CHAPTER - II

PERSONAL DATA, PRIVACY MEANING AND EVOLUTION OF THE

CONCEPT

2.1Personal Data
Have you ever made an electronic message, called, or filed taxes? Are you using a
Smartphone or smart watch, or fitness band? Are you doing online shopping using the internet?
Are you using Alexa? Most probably, for the above questions, the answer is yes. If the answer
is yes, then your personal information is shared. No doubt by using these devices you are
benefited a lot, we can't at this stage, imagine our life without these technologies. We are
dependent on these for our everyday tasks and engage with other people through them. But the
risk is involved. You might think that you have no harm, but the picture is different. Our data
reveal a lot about us; it reflects our personality, likes-dislikes, friends, life, thoughts, and many
more. Privacy extends to the protection of data and information.1
There is no question that our data is valuable and the new currency. The full potential of
data is still unknown, and data is generated virtually in everything people do. Some issues need
consideration, such as: to whom the data belong, and who is having the right to access it. How
can it be used? How privacy is affected, and can privacy act as a limitation on data used by
companies?
The recent admission by Facebook that data of 87 million users was shared with CA raises
an alarming situation. It is not singular nor an exceptional incident. Both State and Non-State
actors are mostly unregulated, which harms the right to individuals. The protection of the right
is not needed because of a single person’s good but because such goodwill creates a collective
culture, where people can stand against States' unacceptable actions.

By leveraging digital information, many companies are trying to carve out an advantage.

1
ChandraRakesh, “Right to Privacy in India With Reference to Information Technology Era”
188(MayurPrinters, NewDelhi, 2017).
Data can be easily exploited, which in turn can harm a person. The scenario is worst when the
government uses data against vulnerable individuals. Therefore, there is a need for strict
legislation to protect data. Since the right to privacy is a fundamental right, the State oversees
ensuring it is protected and prevented from being violated. The recent Privacy judgment
highlighted the need for data protection legislation in the era of information and technology.
The court has stated that for non-state actors, we require proper legislation. Kaul J. (in para 70)
opinioned that State must ensure that user information should not be used without the user's
consent. So, in this regard, the Parliament came up with a Data Protection Bill so that non-state
actors cannot violate citizens 'rights.
In this context, the current chapter covers the idea of data protection and the Indian
legislative system that is now in place to protect data privacy. The chapter also identifies the
main arguments for amending the current bill. In a nation where privacy is protected, there is
also a need for a specific or comprehensive piece of legislation.

2.2 Meaning of the Term Personal Data ,Privacy and Protection

The idea of personal data must be understood before one can comprehend what data
privacy and protection represent. There are two broad categories of data:

Personal Data

Any information relating to a known or recognizable living individual is included. Or any

information that can be used in conjunction with others to identify a specific person. For
instance, a person's name, last name, residence, email, ID card number, financial details, medical
background, etc. Any information relating to a named or identifiable natural person is considered
personal data under GDPR (data subject). Any individual, group, government agency, or
institution could acquire personal data.

Non-Personal Data
It refers to data that cannot be used to identify a specific person. It has commercial
worth, but no personal information is compromised as a result. Anonymized data, a company's
email address, registration number, etc. are some instances of data that are not regarded as
personal d

2.2.1 Data privacy

 Data privacy is the individual's right to ownership of their personal information. The right to
control the gathering, sharing, and use of one's data exist. Due to the complex nature of
technology growth, it is a component of the right to privacy and must be safeguarded. Data
privacy concerns the individual's expectation of privacy in addition to the proper handling of
data. In the current technological era, personal data is a valuable resource that needs to be
shielded against arbitrary actions. Data privacy, to put it simply, establishes who has permission
to view the data. Data privacy primarily focuses on how personal data is used and governed.
Personal data is related to the idea of data protection. It examines whether the
information is handled fairly and legally. Data protection policies and practices aim to acquire
and use the personal data of a person in a way that minimizes invasions of that person's privacy.
It can be characterized as a formal restriction on who can access and use data. Data protection is
the process of preventing the unauthorized use of a person's personal information. It deals with
how technology and data gathering, and distribution are related.
There are administrative measures involved in data protection as well as technical ones.
Administrative action is used to describe its legal component. Data privacy is concerned with
how personal data is used and governed, including things like having procedures in place to
make sure that customer personal data is gathered, shared, and utilized appropriately. Data
security is mainly concerned with preventing harmful assaults on data and the commercial
exploitation of stolen data. Although security is required to secure data, it is insufficient to
address privacy issues.2
Data privacy is concerned with the usage and regulation of personal data, including the
establishment of policies to guarantee that customer personal information is being gathered,
shared, and utilized appropriately. Data security places a greater emphasis on defending data
from malicious attacks and the commercial exploitation of stolen data. Security is essential for
data protection, but it is insufficient to preserve privacy. Additionally, it is impossible to impose
privacy in a system unless it is secure, while the opposite is not true. To create and put into
effect clear and accurate data security and privacy policies, it is crucial to grasp the distinction
between and link between data security and privacy.

2
“What does Privacy mean?”, available at: https://iapp.org/about/what-is-privacy/ (last visited onDec.14, 2019).
2.2 .2 Meaning and Definition of Privacy
In general terms, privacy means "a state in which no one else observes or disturbs" or, we
might says, “a state of being free from public attention3”.This is not an “abstract concept”. We
can understand its meaning about the ‘culture of a nation, ‘political structure of a country, and a
particular duration. At present, it has become a matter of great concern in democratic societies
characterized by the highly “sophisticated-bureaucratic” system and improved techniques in
‘communication’ and ‘information system’4.
Privacy is the result of a person who wants to hide from others some information about his
‘past’ and ‘present’ experiences and activities, and his expectations for what's to come. The
desire for privacy communicates the craving to be a secret from other people and to control
others' discernments and convictions about a proud person. Personal information is essential for
disclosure that reveals oneself, changes one's existence for others, and promotes the growth of a
desirable personality. Privacy is an interference-free "space to grow" that is experienced with
the freedom of exploration to pursue experimental projects in the fields of science, art, work,
play, and life. As it is and in the name of others, even more, compelling targets, privacy may be
lost. But the cost to pay for the end achieved in terms of privacy and its relevance, without
freedom, lost health, poor commitment to society and social stability can be enormous.
Privacy is the capacity of a ‘person’ or ‘group of persons’ to separate data about them, and
from there they choose themselves. If anything is private to an individual, it implies that
something is characteristically uncommon or touchy to them. Privacy is an interference-free
"space to grow" that is experienced with the freedom of exploration to pursue experimental
projects in the fields of science, art, work, play, and life. Privacy can likewise appear as
“physical integrity. The right to be shielded from an unrestrained invasion of privacy by
"governments," "organizations," or "individuals. It is a component of many nations' "privacy
legislation" and the constitution in some. A person can give out personal information in the
corporate world, including their advertising, in exchange for a benefit. The public interest may
be governed by public interest laws. Information about an individual is voluntarily supplied but
could subsequently be stolen or used improperly.

