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, Dignity, Informational Privacy || Punjab and Haryana High Court
1 Judge
Decision Date - 20.07.2018
Citation - (2018) 191 PLR 596, MANU/PH/1052/2018
Case Type - Writ Petition (Civil)
Case Status - Disposed.
Legal Provisions - S. 5 and 6 of the Special Marriage Act, 1954
View Case
"In the considered view of this Court the CMCL, except as indicated below, deserves to be disregarded as its terms and conditions largely violate the rights to privacy of the petitioners which is now declared fundamental right. The provisions appear particularly offensive and excessive executive action beyond the purview of the Act and have, therefore, to be ignored save and except the provision of residence/domicile to confer jurisdiction on the Marriage Officer in the last sentence of condition No. 11. But the word "permanent" in condition 11 will be read down to mean also temporary residence which would suffice if stay is for 30 days prior to the filing of the application under Section 5 of the Act. ... However condition No. 14 is to be obeyed as it has statutory backing and shall be employed in the manner prescribed under Section 14 of the Act. Advance notice to parents of the petitioners shall be dispensed with as are not required to strictly maintain privacy rights, their right to life and liberty"
Read moreAdvance notice to parents under Special Marriage Act, 1954 is violative of right to privacy.
Read moreSurveillance, Search and Seizure || Punjab and Haryana High Court
1 Judge
Decision Date - 29.03.2022
Citation - MANU/PH/0507/2022
Case Type - Criminal Main
Case Status - Disposed
Legal Provisions - Article 20(3) of the Constitution of India, 1950. S. 165, S. 65B of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. S. 5(2) of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885
View Case
"The Supreme Court in Ritesh Sinha (supra) held that the direction to give voice sample does not infringe Article 20(3) of the Constitution of India. It was held that the voice sample is only for purpose of comparison and is not a testimony. Further it was held that Right to Privacy cannot be construed as absolute."
Read moreSurveillance, Search and Seizure || Punjab and Haryana High Court
1 Judge
Decision Date - 30.03.2022
Citation - MANU/PH/0519/2022
Case Type - Criminal Revision
Case Status - Disposed
Legal Provisions - Article 20, 21 of the Constitution of India, 1950. S. 5 of the Prevention Of Corruption Act, 1988
View Case
"The infringement of the Fundamental Right to Privacy cannot be raised to create a bubble to scuttle the investigation nullifying the evidence collected by merely denying that the voice in recording is not of the petitioner and there being no comparison."
Read moreAutonomy, Dignity || Punjab and Haryana High Court
1 Judge
Order Date - 15.09.2022
Citation - Civil Revision No.3880 of 2022
Case Type - Civil Revision
Case Status - Dismissed
View Case
"The law is well settled that recording of the conversation by husband without wife's consent amounts of breach of her privacy. No such conversation, clandestinely recorded, can be brought on record to assert any right or to prove a fact before the Family Court."
Read moreConversations recorded by a husband without his wife's consent would amount to breach of privacy.
Read moreInformational Privacy || Punjab and Haryana High Court
1 Judge
Decision Date - 05.06.2023
Citation - MANU/PH/0882/2023
Case Type - Criminal Misc. Petition
Case Status - Disposed
Legal Provision - S. 154, 161, 162, 164, 170, 173, 238, 239, 240, 241, 242, 243 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Article 21 of the Constitution of India, 1950
View Case
"Since, a part of data includes chats between deceased and his girlfriends apart from objectionable photographs, which could lead embarrassment to those concerned, it will be in the fitness of things that such data be either provided by imposing some strict conditions on accused or only regulated access is provided to the same to the accused. The prosecution may move an application in this regard within one week from today. Such application shall be moved after preparing a complete list of files/folders/directories found stored on storage devices. If, the accused has no objection, only a general description may be recorded as regards contents of folders. However, the description and location, complete with directory/path of data, with respect to which prosecution seeks imposing of some conditions on accused or seeks that only regulated access be provided, should be specifically mentioned."
Read moreThe prosecution is legally required to provide a copy of the evidence relied upon by them to the accused. However, in instances of the electronic evidence containing sensitive personal information, the prosecution shall restrict the access of such information, or undertake any other appropriate measures to protect the right to privacy of the victim.
