Author: Priyanshi Soni, United World School of Law, Karnavati University
To the Point
The Indian Constitution does not explicitly state that the right to privacy is a stand-alone right. Instead, it has been defined by judicial interpretation, particularly in light of Article 21, which protects the rights to personal liberty and life. After decades of judicial battle and contradictory rulings, it was finally recognized as a fundamental right.
Nowadays, privacy encompasses more than just physical isolation; it also involves the right to manage one’s digital imprint, personal connections, body decisions, and personal information. The Puttaswamy ruling from the Supreme Court in 2017 was a landmark decision that established privacy as a right guaranteed by the constitution. Since then, it has been the cornerstone for defending rights related to freedom of expression, data protection, reproductive choice, surveillance legislation, and sexual autonomy.
Nonetheless, privacy is not absolute just because it is acknowledged. Only when such intrusions pass the legality, necessity, and proportionality tests may the State impose acceptable restrictions in areas such as public health, public morals, crime prevention, or national security.
Abstract
In the current digital age, the right to privacy has become one of the most important fundamental rights. Under Article 21 of the Indian Constitution, privacy is acknowledged as being fundamental to the right to life and personal liberty. Today, privacy includes informational privacy, bodily autonomy, dignity, and the protection of personal data. It was confirmed as a basic constitutional right in the historic case of Justice K.S. Puttaswamy (Retd.) v. Union of India (2017). The right must be weighed against justifiable governmental objectives, such as public order and national security, though, as it is not unqualified. The growth of the right to privacy in Indian jurisprudence is examined in this article, along with important case laws, legislative developments, and essential legal ideas.
The Proof
Privacy is Being alone or keeping one’s private affairs and sensitive information hidden from the public. “Right to be left alone; right of a person to be free from unwarranted publicity; and right to live without unwarranted interference by the public in matters with which the public is not necessarily concerned” is how Black’s Law Dictionary defines privacy.
One fundamental human right is the right to privacy. Article 17 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, 1966, and Article 12 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights both state that “no one shall be subjected to arbitrary interference with his privacy, family, home, or correspondence, nor to attacks upon his honor and reputation.” Everyone is entitled to legal protection from these kinds of intrusions or assaults.
India’s right to privacy is based on a complex constitutional interpretation, court rulings, and the evolving socio-legal landscape rather than a single statute. The strongest evidence that privacy is a basic right, as established by Articles 14, 19, and 21 of the Constitution, is the seminal Puttaswamy ruling from 2017. The Court ruled that maintaining one’s dignity and personal freedom requires privacy.
The following examples demonstrate how privacy rights have evolved:
Constitutional bench rulings and scholarly works that support privacy as a fundamental component of democracy and personal freedom.
legal protections such as the Information Technology Act of 2000 and its clauses (such as Sections 43A and 72) pertaining to illegal access to data.
Real threats to people’ data are demonstrated by empirical issues like spyware incidents like Pegasus and mass surveillance programs like CCTNS and NATGRID.
The Digital Personal Data Protection Act of 2023 was passed, but its implementation and any government exceptions are still being examined.
The urgent need to shield people from undue state or corporate interference is supported by the growing significance of information privacy, particularly given the exponential rise in internet data sharing.
Use of Legal Jargon
Understanding the legal jargon employed in privacy discourse is essential to comprehending the conception, limitations, and enforcement of rights. Among the often used legal lingo are:
Intrinsic Right: One’s right to privacy is inherent to their character and dignity and is not bestowed by the government.
Autonomy: People’s right to make choices about their own bodies, identities, and lives, which privacy directly promotes.
Legitimate State Interest: The explanation that the government must give for limiting privacy, such as law enforcement, public safety, or national security.
Legal requirements that the State must meet before violating basic rights are known as procedural safeguards. This covers proportionality and judicial scrutiny in terms of privacy.
Pronouncements:
– Privacy is a basic right, under the 2017 Puttaswamy judgment.
– Its essential significance has previously been disputed by contradictory rulings (such as those rendered by MP Sharma and Kharak Singh).
Case Law
The Hon’ble Supreme Court first examined whether the “Right to Privacy” is a basic right in the case of M. P. Sharma and Ors. v. Satish Chandra, the Supreme Court ruled that no constitutional provisions were being violated by the authority to search and seize. Additionally, the Supreme Court declined to acknowledge the right to privacy as a basic freedom protected by the Indian Constitution.