3
Languages.oup.com/google-dictionary-en/visitedon19/02/2019at9:30AM
4
S.K.Sharma,“PrivcayLaw-AComparativeStudy”1994,p.1,AtlanticPublishers&Distributors, NewDelhi.
 The “concept of privacy” doesn’t lead to a simple, rational, and understandable
‘definition’. It is also stated by Tom Gaiety in the article "Redefining Privacy" (12 Harv. Civil
Rights. Civil Lib.Rev. p. 233), this notion was quickly thrown out of the way of legal rock and
stone, due to the ‘inherent-deficiencies’ in defining this abstract idea. This notion is not a
monolithic concept, but the difficulty arises from the fact that it is more easily affected by
multi-dimensionality in calculating than. But any credible definition of privacy can be asserted
with confidence that the human body will take its initial and essential specifics for control over
“personal identity”. This type of definition includes the transgression of the body and the
intimacy of ‘personal identity, including ‘integrity’ and ‘marital privacy. Some representative
models can withstand this. Gaiety defined privacy as "autonomy or control over the intimacy of
personal identity"5.
In the Black Dictionary, the right to privacy is described as "the right to be apart; the
right of a person to be free from unwelcome publicity; the right to exist without undue public
intrusion in topics which are not necessary to the public."
Privacy in Spencer's words is "constantly adjusting internal relations with external
ones". Adjustment is the way an organism relates to the needs of its internal and external
behavioral environments. This does not mean mechanical or scientific changes; Its behavior is
the adjustment that a man must make to make it socially acceptable to the community and
others around him. 6
In the words of Charles Fried, "Privacy isn’t simply shortfall of information about
ourselves in the brain of others; it is an authority over what we think about ourselves an
individual who appreciates privacy or is denied admittance to other people privacy, is an
authority over information about himself.7
Similarly, Arthur r. Miller says that it is “the ability of a person to ‘control the flow of
data associated with him—a force is necessary to maintain ‘social relation’ and ‘personal
liberty.

The above definitions of ‘privacy’ in terms of restricting the information under

consideration have a narrow overview, and these authors have, in their own opinion, gone a

5
S. K. Sharma, “Privcay Law-A Comparative Study”, Atlantic Publishers & Distributors, New Delhi,p.97, 1994
6
Deepak Kumar & Gaurav Goyal, “The Right to Privacy in India: Concept and Evolution”, Partridge: A
PenguinRandomHouseCompany, p.1,2016,
7
Ibidp.9
little too far with the notion of privacy about them. Privacy is the restriction of the flow of
information about oneself to others without a person's choice, and if it belongs to someone,
such an approach may appear somewhat erroneous and very incomplete. Every loss or control
over information about oneself is not about losing or gaining privacy.8

Gary L. Bostwick’s discussion in the ‘California Law Review’, Vol. 64, p. 1447 says
that the name "privacy" is divided into three constituents: ‘recreation’, ‘sanctuary’, and
‘intimate decisions’. Among these constituents, the last one is the most lively privacy idea as
compared to the first(recreation) and second (sanctuary) constituents.9

According to Reubenfield privacy is the "right to make choices and decisions" that
constitutes a "kernel" of autonomy. He goes one step ahead by introducing the idea of
personality in theory:“Some actions, talents or abilities are very significant for ‘identity’ as
‘individuals’ — “human beings— they must be inviolable, at least in the opposite estate”.10

According to Adam Carlyle, the term "privacy" is defined as a person's true claim to
decide the scope “up to which he wants to disclose himself with the person and to determine his
authority over the ‘time’, ‘place’, and ‘circumstances’ of communicating with the person”.11

It meant withdrawing or participating in a way that feels right. It also meant that the
right of a person to control the transmission of details about himself; It is his “personal
possession”12
As a result, defining privacy has proven to be difficult for many who have attempted it,
and some experts have even given up. For example, a. H. Robertson did not attempt to define it
in his work titled “Privacy and Human Rights”.

The “right to privacy” has been announced as the “right to be alone”, “to be free from unwanted
propaganda” & “to live a life without unwanted interference in public”, which is not a public

8
Deepak Kumar & Gaurav Goyal,“The Right to Privacy in India: Concept and Evolution”,Partridge: APenguin
Random HouseCompany,10,2016
9
S. k. Sharma, “Privcay Law-A Comparative Study”, Atlantic Publishers & Distributors, New Delhi,p.97, 1994
10
S. k. Sharma, “Privcay Law-A Comparative Study”, Atlantic Publishers & Distributors, New Delhi,p.98, 1994
11
AdamCarlyleBreckenridge:"TheRighttoPrivacy"(1971),“QuotedinMadhaviDivan,'TheRighttoPrivacyinthe
AgeofInformationandCommunications”(2002)4SCC(J)12
12
Ibid 47
matter. The phrase "right to privacy" refers to a broad range of rights that are meant to be
inherent in the idea of commanded freedom. This right protects an individual's freedom, his or
her right to privacy, and his or her relationships with his or her family and other people from
interference by the government. Privacy rules also forbid access to personal information (such
as "IT returns," "credit reports," etc.) and excessive listening to private communications (such
as "Electronic surveillance"). For example, they forbid taking pictures of people in public
places. In a sense, having the freedom to live however one pleases is the "right to privacy"13.

Privacy is defined as the ability to keep the personal affairs of an individual or group out
of general visibility or to limit the progression of details about themselves. Privacy is now and
again connected with secrecy, even though it is regularly profoundly esteemed by individuals
known to advertise. Judge Cooley provided the clearest definition of privacy, referring to it as a
"right to be alone”.14

So in one aspect of it, privacy can be defined as the existence of a boundary through
which information cannot be obtained from others. Previous actions have not been reported or
noticed or recorded or seen by the last mentioned. It is the receipt or transmission of
information without the willful assent or activity of those whose activities and words produce
the data. At the point when the last reveal data completely intentionally and on their drive, we
are looking at “sharing privacy”. In a case where details are acquired, we are talking about
intrusion or intrusion into privacy through “manipulation”, “deception”, “coercion” or “market
mechanism”. Privacy is an important component of the volunteerism of the person or persons in
question. 15
Despite widespread contention that privacy is an interest rather than a right, it can
impede social progress, I hold a contrary viewpoint. Although privacy is a fundamental right, it
has its restrictions in that it prevents us from conflating one's own space with other people's.

