Author: Shreya Modanwal, Shambhunath Institute of Law, Jhalwa, Prayagraj
To the Point
The integration of technology and human rights is a defining problem for modern times.As technological capabilities expand rapidly, so too do the implications for civil liberties, social justice, and legal governance. From facial recognition software tracking individuals in real-time to artificial intelligence making decisions in the criminal justice system, the role of technology has become deeply embedded in both empowering and potentially violating human rights.
One of the most significant fields of consequence is the right to privacy. In the digital era, personal data is continually gathered, examined, and commercialized by both public and commercial entities.The commodification of user data raises serious ethical and legal questions about consent, transparency, and individual autonomy. Social media, smartphone applications, and cyber surveillance systems frequently work in ambiguous ways, making it difficult for users to understand how their personal information is used or to resist exploitation.
Freedom of expression and access to information—key pillars of democratic societies—are also profoundly affected. While the internet offers unprecedented opportunities for self-expression, digital platforms have simultaneously enabled censorship, online harassment, and the spread of disinformation. States have increasingly implemented internet shutdowns or restricted content under the guise of national security or public order, which often results in disproportionate curtailment of fundamental rights.
Artificial intelligence and automated decision-making systems add another layer of complexity. From predictive policing to automated hiring, these technologies carry the risk of entrenching existing biases and discrimination. Without transparency or accountability mechanisms, algorithmic decisions can result in human rights violations that are difficult to detect or remedy.
The digital divide further complicates the situation. Unequal access to technology exacerbates existing social and economic disparities, particularly among marginalized groups such as women, rural populations, and persons with disabilities. The right to education, healthcare, and employment is increasingly dependent on digital access, raising concerns about inclusivity and equality.
Another emerging concern is biometric data collection—such as fingerprint, facial, and iris recognition—which is often mandated without adequate legal safeguards. The intrusion into bodily autonomy and the risk of data breaches have sparked legal debates on the scope of informational privacy.
Thus, the intersection of technology and human rights is not merely a technical or policy issue—it is a constitutional and moral imperative. The State has a dual role as both regulator and protector. Courts, civil society, and international bodies must work collaboratively to ensure that human dignity remains central to technological progress.
Ultimately, the digital age must be guided by the values enshrined in constitutional democracies and international human rights frameworks. Technology must serve as a tool of empowerment rather than an instrument of control.
Use of Legal Jargon (Wherever Applicable)
At the intersection of technology and human rights, several legal doctrines and principles become crucial in defining the limits and responsibilities of digital actors. Terms such as “due process,” “proportionality,” “habeas data,” “data fiduciary,” “algorithmic transparency,” and “digital sovereignty” are increasingly invoked in legislative and judicial discourse. These legal jargons are not merely terminologies—they encapsulate broader constitutional values, legal obligations, and jurisprudential trends in tech-governance.
The principle of proportionality, as applied in cases such as Justice K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India, ensures that any restriction on fundamental rights—such as those caused by surveillance or data collection—must be lawful, necessary in a democratic society, and proportionate to the intended legitimate aim. This concept draws from comparative constitutional law, notably the jurisprudence of the European Court of Human Rights.
Habeas data, a lesser-known but increasingly relevant term, refers to the legal mechanism that enables individuals to access and correct personal data held by the state or private entities.
While not fully entrenched in Indian jurisprudence, its principles are resonant in data protection discourses and are codified in jurisdictions like Latin America and the Philippines.
The notion of a data fiduciary, introduced in India’s Personal Data Protection Bill, implies a trust-based relationship between data collectors (like companies or platforms) and users. It obliges entities to process data lawfully, fairly, and transparently, placing duties on them akin to fiduciary responsibilities known in corporate and trust law.
Another pivotal term is algorithmic transparency, referring to the disclosure of how automated decision-making systems function. Given that AI-based algorithms often operate as “black boxes,” ensuring explainability and auditability becomes vital for legal accountability. Lack of transparency has led to discriminatory outcomes, particularly in law enforcement, lending, and employment contexts.
