (Madurai Bench)
1 Judge
Decision date - 03.08.2021
Case citation - MANU/TN/5222/2021
Case type - Civil Misc. Writ Petition
Case status - Dismissed
Legal provisions - Article 21 of the Constitution of India, 1950.
View Case
"This Court can act upon the request made by the petitioner only by placing reliance upon Article 21 of the Constitution of India. After the historic Judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Puttaswamy Vs. Union of India, the Right of Privacy has now been held to be a fundamental right, which is traceable to Article 21 of the Constitution of India. If the essence of this Judgment is applied to the case on hand, obviously even a person, who was accused of committing an offence and who has been subsequently acquitted from all charges will be entitled for redacting his name from the order passed by the Court in order to protect his Right of Privacy. This Court finds that there is a prima facie case made out by the petitioner and he is entitled for redacting his name from the Judgment passed by this Court in Crl.A. (MD). No. 321 of 2011." "It will be more appropriate to await the enactment of the Data Protection Act and Rules thereunder, which may provide an objective criterion while dealing with the plea of redaction of names of accused persons who are acquitted from criminal proceedings. If such uniform standards are not followed across the country, the constitutional courts will be riding an unruly horse which will prove to be counterproductive to the existing system."
Read morePublication of matters concerning an individual without their consent would violate their privacy.
Read moreDignity || Madras High Court (Madurai Bench)
1 Judge
Decision Date - 28.10.2021
Citation - MANU/TN/8150/2021
Case Type - Criminal Original Petition (Madurai Bench)
Case Status - Dismissed
Legal Provisions - S. 8, 11(1), 12, 17 and 21(2) of the Protection of Child from Sexual Offences Act,
2012. S. 164 of CrPC, 1973
"However, I am unable to agree with this line of arguments. No doubt that the petitioner's future will be in trouble, if she is directed to participate in the investigation process or trial. Even though safety and protection of identity are mandate under the Law, the trauma that the victim of crime undergo in everyday life is well known and that cannot be brushed aside as meaningless or baseless. But, at the same time when it is a conflict between the protection of welfare of the child under the guise of protecting identity, privacy and interest of the Society and the State in protecting the children from the sexual abuses that cannot and should not overweigh."
Read moreIn the course of investigation of a case of child sexual abuse, the right to privacy of the witness does not outweigh the interest of the society and the state in protecting children against such abuse.
Read moreBodily Integrity, Dignity || Madras High Court (Madurai Bench)
2 Judge
Decision Date - 21.04.2022
Citation - 2022 (2) MWN (C R.) 124
MANU/TN/2902/2022
Case Type - Criminal Appeal (Madurai Bench)
Case Status - Disposed
Legal Provisions - S. 363 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. S. 29, 30 of the Protection Of Children From Sexual Offences Act, 2012
View Case
"Before parting with this case, we feel that it is necessary for us to put an end to the practice of the two finger test. We find that the two finger test is being used in cases involving sexual offences, particularly, on minor victims. As early as in 2013, the Hon'ble Supreme Court had held that the two finger test and its interpretation violates the right of rape survivors to privacy, physical and mental integrity and dignity."
Read moreThe two finger test violates the right to privacy of the rape survivors and should be discontinued.
Read morePhone Tapping, Informational Privacy || Madras High Court (Madurai Bench)
1 Judge
Decision Date - 09.03.2023
Citation - MANU/TN/1567/2023
Case Type - Civil Miscellaneous Second Appeal
Case Status - Dismissed
Legal Provisions - O. XLI R. 27 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908; S. 13(1), 65(B), 153, 153(3) of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872; S. 14, 22 of the Family Courts Act, 1984; Article 20, 21 of the Constitution of India
View Case
"In the present case, as already pointed out, the conversation allegedly recorded was after the filing of the present divorce petition. According to the petitioner, the same was recorded in the petitioner's mobile phone. [...] Even assuming that the petitioner has complied with the statutory requirements in exhibiting Ex.P8, applying the legal position above referred, this Court has no hesitation to hold that Ex.P8 and its contents cannot be looked into, as it infringes the right of privacy of the respondent."
Read moreRecording of private conversations between a husband and a wife to use it as evidence before a court is a violation of the right to privacy. Hence, such recordings are to be considered as inadmissible by the court.
Read moreSurveillance, Search and Seizure || Madras High Court (Madurai Bench)
1 Judge
Decision Date - 29.03.2023
Citation - 2023 SCC OnLine Mad 2061
Case Type - Writ Petition
Case Status - Allowed
Legal Provision - Article 226 of the Constitution of India
View Case
"In view of the above said undisputed facts, it is clear that the right of privacy and reputation of the writ petitioner have been sullied by the act of the police officials for which the State is certainly responsible. The State cannot escape from contending that the officials at the station level have unauthorisedly done the said act and hence, the State is not liable for the same."
Read moreThe State is liable to compensate the aggrieved persons when they are wrongfully arrested by police officials, acting in their official capacity, and their details are subsequently published, when such arrest was based on false evidence. The wrongful arrest and subsequent humiliation are violative of the fundamental right to privacy.
Read moreMethodology
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.