The “concept of privacy” is vague and hard to go from the correct viewpoint. Attempting

13
PravinAnandandGitanjaliDuggal,“PrivacyinMichaelHenry(ed.)-
InternationalPrivacy,PublicityandPersonalityLaws”,2001,p.233
14
DhruvJain,“TheRighttoPrivacyinIndia:An overview",Vol.6,LAWZ,No.11Issue63,Nov.2006,p.
15
S.k.Sharma,“PrivcayLawAComparativeStudy”,AtlanticPublishers&Distributors,NewDelhi,p.103,1994
to analyze privacy brings to mind several meanings: “private properties privacy”; Privacy
concerns are concerned with "name" and "picture"; maintaining one's "own undertakings" in
privacy; the confidentiality of internal matters with intentional ties or a business substance.

The actual shortfall of other people who are not qualified by kinship, affection, or other
honors; Respect for privacy means respecting the will of another person or what he or she does
or does not disclose information about the privacy of ‘sexual’ and ‘family matters’; The
preference for ‘privacy’ is the “privacy of the private citizen” instead of public authority, as an
option that should not be overlooked by another person or persons. But the concept of privacy
has many uses; There are additionally related and various terms; Freedom, self-sufficiency,
exposure, mystery, mystery, closeness … etc.16

There is no common acknowledgment of the “legitimate and philosophical writing on

the meaning of privacy”. Some think that it is an intellectual condition, while estrangement
from others is “firmly identified with distance”. For other people, it is a kind of force, a
command over who holds data about us, or a power over an individual's happiness regarding
their undertakings or the individual's capacity to control the progression of data bout it.

A story of a foreigner who made their first visit to an Indian village can help people
understand the cultural and social variations in privacy. In India, he noted, there is no such thing
as privacy because people are constantly present everywhere and at all times. Everyone thinks
of everyone else as an uncle or aunt who will go into anyone's house. He claimed that while it
might be a privacy infringement, it was customary for the villages to care for visitors even if
they had not been invited. On the contrary, an Indian visiting a Western nation for the first time
will find their culture and level of freedom frightening. Every culture respect privacy and the
expectations of its residents. Letters and records are maybe more holy and confidential to
Europeans than their own families. An Englishman might let a woman or two share his box, but
not his confidential papers. However, in India, personal rights are less revered than marriage,
families, and homes. The privacy of the group—whether it be the privacy of the family or the
privacy of the community—rather than the privacy of the individual is what is being preserved.
16
S.k.Sharma,“PrivcayLaw-AComparativeStudy”,AtlanticPublishers&Distributors,NewDelhi,p.101 1994
Even to the point of depriving some family members of their rights, violations of the house are
acknowledged. Due to the belief that family and marriage are more holy than individual rights
and freedoms, women are denied to use of fundamental rights, including the right to equality
and other freedoms.17

2.3 Historical Development of the Right to Privacy

Since ancient times, religion has had a tremendous impact on the public and private
lives of many people worldwide. Whatever religion asks him or her to do so it is likely that the
believer will follow. Therefore, if a religion commands or commands its believers to respect
each other’s privacy, believers are more likely to follow it. The concept of privacy is embedded
in almost all ancient religious texts and is still read and followed by a significant number of
people around the world.

Many passages in the Bible speak of shame as a violation of privacy. After eating the
fruit of the tree of knowledge, Adam and Eve “opened their eyes and saw that they were naked;
They sewed figs together. Identifying one's own 'true self is part of the right to privacy. This
revelation is mentioned in almost all religions. For example, according to Hindu scriptures, one
day, while Shiva was meditating peacefully, Cupid tormented him. Lord Shiva was punished. In
addition to the privacy of body, mind, and soul, religions recognize the right to homes and
property. Islam fully respects the right to privacy. Islamic Shari are cognizes one's right to a
home, dignity, property, and private life. Many verses in the Holy Quran emphasize the sanctity
of the home and personal life. Privacy in its various forms is found not only in ancient religious
texts but also in ancient civilizations. For example, in the Indus Valley Civilization in ancient
Egypt, the construction of houses indicated that residents respected their privacy at home.

In modern times, privacy is based on "science, government secularization, and political

democracy."There is no doubt that scientific progress has made our privacy possible. But
science has also played a key role in launching a massive attack on privacy. An example is the
use of electronic devices to listen and record what is being said without the speaker's
knowledge. Individual differences in attitude and personality development can lead to a partial
separation of church and government. The strength of political democracy results in the

17
Vany Adithan, Right to Privacy Under Art 2IB, Madras Law Joumal,p.29,2013
guarantee of fundamental freedom and respect for human dignity.

The judicial expression of “right to privacy” has some sources in accepting and
disagreeing with views. “Common law does not recognize any right to privacy”. Before the
twentieth century, courts in the United States did not recognize the right to privacy and
hundreds of cases have come before the courts to determine whether privacy is a legal right.
And for how long, and under what circumstances.18

What do you think about policymakers, lawyers and judges, nature does not promote
privacy. In contrast, human beings value their privacy so much that nature is compatible with it,
which is one of the unique characteristics of the rest of humanity.

Privacy was created by man. This area of privacy is a place where art and science are
developed as we know them. It is the basis of our cultural norms, philosophical ideas, and
values. It gave us the freedom to unlock our creativity and create artwork without fear of
judgment or ridicule. It gave us space to question everything around us and to find an
explanation for phenomena that early humans could only explain as works of God. In the
process, he aroused the scientific fury of humanity and aided the development of discoveries
and modern science and technology.