The concept of digital sovereignty has emerged in response to the global dominance of tech giants and the extraterritorial control over data flows. Nations, including India, have emphasized localization and self-reliant digital infrastructures to regain regulatory control. This notion intersects with international law and trade regulations, especially under the WTO and regional data regimes.
Legal interpretations also employ terms of art such as “reasonable restrictions” (under Article 19(2) of the Indian Constitution), “legitimate aim” (under international human rights treaties), and “chilling effect” (to describe indirect suppression of rights through overbroad laws). These are frequently tested when evaluating digital censorship, shutdowns, or surveillance laws.
Importantly, amicus curiae (friend of the court) briefs and public interest litigation (PIL) have served as vehicles to introduce tech-related human rights concerns before Indian courts. The legal language used in such proceedings often shapes jurisprudential developments and policy reform.
In summary, legal jargon in the technology-human rights discourse is not ornamental—it operationalizes accountability, outlines enforceable duties, and shapes the architecture of emerging digital rights. A comprehensive understanding and application of these terms enable courts, lawmakers, and advocates to navigate the evolving digital legal landscape with precision and foresight.
The Proof: Relevant Facts, References, and Authorities
UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights (UNGPs) mandate corporate responsibility to respect human rights even in technological development.
World Economic Forum (2022) reports indicate that over 70% of global citizens express concern over data privacy and AI ethics.
India’s Personal Data Protection Bill (2019, revised in 2023 as Digital Personal Data Protection Act) shows legislative attempts to balance innovation and privacy.
OECD Principles on Artificial Intelligence stress human-centric values and transparency.
ITU & UNHRC Reports emphasize digital inclusion as a fundamental right in the 21st century.
Abstract
The rapid proliferation of technology has transformed every facet of human life, from how we communicate and work to how we access justice and exercise civil liberties. This profound shift has brought both unprecedented opportunities and complex challenges, particularly in the realm of human rights. The intersection of technology and human rights is marked by a dynamic tension between innovation and regulation, utility and abuse, empowerment and control.
Technological advancements such as artificial intelligence (AI), biometric surveillance, big data analytics, and social media platforms are reshaping legal and ethical boundaries. On the one hand, technology enables freedom of expression, digital inclusion, access to information, and global activism. On the other, it has become a vehicle for mass surveillance, misinformation, algorithmic bias, and infringement of privacy.
This article explores the emerging human rights issues resulting from digital transformation, highlighting the need for robust legal frameworks and ethical oversight. It critically examines how national constitutions and international instruments, such as the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), adapt to digital challenges. Through analysis of significant judicial pronouncements and policy developments, the article identifies the pressing need for a rights-based approach to technological governance. Ultimately, it argues for a balanced, human-centric regulatory model that preserves fundamental freedoms while encouraging responsible innovation.
Case Laws (Related Judgments and Precedents)
Justice K.S. Puttaswamy (Retd.) v. Union of India (2017)
This landmark judgment by the Supreme Court of India recognized the right to privacy as a fundamental right under Article 21 of the Constitution. The case arose during the Aadhaar hearings and addressed concerns regarding the mandatory linkage of biometric data for welfare schemes. The Court established the ‘three-fold test’—legality, necessity, and proportionality—as essential for any infringement on the right to privacy. This case forms the constitutional bedrock for evaluating surveillance and data collection mechanisms by the State.
Anuradha Bhasin v. Union of India (2020)
This case challenged the prolonged internet shutdown in Jammu and Kashmir following the abrogation of Article 370. The Supreme Court held that freedom of speech and the right to carry on trade or profession using the internet is protected under Article 19(1)(a) and 19(1)(g) respectively. Importantly, the Court emphasized that indefinite internet shutdowns are unconstitutional and must pass the test of reasonableness under Article 19(2).