Read moreSurveillance, Search and Seizure || Punjab and Haryana High Court
1 Judge
Decision Date - 8.06.2023
Citation - 2023 SCC OnLine P&H 593
Case Type - Criminal Appeal
Case Status - Disposed
Legal Provision - S. 15, 42 and 43 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985; Article 21 of the Constitution of India, 1950
View Case
"Adverting to the facts of the present case, it is apparent that the police had received the secret information that the accused were present on the bridge of water reservoir. Even, when the police party raided the place, all the accused were found present with heavy quantity of the poppy husk in pits adjoining the water course and were waiting for the vehicle to transport the contraband. Consequently, the recovery of the contraband had taken place from a "Public Place" as explained under Section 43 of the NDPS Act and the provisions of Section 42 of the NDPS Act would not be applicable to the facts of the instant case."
Read moreThe requirements to protect the right to privacy of the accused will not be applicable to searches and seizures conducted in public places, in accordance with the relevant provisions of the NDPS Act.
Read moreInformational Privacy || Punjab and Haryana High Court
1 Judge
Decision Date - 14.07.2023
Citation - 2023/PHHC/088555, MANU/PH/1580/2023
Case Type - Criminal Petition
Case Status - Petition dismissed.
Legal Provisions - Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code. Section 6, 18, 8, 21 of the Protection of the Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2022
View Case
"The POCSO Act was enacted with the sole object of proper development of the child and to ensure that his or her right to privacy and confidentiality be protected and respected by every person by all means and through all stages of a judicial process involving the child." "The emphasis, therefore, is on the safety and security of the child and maintaining the confidentiality of his/her right to privacy. The obligation on the part of the person, so receiving such information or having knowledge of such information, is not to investigate the matter himself or herself, but the mandate of the POCSO Act, is to report the matter to the Police. Thus, to argue that the endeavour on the part of the petitioner to settle the matter at her level, would obliterate her liability under the POCSO Act, is untenable."
Read moreThe Court reiterated that the POCSO Act is enacted to ensure a child's safety and security as well as their right to privacy and confidentiality through all stages of the judicial process. A person having knowledge of an offence committed against a child cannot take matters into her own hands and is required to report the matter to the police under POCSO Act.
Read morePhone Tapping, Surveillance, Informational Privacy || Punjab and Haryana High Court
1 Judge
Decision Date - 03.10.2023
Citation - CRM-M No. 49513 of 2023
Case Type - Criminal Petition
Case Status - Dismissed
Legal Provisions - Sections 20(C) and 61 of the Narcotics Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (NDPS) and Section 91 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973
View Case
"Perusal of the record shows that the petitioner had tried to get call detail of the police official, who is cited as witness of recovery from the petitioner. The assumption of the petitioner is that the police official might be having his mobile phone with him at the relevant time when the petitioner was arrested. If the call details regarding that mobile phone are brought on record then the fact can be proven in defence that he was not arrested with the co-accused, rather he was arrested from a different place. In the considered view of this court, just to give credence to the assumption of the petitioner this court cannot go into the roving inquiries. Otherwise also, the call detail of the police official is not relevant as such. Even if the assumption of the petitioner is taken to be having some substance, then also it is not necessary that when the police had gone to arrest the petitioner at some alleged other place, then they would necessarily be having their own mobile phones with them. Therefore, just for the possibility of creating any evidence in favour of the petitioner, court cannot go to the extent of breaching the privacy of the police official qua use of their mobile phones."
Read moreCall records of a police officer cannot be ordered to be preserved on the pretext of gaining evidence in favour of the accused as it would be a violation of privacy.
Read morePhone Tapping, Surveillance, Informational Privacy || Punjab and Haryana High Court
1 Judge
Decision Date - 03.10.2023
Citation - CRM-M No. 49513 of 2023
Case Type - Criminal Petition
Case Status - Dismissed
Legal Provisions - Sections 20(C) and 61 of the Narcotics Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (NDPS) and Section 91 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973
View Case
"Perusal of the record shows that the petitioner had tried to get call detail of the police official, who is cited as witness of recovery from the petitioner. The assumption of the petitioner is that the police official might be having his mobile phone with him at the relevant time when the petitioner was arrested. If the call details regarding that mobile phone are brought on record then the fact can be proven in defence that he was not arrested with the co-accused, rather he was arrested from a different place. In the considered view of this court, just to give credence to the assumption of the petitioner this court cannot go into the roving inquiries. Otherwise also, the call detail of the police official is not relevant as such. Even if the assumption of the petitioner is taken to be having some substance, then also it is not necessary that when the police had gone to arrest the petitioner at some alleged other place, then they would necessarily be having their own mobile phones with them. Therefore, just for the possibility of creating any evidence in favour of the petitioner, court cannot go to the extent of breaching the privacy of the police official qua use of their mobile phones."