As we discussed above, there is no complete definition of privacy. To fully understand the

meaning and concept of privacy, “it is necessary to study the evolution of the right to privacy”.
Here we discuss the historical evolution of the right to privacy from both international and
national perspectives.19
2.4 International Perspective of Right to Privacy
Many people you ask will tell you that modern privacy law originated with an article by
Sam Warren and Louis Brandis published under the title “Right to Privacy, published in the
Harvard Law Review”. It has been called the “most influential reviewer of all the time” and has
18
The meaning of privacy available at “http // www.alrc.gov-au/-publication for your-information-australian-
privacy law / practice/ alrc/report /108/1=introduction+to+the+inquiry /5 /the meaning of privacy”, visited
on04/07/2021 at12:25PM

19
BastianKonings,FlorinSchaub,MichealweberandFrankKargel,“Towardsterritorialprivacyinsmartenvironments”,ava
ilableataaai.org/ocs/index.php/sss/sss10/paper/viewfile/1043/1496,visitedon13/07/2019at
influenced the development of privacy laws around the world. As Roscoe Pound said, "It's more
than just an extra chapter to our law."20

During “the end of the 19th century”, the United States was under two pressures:
industrialization and urbanization. “From 1800 to 1890, the U.S. population grew from 4
million to 63 million”, the largest population growth witnessed in urban areas on the east coast.
This situation has caused an urban division. Most of the urban population slept in relatively
harsh conditions but living in an oasis of opportunity was awakened by the promise that they
were willing to endure the present situation to get a lucky break that would draw the out.
Thanks to the mediocrity and democracy of city streets with wealth and family, even the
poorest slums in New York City could see exactly how rich and celebrities lived, and everyone
aspires. Someday I could live like that.

Like Edward Curll in England a hundred years ago, the mass media of this era, in line
with the aspirations of their readers, plunged into making that dream come true. They tried to
fill their pages with stories of celebrities and life in high society. To do this, they took
advantage of many new technologies that had become mainstreams around that time. Alexander
Graham Bell just invented the phone, and in 1877 opened the world's first commercial
telephone switch in Boston. Telegraph networks were established throughout the country by
1890, creating a new world where effective long-distance communication became the norm.
Both technological advances have fueled the news industry, allowing newspapers to deliver
news about activities that took place further closer to the point of occurrence than was
previously possible. That's when George Eastman invented the Kodak portable camera and
truly democratized photography. All of this created a new and particularly intrusive type of
press group, armed with powerful new technologies and empowered by the protections
“ensured by the 1st Amendment of the US Constitution”. The result was journalism, which
produced more and more obscene gossip to meet the needs of a growing great leadership.
In his 1886 speech, President Grover Cleveland called the press the publisher of a
meaningful and cowardly lie that is found every day in columns of certain newspapers, violates
all the instincts of American masculinity, and blasphemes all sacred relationships with terrible

20
“The known citizen: A History of privacy”, available at https://dokumen.pub/the-known-citizen-a-history-of-
privacy-in-modern-america-1st-edition-0674737504-9780674737501-0674985214-9780674985216.html,
visitedon27/09/2019at10:00PM
joy. In response to the fact that the appearance of his wife Francis was freely used in product
advertisements across the country without her consent, his resentment was probably more out of
the president's sense of duty. That said, it's always a mistake to arouse the anger of an
incumbent president, which in a very short time triggered one of the first U.S. privacy law
enacted by the New York legislature, making the use of unauthorized portraits illegal. For
commercial purposes. Two young attorneys who recently graduated from Harvard and are
looking to build their reputation as commercial attorneys at their New Boston law firm decided
to write the Harvard Law Review, One of them will be the most respected judge of the U.S.
Supreme Court, who is responsible for making the broadest judgment on “the freedom of
speech and privacy passed by the Supreme Court”.21
When they wrote an article in 1890, Warren and Brandeis were young lawyers who set
out to name themselves and their eponymous law firms. They were both incredibly smart guys
who took first and second place at Harvard. Brandice scores are so high that it will no longer be
able to outperform for 80 years. Like all great entrepreneurs, they have tried to increase their
reputation for their work by publishing to show off their scholarships. However, it is not clear
why they chose this topic among all the options available. This article was not the same as the
previous two articles written by Harvard Law Review. Both are mediocre but discussed the
pond law, which is more commercially profitable. It was Warren who caught the pen in this
article. Brandeis distanced himself from the initial draft and said it wasn't as good as it should
be. It's strange given that Brandeis is widely known as the duo’s brain', but given Warren's
situation, everything starts to make sense.

However, recent scholarships shed light on another theory that sounds plausible. In an
in-depth study article on need, Charles Colman puts a compelling theory together and hints that
Warren's motive for writing the article is not gossip about his wife, but rather finding a way to
protect his brother Edward. Young Ned Warren was not only a criminal offence when he was
publicly gay at the time, but it was also the case of aggressively prosecuting characters as
famous as Oscar Wilde. A year before the article came out, a Boston newspaper took a

21
RahulMatthan,“Privacy3.O-UnlockingOurData-DrivenFuture”,40(HarperCollinsPublishers,Noida, 1st
edn.,2018)
breathtaking report of the “Clevel and Street Scandal” about gay service for upper-classmen. It
was a special situation that Sam Warren started to write an article. Undoubtedly, all these
factors influenced his thinking, and he strongly advocated the development of the right to be
left alone, which was aim that the media and its serious invasion.22

To be clear, Warren and Brandeis were by no means the first to think about the concept
of a legal right to privacy. James Madison, one of the architects of the U.S. Constitution, tried
to express things like privacy in his day, but it was difficult to express himself in the language
of that time. During the formation of modern democracy, there was no structure in which
substantive concepts such as privacy, which Madison had to put his thoughts on in the context
of property rights, could be presented, and he struggled to construct the concept of human
conscience. He said it was a sacred form of property that should be given the status of a natural
and inalienable right.

Since then, many jurists have written that his concept clearly expressed a right to
personal space that could not be adequately expressed in the context of modern technology. In a
treatise on the law of tort, Judge Thomas Cooley was probably the first to say in today the
language spoken that 'his rights can be said to be full immunity. The right to be together.
As a result, by the end of the19th century, the concept of personal privacy was already
recognized as a clear right, and the phrase' right to privacy was not entirely heard. However,
except for a few laws that make eavesdropping a crime, privacy is nothing more than a by-
product of impartial remedies designed to settle other faults. If you wanted an injunction from a
U.S. court in 1890, if you couldn't prove property damage, there was little way to get it. That
said, if someone's privacy, including those of an unusual homosexual brother, is about to be
released in the newspaper, there may be no cause for any real action against the injunction.

