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 June 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 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 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.
