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 methodologyAutonomy, Dignity || Rajasthan High Court (Jaipur Bench)
1 Judge
Decision Date - 07.03.2019
Citation - 2021 (1) RLW 262 (Raj.), MANU/RH/0098/2019
Case Type - Civil Writ Petition (SB)
Case Status - Disposed.
Legal Provisions - S. 4 of the Rajasthan Conduct Rules,1971
View Case
"In ABC Vs. State (NCT of Delhi) the Supreme Court recognized the right of an unmarried mother not to disclose the paternity of the child and it would amount to violate her fundamental right to privacy, if she is compelled to disclose name and particulars of father of her child. ... The norms of moralities of the society cannot supersede the right of privacy and right of choice of relationship of an individual and no person can be punished by his employer for such behaviour or relationship."
Read moreRight to privacy includes the right of an unmarried mother not to disclose the paternity of the child.
Read moreAutonomy || Rajasthan High Court (Jaipur Bench)
1 Judge
Decision Date - 30.08.2022
Citation - 2022 SCC OnLine Raj 1420
Case Type - Criminal Misc. Petition
Case Status - Disposed
Legal provision - S. 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1908
View Case
"The law is well settled that privacy and liberty of individuals cannot be infringed by taking the law in one's hands. If there is allegation of violation of law, the aggrieved person may take legal recourse and no other step can be at the whim of anyone."
Read moreThe Court can direct the State to ensure the protection of privacy and liberty of married couples whose marriage hasn't been approved and recognised by their family members.
Read moreAutonomy || Rajasthan High Court (Jaipur Bench)
1 Judge
Decision Date - 14.10.2022
Citation - S.B. Criminal Writ Petition No. 678/2022
Case Type - Crim. Writ Petition
Case Status - Disposed
Legal provisions - Article 226 of the Constitution of India, 1950
View Case
"The law is well settled that privacy and liberty of individuals cannot be infringed by taking the law in one's hands. In Navtej Singh Johar Vs. Union of India (2018) 10 SCC 1, The Supreme Court said as follows:- "The right to privacy enables an individual to exercise his or her autonomy, away from the glare of societal expectations. The realisation of the human personality is dependent on the autonomy of an individual. In a liberal democracy, recognition of the individual as an autonomous person is an acknowledgment of the State's respect for the capacity of the individual to make independent choices. The right to privacy may be construed to signify that not only are certain acts no longer immoral, but that there also exists an affirmative moral right to do them.""
Read moreThe court relied on the Navtej Johar judgment and held that the petitioners had the autonomy to make independent choices (like marriage in this case) and that the right to privacy granted individuals the right to exercise their autonomy away from the glare of societal expectations.
Read moreAutonomy || Rajasthan High Court (Jaipur Bench)
1 Judge
Order Date - 03.02.2023
Citation - S.B. Criminal Writ Petition No. 206/2023
Case Type - Crim. Writ Petition
Case Status - Disposed
Legal provisions - Article 226 of the Constitution of India, 1950
View Case
"The law is well settled that privacy and liberty of individuals cannot be infringed by taking the law in one's hands. In Navtej Singh Johar Vs. Union of India (2018) 10 SCC 1, The Supreme Court said as follows:- ""The right to privacy enables an individual to exercise his or her autonomy, away from the glare of societal expectations. The realisation of the human personality is dependent on the autonomy of an individual. In a liberal democracy, recognition of the individual as an autonomous person is an acknowledgment of the State's respect for the capacity of the individual to make independent choices. The right to privacy may be construed to signify that not only are certain acts no longer immoral, but that there also exists an affirmative moral right to do them.""
Read moreThe court relied on the Navtej Johar judgement and held that the petitioners had the autonomy to make independent choices (like marriage in this case) and that the right to privacy granted individuals the right to exercise their autonomy away from the glare of societal expectations.
Read moreAutonomy || Rajasthan High Court (Jaipur Bench)
1 Judge
Order Date - 04.02.2023
Citation - S.B. Criminal Writ Petition No. 227/2023
Case Type - Crim. Writ Petition
Case Status - Disposed
Legal provisions - Article 226 of the Constitution of India, 1950
View Case
"The law is well settled that privacy and liberty of individuals cannot be infringed by taking the law in one's hands. In Navtej Singh Johar Vs. Union of India (2018) 10 SCC 1, The Supreme Court said as follows:- ""The right to privacy enables an individual to exercise his or her autonomy, away from the glare of societal expectations. The realisation of the human personality is dependent on the autonomy of an individual. In a liberal democracy, recognition of the individual as an autonomous person is an acknowledgment of the State's respect for the capacity of the individual to make independent choices. The right to privacy may be construed to signify that not only are certain acts no longer immoral, but that there also exists an affirmative moral right to do them.""