Some of the principles of law developed in the field of intellectual property in the UK
can be derived. Common law can also form the basis for such a remedy. These laws allow
individuals to determine the degree to which their thoughts must be communicated to others
and to follow the principle that no one, except as a witness, should be forced to express their
thoughts. They stipulate that when he communicates it, it is up to him to set the limits to which

22
“A brief History of right to privacy”, available at “https://www.theweek.in/content/ archival/news/india/ brief-
history -right-to-privacy.html”,visited on13/12/2020at09:40AM
they must be disclosed and that he has no right to publish other people's private thoughts and
writings without this consent, except when he makes it and reveals his thoughts.
The first decision came in 1905, which claimed the invasion of privacy as a unique
move, according to Bashevich v. New England Life Insurance Company. “It dealt with the non-
permissible use of the claim an Timgenia newspaper advt.”. It's a decision that ultimately
elevates the “regime of the right to privacy”, as stated in Amara Brandeis and Warren's paper,
in parallel with the protections afforded to the press under freedom of negotiation. This gave the
other courts of the country a respectable state Supreme Court ruling that they could trust.
Within six years, the principles of privacy policies as cited in the article were cited by courts
across the country.
Eventually, in 1928, the issue “came before the Supreme Court of the US” in the
Olmstead case. This case featured prominently in the United States. This is a case involving
evidence obtained by wiretapping private telephone conversations. This is a violation of the “4th
and 5thAmendments to the U.S. Constitution”. Louis Brandeis, “now co-judge of the Supreme
Court”, had the opportunity to write a dissent. He noted that the government has a sophisticated
and far-reaching mechanism for encroaching on privacy.

Brandeis' dissent “in the Olmstead case has been sought by the Supreme Court in
various criminal practice decisions” over the next few decades.25 “Since then various acts or
laws related to “privacy and data protection” have been enacted by many countries”.

2.5 Indian Perspective of Right to Privacy

“No study has given a clear picture of the existence of a comprehensive concept of
privacy in ancient India”. One reason why India is somewhat isolated from the evolution of the
privacy judiciary is that the initial impact of these new technologies is not felt as much as in
other parts of the world. By the time the portable camera and telegraph first be gained be
widely used in the United States and elsewhere in the world, India was still a remote colonial
outpost of the British Empire. Although these new technologies eventually made their way to
the Indian shores, they were not well established in the West until their impact on privacy was
already well understood. As a result, when they were used in India, the laws governing them
had already built protections. Most of the colonial-era laws still in use in India “like the IPC
(Indian penal code) and the Indian Telegraph Act” are legal rules designed to address privacy.23

The idea that Indians don’t care about personal privacy, perhaps, holds us deeper. The
most frequently cited example to support this proposal is the Outstanding Indian Clich- - Joint
Family. 24While there is some truth in all of this, it is not accurate to say that Indians do not have
a compliment about the basic concepts of personal privacy. Indian civilization has long
understood and implemented the notion of privacy more than any Western society. Ancient
Indian texts provide various subtle indications of this in different contexts.28 The style of life of
ancient people, the obligations placed upon them, and how they interacted with one another
indicate the standards of respect for one another's privacy25.

The custom detailed in the famous Indian poetry "Ramayana," according to which a lady
should not be seen by a man she does not know, is still in effect in rural Rajasthan, Haryana,
and other places26.
According to the Mahabharata, "Draupadi was the common wife of the five Pandavas,"
and to shield Draupadi from embarrassment, it was decided that if one of the five brothers was
present when she was seen, the other could not see her without the latter being punished with
twelve years of exile in prison. Draupadi Yudhisthira, who was subject to the punishment of
deportation, followed Arjun inside the room once he had entered. Researchers note that the
Mahabharata's concept of privacy is like that of ancient India. The populace at the time was
morally upright and respected each other's right to privacy27.
"The concept of privacy is not new to India," in other words. The Upanishads, which
make up the foundation of the "ancient Indian theory of wisdom," recommend meditation,
which should be practiced without any obstacles. There is enough "care and respect for one's
privacy" in homes and the economy. The Ramayana and other works of classical literature are
forerunners in this regard when it comes to the description of the use of curtains28.”

23
Kartzvs.Unitedstates,389US347
24
Rahul Matthan “Privacy3.O-Unlocking Our Data-Driven Future”,72,(Harper Collins Publishers, Noida,1st
edn.,2018)
25
Ibid, p. 37
26
Deepak Kumar & Gaurav Goyal, “The Right to Privacy in India: Concept and Evolution”.9 (Partridge: A
Penguin Random House Company,2016)
27
Ibid p37
28
Ibid p37
 The first attempt to protect an individual's privacy against unjust government
intervention was made by Mr. in the Constituent Assembly. When Kasi Syed Karimuddin
amended to protect individuals from unjustified search and seizures, according to the U
SandIrish Constitution. Significantly, Dr. P. R. Although Ambedkar pointed out that this
provision was inthe Code of Criminal Procedure, he accepted the amendment, which is called a
'useful proposal', which should be 'inaccessible to the legislature'. However, “the right to
privacy doesn’t have a definite and explicit regime in our Constitution”.29

In 1946, “the Constituent Assembly formally began the process of drafting the
constitution”. Formed several committees to prepare the report based on that “the drafting
committee” drafted the constitution30.

The subcommittee on "fundamental rights" meeting suggested that the "right to privacy"
be considered a fundamental right. The scribe made "the right to the confidentiality of one's
correspondence" and "one's home" unreliable to establish them as fundamental rights. "People
have fought their right to be safeguarded in their people, houses, papers, and influence against
unjust search and seizure," B.R. Ambedkar writes in his State and Minorities report31."
There was solid resistance to these recommendations. “B.N. Rau (Adviser to the
Parliamentary Assembly) and Member of the Constituent Assembly, Alladi Krishnaswamy
Iyer”, couldn't help contradicting the consideration of the privilege to privacy inside the
“fundamental rights”. Rau was worried about cops meddling with the privilege of privacy with
insightful forces. While Iyer accepts that “allowing the right to privacy and confidentiality in
correspondence would be awful”: he would broaden each private/common correspondence as
per “state papers”. This will unfavorably influence common prosecution where archives
structure a fundamental piece of the proof32.
Both Rao and Iyer succeeded in “convincing the advisory committee to left the provisions
relating to the right to privacy”. The advisory committee's “last report made no mention of the
right to privacy”.33

29
Ibid p37
30
AtulKumarTiwari“Threattoprivacyincyberage-needforan effectiveveil”Vol.31,IBR,2004,atp.467
31
scobserver.com/court-in-review/right-to-privacy? slug=constituent assembly debate,visited on
28/05/2019at01:20PM
32
ibid
33
ibid
 The primary argument against including privacy as a fundamental right is a concern that
doing so would make the administration of justice difficult in a nation the size of India.34

A key feature of our system of governance is the extensive scrutiny and balance placed
to ensure that state power is always kept in mind. Consequently, even if the state abuses its
power to the detriment of individual rights, citizens always can resort to an independent
judiciary against the excesses of the state.35

Early chronicles of the “right to privacy in Indian law” date back to the last part of the
1800swhen a “British court” maintained the ‘privacy’ of a lady to enter her gallery unafraid of
the neighbor's eye. Law has developed from that point forward and the privilege to privacy has
been perused by the Supreme Court in Article 21 of our Constitution as a vital piece of
individual freedom. Like most opportunities, we invest wholeheartedly in it, until a year ago our
govt. disclosed to us that “privacy is certifiably not a fundamental right”.