Shreya Singhal v. Union of India (2015)
In this crucial case, the Supreme Court overturned Section 66A of the Information Technology Act of 2000, which criminalized ‘offensive’ messages received over communication services. The Court found that the law was vague and harmed freedom of speech.
Google Spain SL v. Agencia Española de Protección de Datos (2014), ECJ
This European Court of Justice case laid down the principle of the ‘Right to be Forgotten.’ It held that individuals have the right to request removal of personal data from search engine results under certain conditions. This case has had significant implications worldwide, including in Indian data protection discourse, and has influenced the draft Digital Personal Data Protection Bill.
Naz Foundation v. Government of NCT of Delhi (2009) & Navtej Singh Johar v. Union of India (2018)
While primarily centered on the decriminalization of homosexuality under Section 377 IPC, both cases underscore the importance of informational and bodily privacy, dignity, and autonomy. The Court’s articulation of these principles provides a strong foundation for critiquing intrusive digital surveillance and discrimination via AI systems.
Facebook, Inc. v. Union of India (2021) (Madras High Court Proceedings) This case centered around the traceability requirement in the proposed intermediary guidelines, which would require platforms like WhatsApp to trace the originator of messages. The case highlighted major questions regarding end-to-end encryption and the right to privacy.
These case laws collectively shape the evolving jurisprudence on the interface between technology and human rights. They demonstrate the judiciary’s pivotal role in interpreting constitutional protections in light of digital transformation, setting guardrails for innovation while safeguarding liberties.
Conclusion
Technology is a double-edged sword—it empowers and endangers. As digital technologies become more embedded in governance, commerce, and social life, it is imperative to ensure that legal safeguards evolve concurrently. Policymakers, judiciary, and civil society must collaborate to enforce techno-legal frameworks that uphold human dignity, transparency, and accountability.
Suggested way forward:
Establishing Tech Regulatory Sandboxes for human rights impact assessments.
Enacting strong, enforceable data protection laws.
Promoting digital literacy and access.
Instituting independent tech ethics review boards.
Strengthening international cooperation on cross-border data governance.
FAQS
Q1. What are the main human rights affected by technological advancements?
The right to privacy, freedom of expression, equality and non-discrimination, and the right to knowledge are among the most important human rights that technology has influenced. Emerging digital technologies have an impact on economic, social, and cultural rights, such as the right to education and health, particularly when access to technology becomes unequal.
Q2. How does artificial intelligence pose a threat to human rights?AI has the potential to reinforce pre-existing biases, resulting in discrimination in recruiting, policing, and service delivery. It also causes opacity in decision-making, making it harder to pinpoint who is responsible when rights are violated. Furthermore, AI-powered monitoring raises severe worries about widespread data collecting and privacy violations.
Q3. What role does international law play in regulating technology’s impact on human rights?
Instruments such as the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights establish a worldwide framework. Although not all treaties directly address digital rights, their ideas are being applied to digital contexts by courts and human rights organizations around the world.
Q4. Can governments legitimately monitor digital communications?
Yes, but such surveillance must comply with the principles of legality, necessity, and proportionality. Arbitrary or mass surveillance is generally considered a violation of the right to privacy. Judicial oversight and legislative safeguards are essential to ensure that surveillance is not abused.
Q5. How can individuals protect their digital rights?
Users can adopt good cyber hygiene—using strong passwords, enabling encryption, and being cautious with personal data. Advocating for digital rights through civil society groups and staying informed about policy developments can also empower individuals to defend their freedoms online.
Q6. What is the responsibility of tech companies in upholding human rights?
Tech companies have a duty to respect human rights by conducting due diligence, ensuring transparency, and providing remedy mechanisms for violations. They must avoid complicity in government surveillance or censorship and proactively address issues like algorithmic bias and misinformation.
Q7. Are there examples of countries successfully balancing tech and human rights?
Yes, countries such as Germany and Canada have enacted data protection rules emphasizing user permission, accountability, and privacy. The EU’s GDPR (General Data Protection Regulation) is frequently recognized as a global norm for rights-based digital governance.