Read moreThe court relied on the Navtej Johar judgement and held that the petitioners had the autonomy to make independent choices (like marriage in this case) and that the right to privacy granted individuals the right to exercise their autonomy away from the glare of societal expectations.
Read moreDignity, Autonomy || Rajasthan High Court (Jaipur Bench)
1 Judge
Decision Date - 25.05.2023
Citation - 2023 SCC OnLine Raj 907
Case Type - Writ Petition
Case Status - Disposed
Legal Provision - Article 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India 1950
View Case
"The Apex Court in the case of National Legal Services Authority v. Union of India, (2014) 5 SCC 438, has considered the issue of recognition of self-perceived gender identity and had specifically held that the transgender persons are also entitled to basic human rights including right to life with human dignity and right to privacy and freedom of expression. It has been held that right of a person to self-perceived gender identity is a part of his/her fundamental rights guaranteed under Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India and a person cannot be discriminated on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity different from that assigned at the time of birth."
Read moreA person has a right to recognition of their self-perceived gender under Article 21.
Read morePhone tapping || Rajasthan High Court (Jaipur Bench)
1 Judge
Decision Date - 04.07.2023
Citation - S.B. Criminal Writ Petition No. 565/2022, 2023 SCC OnLine Raj 1108
Case Type - Criminal Writ Petition
Case Status - Cases disposed.
Legal Provisions - Section 5(2) of the Indian Telegraph Act 1885. Section 7, 8 of the Prevention of Corruption Act. Section 201 and 120B of the IPC. Article 19, 21 of the Constitution of India
View Case
"When the statute provides procedural safeguards to prevent arbitrary infringement of the rights to privacy, it must be strictly followed. In other words, required mandates could not have been ignored or superceded by the State or its machinery leading to offend the right under Article 19 and 21 of the Constitution of India. If the directions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in PUCL’ case (supra) which has been reinforced and approved by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Puttaswamy’s case (supra) as well as mandates of Acts and Rules are allowed to be flouted to affect illegal interception of messages it would lead to breeding contempt and arbitrariness."
Read moreAn order for interception of call details should be compliant with the requirements of the law and follow procedural safeguards. An interception order made under Section 5(2) of the Indian Telegraph Act should be in the interest of public emergency or public safety and record reasons in writing. Any arbitrary order of interception violates the right to privacy of the individual whose conversations are intercepted.
Read moreAutonomy || Rajasthan High Court (Jaipur Bench)
1 Judge
Decision Date - 16.06.2023
Citation - S.B. Criminal Writ Petition No. 1334/2023, 2023 SCC OnLine Raj 1056
Case Type - Criminal Writ Petition
Case Status - Petition disposed.
Legal Provisions - Article 21, 226 of the Constitution of India
View Case
"The petitioners are major and are in live-in relationship. The petitioners have approached this court for protection of their life and liberty as private respondents are not approving and recognizing their relationship... Considering the constitutional right of the petitioners, let the State respondents ensure protection of the personal life and liberty of the petitioners.”
Read moreIn view of the Constitutional right to privacy, life and liberty, the Court directed the State to protect the life and liberty of the petitioners in a live-in relationship, against private respondents who did not recoginse and approve of the relationship.
Read moreAutonomy || Rajasthan High Court (Jaipur Bench)
1 Judge
Decision Date - 10.08.2023
Citation - S.B. Criminal Writ Petition No. 1548/2023, MANU/RH/1109/2023
Case Type - Criminal Writ Petition
Case Status - Petition disposed.
Legal Provisions - Article 21, 226 of the Constitution of India
View Case
"The law is well settled that privacy and liberty of individuals cannot be infringed by taking the law in one’s hands. If there is allegation of violation of law by the aggrieved person then legal recourse should be adopted and recourse can never be at the whim of anyone."
Read moreIn view of the Constitutional right to privacy, life and liberty, the Court directed the State to protect the life and liberty of the petitioners married to each other, against the family members who did not recoginse and approve of the marriage.
Read moreAutonomy || Rajasthan High Court (Jaipur Bench)
1 Judge
Decision Date - 01.08.2023
Citation - S.B. Criminal Writ Petition No. 1553/2023
Case Type - Criminal Writ Petition
Case Status - Petition disposed of
Legal Provisions - Article 21, 226 of the Constitution of India
View Case
"The petitioners are major and have entered into marriage with each other. Supporting documents of their marriage is on the record. The petitioners have approached this court for protection of their life and liberty as private respondents are not accepting and recognizing their marriage."
Read moreIn view of the Constitutional right to privacy, life and liberty, the Court directed the State to protect the life and liberty of the petitioners married to each other, against the family members who did not recoginse and approve of the marriage.
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.