The Supreme Court first told us in 1954 that “privacy is not a fundamental right”. In
“MP.Sharma Vs. Satish Chandra case, eight-judge bench”, when dealing with the matter to look
and hold on to reports from the Dalmia Group, prevented the presence from getting the “right to
privacy” as the Constitution expressed that the maker of the Constitution didn't visualize a
similar essential right to privacy, as in U.S. fourth Amendment.36

Following nine years, “in Khark Singh versus state of UP, under the watchful eye of a six-
judge seat of the Supreme Court”, our desire for private life returned; just to be denied once
more. Khark Singh, a supposed dacoit. He was liable for housekeeping and mystery burglary,
night visits, intermittent requests, and movement looks were conveyed. The Supreme Court said
there was no key “right to privacy” except for striking down an arrangement that permitted
night visits for infringement of "individual freedom". The silver coating was the conflict of J
Subha Rao, whom he said that even though the privilege to privacy was not announced as a

34
scobserver.com/court-in-review/right-to-privacy?slug=constituentassemblydebate,visitedon
15/05/2021at04:37PM
35
Rahul Matthan,“Privacy3.O-UnlockingOurData Driven Future”, p.72 (Harper Collins Publishers, Noida,1st
edn.,2018)
36
A brief History of right to privacy, available at, “ http://www.theweek.in /content/archival/ news/India
/brief-history-right-to-privacy.html”, visited on22/03/2020at01:20PM
principal directly by the Constitution, it was as yet a fundamental segment of individual
opportunity. He proceeded to say, "... there isn't anything more inconvenient to an individual's
actual prosperity and well being than a determined interruption into their privacy," he said.37

Twelve years later, Govind v. Madhya Pradesh. The Supreme Court, despite having a
bench of three judges, maintained the presence of the crucial “right to privacy under Article 21”
while facing similar factual metrics in the state. Not finish and can be meddled with by the
method setup by law. Even though “Govind lost, privacy won interestingly”38

Privacy law was additionally fortified in the post-progression time. On account of the
scandalous Bangalore hoodlum, "Auto Shankar" (“R Rajgopal v. State of Tamil Nadu”), “the
Supreme Court found a contradiction between the freedom of the press and the right to privacy”
& said it had won the latter. A few years after the PUCL case, the SC found a logical
inconsistency between the "freedom of the press" and the "right to privacy" and said it had won
the last mention. A couple of years after the "PUCL case", the court scrutinized the phone
tapping of unmistakable law makers and requested that the public authority follow severe rules
for tapping phone discussions. The arrangements under the “Telegraph Act,1885 and the
Information Technology Act, G 2000”, managing the deterrent depend on the rules given “by
the Supreme Court in the PUCL case”.39Unfortunately, “in the case of the right to privacy”, it
took almost six decades for the Indian judiciary to finally come up with a comprehensive
overhaul of the individual’s right to personal privacy.40

2.6 Customary Responses to Right to Privacy

Customs are recognized as an important “source of law” in India. It is born of some of
the “needs felt by society”; and the “satisfaction of such a need can be achieved at the
beginning, gradually giving birth to a general realization of the need for such satisfaction”
through some transient and isolated actions. These acts will develop into the personal law of the
people. Many rights have been taken away from the Rules of Privacy. Not only all customs but

37
A brief History of right to privacy”, available at “https://www.theweek.in
/content/archival/news/india/brief -history-right-to-privacy.html”,visited on 23/03/2020 at 05:00PM
38
Ibid
39
RahulMatthan,“Privacy3.O-UnlockingOurData-DrivenFuture”,77(Harper Collins Publishers, Noida,1st
edn.,2018)
40
AlanFWestin,“Social and Political Dimensions of Privacy”,59J.SOC.ISSUES431(2003)
some of them have been recognized “as the law of the land”. “It is not only the law of the
legislature or secondary law but also the customs and practices of law enforcement”.

The country’s cultural values are known to influence the confidentiality of the
population’s attitudes and have little to do “with its regulatory approach”. At that point what is
the impact of social uniqueness on privacy? Western social orders considered privacy to be a
significant worth that prompted an interest in privacy or acknowledgment “by law or social
convention”. 41Surprisingly, Indian social qualities likewise assume a significant part in forming
perspectives “about privacy”. It is in light of a legitimate concern for Indian culture that both
the individual right to privacy just as the social estimation of privacy are protected. However,
the amount of such maintenance required can vary from person to person and make it very
subjective.

In the early days, India adhered to the principles of Britain's common law, which
protected individuals with certain “interests, such as defamation, breach of confidence and
accusation”.“This has long been considered inadequate”.

The earliest recording is of the year 1888, where in Gokul Prasad v. Radio’s case,42 the
court upheld Pardanashin's secrecy. The plaintiff alleges that the defendant incorrectly
constructed the new building so that specific images of the newly constructed building were
placed on the offended party’s territory and approach and entryway of the house meddled with
the secrecy of that piece of the offended party's home and spaces involved and utilized by
females. Judge Sir John Edge, who delivered the judgment with Judge Mahmoud, after
examining various officials, “concluded that the privilege to protection exists and exists”
through use or custom in these provinces and it significantly interferes with such “right to
privacy”. , “Where it exists, if the encroachment of such right may be without the assent of the
owner of the effective tenement, such owner may have a valid reason for action”.43

Attacking privacy as accessible wrong is the purpose of life situations. In a similar case

41
SubhajitBasu,“Policymaking,Technology and privacy inIndia”, “TheIndian Journal of Law and Technology”,
Vol.6,2000
42
ILR10All.(1888)358
43
5Bomb. HCR(1876)ACJ42
before the Bombay High Court, in Mani Shankar Hargovan vs. Trikam Narsi case,44 the
division bench upheld the lower appellate court's order, which ordered the closure of the newly
opened doors and windows. Depriving the plaintiff of his privacy on the ground in a secluded
apartment constitutes a significant invasion of the privacy enjoyed by the plaintiff so far. The
initial phase which provides some guidance in the field of protection in India was Nihal chand
vs. Bhagwan Devi, 45 in this case the High Court perceived the autonomous presence of privacy
as rising out of the traditions and customs of individuals. Continuously, the pinnacle court, in
certain decisions,46 decided the presence of this option somewhat.