In Kharak Singh v State of Uttar Pradesh, the Supreme Court ruled that such surveillance does violate Article 21 and declared nighttime home visits to be unlawful. The majority ruled that the right to privacy cannot be regarded as a basic right since it is not expressly included in Article 21.
One of the earliest cases to delve into great detail about the evolution and scope of the right to privacy was R. Rajagopal and Anr. v. State of Tamil Nadu. In this case, the Court determined that the right to privacy was implicitly a part of the Article 21 right to life and liberty.
In the case of People’s Union for Civil Liberties (PUCL) v. Union of India, which was case related to phone tapping and extended right to privacy to communications. The discussion in this case was whether phone tapping was an infringement under Article 21 or not. The court held that telephone tapping violated the right to privacy unless done under legal sanction.
In the case of Justice K.S. Puttaswamy (Retd.) & Anr. v. Union of India & Ors. the verdict was the outcome of a petition challenging the constitutional validity of the Indian biometric identity scheme Aadhar. This was a case relating to the Unique Identity Scheme that was discussed along with the right to 13 Selvi v State of Karnataka AIR 2010 SC 1974 14 Justice K.S. Puttaswamy (Retd.) & Anr. v. Union of India & Ors. [2015] 8 SCC 735 privacy. The question that was placed before the court was whether a right like right to privacy was guaranteed under the Constitution or not. In its 547-page ruling, the Supreme Court overturned two rulings that had held that the right to privacy was not a component of fundamental rights. All nine of the judges in this case agreed with the final decision, which established that the right to privacy is a component of the Fundamental Rights and that it need not be interpreted independently but rather in the context of Articles 14, 19, and 21 of the Indian Constitution.
Along with the right to life and personal liberty, Part III of the Constitution guarantees freedom, and one essential element of that freedom is the right to privacy, which is protected by Article 21. The decision has set a solid precedent for defending India’s right to privacy and freedom of speech.
After a lengthy legal interpretation by the Supreme Court over the years, we may declare that the right to privacy in India has finally been included into Part III of the Indian Constitution.
Conclusion
In India, the right to privacy is no longer an implicit but rather a clearly stated constitutional promise. But acknowledgment is only the first step. In a time of swift technical advancement, digital fingerprints, and invasive surveillance, protecting it is nevertheless a constant legal problem.
Important findings:
The judiciary has been actively involved in defining standards for protecting privacy and broadening its definition.
In order to guarantee that any invasion of privacy is legal, required, and appropriate, the state must serve as both a defender and a regulator.
An independent data protection authority is urgently needed to guarantee adherence to the 2023 Digital Personal Data Protection Act.
Digital literacy and public awareness are essential for enabling people to exercise their right to privacy.
AI monitoring, facial recognition, and algorithmic decision-making present hitherto unheard-of privacy risks that require consideration in future law.
The right to privacy reflects democratic ideals and is not merely a legal concept. In the twenty-first century, maintaining human dignity, liberty, and autonomy requires its enforcement.
FAQS
Does everyone have the right to privacy?
No. It is subject to reasonable limitations, much as other fundamental rights. For example, the following situations may allow for the lawful restriction of privacy:
– Security of the nation
– Crime investigation
– Order and public health
Is right to privacy comes under the ambit of fundamental right in the constitution?
Indeed. In the 2017 case of Justice K.S. Puttaswamy (Retd.) v. Union of India, the Supreme Court ruled that the right to privacy is guaranteed by Article 21 of the Constitution and by portions of Articles 14 and 19.
What is covered by the right to privacy?
It has multiple dimensions, including:
– Privacy of the body (e.g., defense against invasive medical procedures)
– Informational privacy (control over personal information, for example)
– Autonomy in making decisions (e.g., sexual orientation, reproductive rights)
– Communication privacy (e.g., surveillance, telephone tapping)
Does the Aadhaar card violate anyone’s privacy?
The Supreme Court upheld the Aadhaar scheme with few restrictions in the 2018 decision. It determined:
– The constitutional nature of Aadhaar
– However, it was determined that connecting Aadhaar to mobile devices or bank accounts was unlawful.
