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 methodologyInformational Privacy, Press Freedom || Telangana High Court
2 Judge
Decision Date - 06.11.2020
Citation - MANU/TL/0352/2020
Case Type - Civil Misc. Appeal
Case Status - Disposed.
Legal Provisions - S. 3(ii)(v) of The Scheduled Castes and Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989
View Case
"No doubt a person undoubtedly has a right to privacy in relation to her family, marriage, procreation, motherhood and child-bearing and none can publish anything concerned with these matters without his/her consent. Yet, there is an exception to the said rule i.e., that any publication concerning these aspects would become unobjectionable if such publication is based upon public records including court records. In other words, 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. There are of course some exceptions to this exception, with which we are not concerned."
Read moreOnce the matter becomes a matter of public record, the right to privacy is no longer subsisting and it becomes a legitimate subject for comment by the press and media.
Read moreBodily Integrity, Dignity || Telangana High Court
1 Judge
Decision Date - 05.10.2021
Citation - MANU/TL/0747/2021
Case Type - Writ Petition
Case Status - Disposed
Legal Provisions - S. 3(2) of the Medical Termination of Pregnancy (Amendment) Act, 2021
View Case
"This Court is of the opinion that the life of the foetus or to be born child cannot be placed at higher pedestal than that of the life of the petitioner. The dignity, self-respect, healthy living (mental or physical) etc. are facets of right to life and personal liberty enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution of India, which also include right of a woman to make a choice of pregnancy and terminate pregnancy, in case, where pregnancy is caused by rape or sexual abuse or for that matter unplanned pregnancy, subject to reasonable restrictions under law."
Read moreThe right to life and personal liberty under Article 21 of the Indian Constitution encompasses reproductive rights, subject to reasonable restrictions under law.
Read moreAutonomy, Bodily Integrity || Telangana High Court
2 Judge
Decision Date - 17.02.2022
Citation - MANU/TL/0238/2022
Case Type - Writ Petition
Case Status - Petition Allowed
Legal Provisions - S. 3 of the Telangana Prevention Of Dangerous Activities Of Boot-leggers, Dacoits, Drug-offenders, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders Land-grabbers, Spurious Seed Offenders, Insecticide Offenders, Fertiliser Offenders, Food Adulteration Offenders, Fake Document Offenders, Scheduled Commodities Offenders, Forest Offenders, Gaming Offenders, Sexual Offenders, Explosive Substances Offenders, Arms Offenders, Cyber Crime Offenders And White Collar Or Financial Offenders Act, 1986.
Article 20, 21, 22, 31-B, 31-C, 32 of the Constitution of India, 1950
View Case
"Ordinarily, no person can be arrested/detained unless crime is reported. Act 1 of 1986 makes an exception to this salutary principle. It vests extraordinary power in the Government or in its delegatee to detain a person even before a crime is committed by him. Perforce, this power of detention is not to be exercised as a matter of course. As it seeks to offend the most sacred of the rights, right to life, liberty and privacy, there are three primary requirements need to be answered by the law enforcing agency before invoking the provisions of Section 3 of the Act, 1986."
Read moreThe power of preventive detention cannot be excercised as a matter of course since it violates the right to life, liberty and privacy.
Read moreBodily Integrity || Telangana High Court
1 Judge
Order Date - 04.01.2023
Citation - MANU/TL/0003/2023
Case Type - Criminal Petition
Case Status - Disposed
Legal Provision - S. 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; S. 323, 354, 498-A, 506, 509 of the Indian Penal Code 1860
View Case
"Though the Courts shall not as a matter of course direct paternity test, in the present facts, the 'wife' has filed documents to substantiate that there was a marriage and thereafter 'Son' was born. The ground raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that there are no reasons given in the order that there is a necessity to conduct DNA testing is not correct. Learned Family Court Judge has given adequate reasons and also after discussing the back ground of the cases, has ordered the petitioner herein to undergo DNA testing. Courts should be cautions that a child could be bastardized on the basis of result of DNA testing and any refusal by the husband to submit himself to medical examination, the Court will be entitled to draw an adverse inference against husband and proceed with the case on the presumption that the husband is the biological father of the child. However in the present facts of the case, I do not find any illegality in the impugned order."
Read moreAlthough courts cannot direct DNA tests to be conducted in most cases as this could infringe upon the right to privacy, such tests may be directed by courts in the absence of any other material evidence. This could include cases where DNA tests are necessary, such as establishing paternity.
Read moreSurveillance, Search and Seizure, Right to be Forgotten || Telangana High Court
1 Judge
Decision Date - 18.01.2023
Citation - 2023 SCC OnLine TS 150
Case Type - Writ Petition
Case Status - Allowed
Legal Provision - Article 21 and 226 of the Constitution
View Case
"The said grounds [for the maintenance of history sheets/rowdy sheets] are lacking in the present case. Though in all the aforesaid cases, allegations are serious in nature, the petitioner was acquitted. Therefore, continuation of the said 'rowdy sheet' by the police authorities against the petitioners ignoring the law laid down by this Court as well as the Apex Court in the judgments cited supra cannot be sustained."
Read moreThe maintenance of suspect sheets/history sheets/rowdy sheets by the police in the absence of continuance of crime from an individual is violative of that individual's right to privacy.
Read moreBodily Integrity || Telangana High Court
1 Judge
Decision Date - 28.04.2023
Citation - MANU/TL/0703/2023
Case Type - Civil Revision Petition
Case Status - Disposed
Legal Provision - S. 13(1), 65(B), 153, 153(3) of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872; Article 20(3), 21 of the Constitution of India
View Case
"In the instant case, child is not a party to the Election O.P. Therefore, the child can not be compelled to undergo DNA profile to ascertain her parents to decide the Election O.P. The child has a right to be silent. No one can be compelled to give up the right to privacy against the will of the child. The case on hand does not fall into the exceptions carved out from the normal principle on right to privacy, more particularly, when the child is not the person elected and is a stranger to the issue of earning disqualification by an elected candidate. A wrong declaration and a resultant disqualification relates to the 4th respondent. The child is no way concerned. She is a stranger to the election dispute. Thus, she cannot be compelled to undergo medical examination against her will. Certainly subjecting the child to medical examination would offend her personal liberty, privacy and dignity of person that is bestowed on a girl child. There can be myriad reasons where the girl child would genuinely wish to keep the issue of her parenthood a secret. Moreover, she being a child, she can not give her consent for such tests and affecting her privacy, her parents can not subject her to DNA test."
Read moreDNA tests are an invasion of privacy. Hence, they must be conducted only when required, especially if they are to be conducted on children. A child cannot be compelled to undergo a DNA test, when such test is not in the interest of protecting the child's 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.