People in India, and probably everywhere else in the world, recognize that specific sorts
of data about themselves are favored. specific sorts of data about themselves are favored and
how people communicate, communicate, and share personal, family, and personal information
with each other, but that information is not about economic value. The concern for ‘physical
privacy’ is one of the oldest and deepest conventional worries of “Hindu and Muslim” societies.
In Ganesha Lal vs. Rasul Fatima, the court tracked down that Indian ladies have consistently
“shielded their privacy in their homes”.

This is the most established private spot. Security in the house is the privilege of each
lady, and for a lady who is banished by close to home or strict perspectives against showing up
in broad daylight, 'she keeps herself confined by noticing the Purdah..47, In Bashai vs. Hasn
Raza Khan48 recognized the 'purdah' as the premise of this privilege in the court and constrained
the proprietor of one property to change the plan or construction of his property to another with
the goal that the lady living in the prevailing flats could be kept in the 'purdah'. As indicated by
the court, the privilege depends on' normal internment or human ethical quality. However, “the
court held that the standard right to privacy must be asserted comparable to apartments
occupied and occupied by ladies in general”. Not to be reached out to lofts usually utilized by
men, the premise of the standard right of security was the 'porta' framework, which was
restricted to the insurance of the ladies of the 'bardanash' and for the most part involved
44
A.I.R. 1935All.1002
45
M.P. Sharmav.Satish Chandra 1954S.C.R.1077 and Kharak Singh v.State of U.PA.I.R. 1963 S. C.1295”
46
A.I.R.1977All. 118(India)
47
Subhajit Basu,“Policymaking, Technology and privacy in India, TheIndian Journal of Law and Technology
”,Vol.6,2000
48
A.I.R.1963All.340(India).
territories of a house.

The courts did not have general recognition of this right before granting relief on an
invasion complaint of privacy. Therefore, when it became common knowledge that privacy was
the norm in a particular city or state, the “courts took judicial notice of the practice under
Section57 of the IEA (Evidence Act)”. The history of Indian jurisprudence states that privacy is
a right, recognized as a practice since ancient times, and legally recognized under Section 18 of
the Indian Simplicity Act, of 1882.

In C. Krishna Murthy Vs Rajlingox,49 the court observed that, however, the “courts in
India do not recognize any natural right to privacy”, believing that it can only be obtained by a
simple simplification. “In the immediate case, a habit to be valid must be ancient, certain, and
reasonable, except to be enjoyed openly and quietly”. Therefore, if an individual is accused of
infringing on his or her right to privacy, he or she must establish that he or she had the usual
right to privacy in the neighborhood where he or she resides, separately or as an individual
froma specific class.

The next leading case was Bhunalal vs.Atlai Hussain,50 According to this case, the
fundamental distinction between a court's right to privacy and “a common law right in the court
is that the right is attached to the land, not to one person”. Custom ownership is generally
“claimed for houses in apartments occupied by women, and this does not extend to apartments
commonly occupied by men”. So regular ownership is only available for premises, they are
excluded from observation, and they cannot claim ownership of a garden, a yard, or a porch.
Privacy may have become a regular support in the country. But the whole rule of privacy cannot
be said to be part of the usual practice in India.

During this tenure, the field where private exercises can occur has additionally been reached
out past the house. “In a recent Naz Foundation case, the Delhi High Court ruled that the right
to privacy protects a” "private space in which man can assert himself. 51 In this case, the judges
predicted the exercise of the right to privacy" and the debate over its existence in the Indian
Constitution.

49
AIR1980AndhraPradesh6
50
AIR1945All.335
51
Naz Foundation v. Government of N.C.T. of Delhi & Ors., 160 (2009) D.L.T. 277 (India)”
2.7 Statutory Responses to Right to Privacy
There is currently no Sui-Janis law in India that protects horizontal privacy in various
contexts.“Privacy is a socio-legal right in India.” India does not have a single uniform law on
the right to privacy. There are many laws that directly or indirectly protect the right to privacy.
These laws include provisions on various issues such as “banking and money related”,
“proficient morals of legal advisors”, “doctor’s cutters” “chartered accountants”, “information
technology and communication” and so on which expressly or implicitly ensure privacy or give
a casualty solution for their penetration. Different laws of the nineteenth century additionally
acknowledge the idea of "privacy in India however without its definition".

State laws,52 on the "right to information", have likewise dealt with this issue and
ensured the "right to privacy" by denying the divulgence of data that would cause unapproved
intrusion of any “individual's privacy”. Indirectly protect the right to privacy.
These privileges reflect the respect we have for the invincibility of the human character
and the privilege of every person to a private circle where the individual may have a private
life.

It mirrors the private internal restrictions of individual inclination and thinking and
proposes state interruption for self-judgment. It is without a doubt a matter of extraordinary
fulfillment that all the important central laws dealing with the right to information in our
country have recognized the "right to privacy" and given exceptions from the divulgence of
complete individual data. This provision has been included in the “Freedom of Information Act,
2003”,recently enacted by Parliament.

The Indian Facilitation Act, of 1882, deals with the full concept of the right to
simplification in India and its regulation. Simplicity is a right enjoyed by the owner of an
influential estate rather than the inheritance of a sovereign owner for the beneficial enjoyment
of his lands. It not only clarifies what simplicity is actually involved but also provides its
classification. This law gives a person the right to prevent his neighbor from building on his

52
Goa Right to Information Act , 1997 (Goa Act 28 of 1997) ,s.5(b)”; “Rajasthan
Right to Information Act 2000 ( Act 13 of 2000), s.5 (vi)
land in such a way that the woman of the house can ignore the apartments for fear of their
privacy. The objective behind this arrangement was to ensure the privacy interest of ladies.