Read moreCall records of a police officer cannot be ordered to be preserved on the pretext of gaining evidence in favour of the accused as it would be a violation of privacy.
Read moreDignity and Autonomy || Punjab and Haryana High Court
2 Judge
Decision Date - 17.11.2023
Citation - CWP Nos. 26573, 24967, 25037, 25539, 25988 of 2021, CWP Nos. 584, 1404, 3860 and 1698 of 2022 (O&M)
Case Type - Civil Writ Petition
Case Status - Petition Allowed
Legal Provisions - Art.14, 15, 19(1)(g),19(6) and 21 of the Indian Constitution, 1950 and The Haryana State Employment of Local Candidates Act, 2020
View Case
"The observations made by the Constitution Bench in Navtej Singh Johar and others vs. Union of India, (2018) 10 SCC 1 can be referred to, wherein it dealt with the provisions of Section 377 IPC and the identity given to each and every citizen to live with dignity and right of privacy as long as they were consenting adults of the same sex. It is in such circumstances the right of LGBT individuals was upheld. It is in such circumstances, the Apex Court had opined that the miniscule minority having equal rights were being brushed under the carpet and have a right to participate as a citizen and an equal right of enjoyment of living regardless of what majority may believe and then only foundational promises of the Constitution could be fulfilled. The said principles are apparently not being kept in mind by the State while framing the current legislation which is under attack while terming the rest of the citizens of India as migrants. Reliance can thus be again placed upon the observations of then Chief Justice of India, Justice Dipak Misra that it was the responsibility of the State to curb any propensity or proclivity of popular sentiment or majoritarianism to contend that popular sentiment could not override the rights of the citizens of the country nor promote the local provincial interest which is clear from the objects and reasons of the Act. Thus, freedom given under Article 19 of the Constitution of India could not be taken away and the impugned provisions are falling foul and are liable to be declared unconstitutional as a wall could not be built around by the State and the spirit and sole of the oneness of the Constitution of India could not be curtailed by the parochial limited vision of the State. The fact that the nation would crack down under rigour if the text and spirit of the Constitution of India is not imbibed by the citizens and it has to be cultivated by the people so that they are able to protect the same and the attitude of respect and reverence has to be maintained towards their fellowmen."
Read moreThe Haryana State Employment of Local Candidates Act, 2020 was declared unconstitutional and violative of Part III of the Constitution.
Read morePhone Tapping, Surveillance, Informational Privacy || Punjab and Haryana High Court
1 Judge
Decision Date - 04.12.2023
Citation - CRR No.2605 of 2023 (O&M)
Case Type - Criminal Revision Petition
Case Status - Petition Disposed.
Legal Provisions - Sec.21 of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, Sec.65-A and 65-B of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, Sec.91 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.
View Case
"Preserving and requisitioning of the call details and tower location details would be necessary, otherwise the same would be lost forever. The right of accused to invoke the provisions of Section 91 Cr. P.C. for obtaining documents in support of his defence has been recognized by the Constitutional Courts. The legislative intent behind enactment of Section 91 Cr. P.C. is to ensure that no cogent material or evidence involved in the issue remains undiscovered in unearthing the true facts during investigation, enquiry, trial or other proceedings. No doubt while passing the appropriate direction for preserving and production of call details/tower location details under Section 91 Cr. P.C. would violate the right to privacy of the police officials but the right of the accused under Article 21 of the Constitution of India in ensuring free and fair investigation/trial would prevail over the right to privacy of the police officials. Some extent of privacy can be breached in production of the said call details, as this would facilitate the learned trial Court in discovering the truth and rendering justice, which is fair to all stake holders."
Read moreRight of the accused under Art.21 in ensuring a free and fair investigation/trial would prevail over the right to privacy of the police officials. Hence, the court allowed the accessing of such records for the purposes of defence.
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.