“Section 509, of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 makes it an offense to intrude on the
privacy of a woman who intends to insult a woman's modesty”. Moreover, in India law
maintains secrecy even in prisons. Man and woman detainees can’t be detained in a similar
spot. “Defamation is defined in Section 499, of the Indian Penal Code, 1860”. This definition
protects the dead individual from being criticized. It also includes the “artificial person”. The
degree and worry for individual respect in the Indian over all set of laws can been vision by the
narrow-mindedness of any sort of anger towards any human corpse. In this regard, pride drives
a person’s “life and take scare of his or her proper burial”. We can say that this right has existed
since time immemorial as a personal right. Additionally, the "law of defamation protects the
reputation of a dead person by forbidding" the worship of anything made to damage that
person's "reputation," particularly if it is meant to offend that person's family or other close
relatives. Section60 punishes domestic crime. It guarantees every man complete freedom within
his home. Housing can be annoying by law, right? Even where the law gives a resident the right
to go into a home, the assent of the landlord or its proprietor must be obtained before entering
the house.
The accused has the advantage of protecting t he confidentiality a nd self assertive
searches. According to Article 165 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, a police officer's right to
search is only valid while they are carrying out a criminal investigation. When searching,
officials should register “two respected in habitants of the concerned area to join as witnesses”.
In this manner, to secure the “privacy” of the citizen, the magistrate must comply with the
conditions for guaranteeing the discovery as per the provisions made under the code.“These
terms are mandatory and directory only”.53

“The Indian legal system ensures that the consent of any person must be free”. The crucial
part of 'assent' is wanted in t he will, although it relates to the will of both persons. There are
many laws that require the assent of the proprietor or occupier to gain access to a building,

53
The New Swadeshi Mills v.S.K.Rattan, AIR1968 Guj.117”
building, or such premises, before any entry. There are many other laws54 that make an arrest
punitive and unnecessary detention or personal punishment if the suspect has no good reason.

2.8 Privacy Provision in Constitution

The Constitution guarantees the rights and freedoms of citizens so that the person, with
his or her personality and his or her personality, will be free from the stamping authorities,
except where a sensible reason for infiltration exists. "Liberty with Government," a line
authored by Prof Corwiin, strongly communicates this thought. Accordingly, a considerable lot
of the essential privileges of residents can be portrayed as adding to sides to privacy. The
struggle for a constitutional government for the expansion of suffrage and especially for
freedom of the press was directed against the privacy of the government. Publicity on political
and administrative matters, almost excluding suffrage and constitutional restraint over
monarchical autocracy was the main objective of the modern liberal democratic movement.55
The constitution never uses the word "privacy." The phrase has only recently been
employed as a legal concept to denote the obligation of the state to permit individuals to be
alone. The Constitution does not define privacy, but according to a judicial judgment, the right
to privacy is implicit.”

Article 21, despite being in negative language, gives everyone the “fundamental right to
life and personal liberty and it becomes an inefficient source of many rights”. Only non-citizens
and citizens whose citizenship is unknown are entitled to these rights, and our courts provide
them with the utmost priority.

The "right to life" which is the utmost basic of everything is additionally the hardest to
decide. It can't be restricted to the assurance of stripping life; It should have a comprehensive
applicability. USA Concerning the related arrangement in the fifth and first Amendments to the
Constitution, which expresses that no individual will be denied of his "life, freedom or property,
"without fair treatment of law, in, Munna v. Illinois, 56 J Feild Talked about “the right to live in

54
The Customs Act, 1962 (Act 52 of 1962) ,s.136; The Foreign Exchange Regulation Act,1973( Act 46
of1973), s.58; The Gold Control Act, 1968( Act 45 of 1968),s. 94; The Medicinal and Toilet Preparations
(Excise Duties) Act, 1955,( Act 16 of 1955) s.17; The Central Excise and Salt Act, 1944( Act 1 of 1944),
s.22;and The Opium Act, 1878( Act 1 of 1878) ,s.18
55
S.K.Sharma,“Privcay Law-AComparativeStudy”,115,Atlantic Publishers & Distributors, New Delhi, 1994
56
US113(1877).
the following words”:

"Life, as used here, refers to more than just the existence of a being. Every organ and
order that makes life worth living is affected by the barrier against adversity. Like the previous
arrangement, this one forbids the deformation of the body caused by the removal of an arm, a
leg, an eye, or any other organ through which the spirit interacts with the outside world.

The statement that was continuously cited after the permission of the apex court in
Francis Corali Mullin v. LIT of Delhi;57 further expended. In this case, the court stated that "any
act which harms or injures or interferes with any work shall be an organ or faculty of a person,
permanently or temporarily, subject to Section 21."

The “fifth and fourteenth Amendments to the constitution of the USA”, give the expression
"freedom" a much broader significance. This takes everyone’s liberties that individuals expect.
Expression is not limited to just being free from “physical restraint and freedom under the law”,
“yet stretches out to the full scope of lead that an individual is allowed to seek after”. Unlike the
U.S. Constitution, Article 21 characterizes "liberty" as "individual", which means that the extent
of freedom “under our Constitution is not exactly that of the U.S Constitution”.

It was probably the opinion of a few judges in AK Gopaln Vs. State of Madras. 58 Although
the case dealt with the lawfulness of the candidate's preventive confinement which regardless
was a violation of "individual freedom" even in the tightest feeling of the word and
consequently, it very well maybe said that there was an extension for "individual freedom".
There is “no issue in that case, though some scholarly judges have ruled” in favor of the U.S.
And looking at the differences in expression in the Indian Constitution and “relying on the
meaning given to personal liberty by some English jurists”, he inferred that "personal liberty" is
limited. But no definitive declaration was made on the issue because the matter under the
court’s inquiry was not so much interpreted as the interrelationship between Articles19 and
21.59

After four years of enactment of the constitution, the Supreme Court in its first judgment

57
AIR1981SC746
58
AIR1950SC27
59
Maneka Gandhi v.Union of India, (1978)1SCC248”
mentioned the right to privacy, however, it was a remark that was less relevant than the
judgment itself. However, since this comment was being made by a bench of eight judges, the
passing context could not be easily ignored.

The case in question was MP. Sharma versus Satish Chandra,60, and the main issue was
whether the investigation conducted by the government during its investigation violated the
right of the person against self-accusation. The court spent time on analyzing the historical
development of suicide law around the world. It noted that the in the USA, evidence obtained
through illegal search and seizure in the USA is an infringement of the 4th & 5thAmendments to
the constitution. If those principles had been applied in India, probably, the discovery in
question could not have arisen for verification. However, the court pointed out that the US was
not equivalent to the Fourth Amendment to the Indian Constitution.

It was a literal statement that reflected the fact that the chapter on fundamental rights did
not have a clear list of fundamental privacy rights. But eventually, it will be made to assume
greater importance61.
Nine years later, interestingly, the significance and extent of "personal freedom" in the case
of Kharak Singh Vs. The state of UP came for consideration. In this case, the recognition of
“certain police rules”, which with no legitimate premise, “gave the police the right to be
monitored, whose names were recorded in the history sheet”, who could be habitual offenders
or those maintained by the police. Surveillance as defined in vague regulation includes
burglary, house visits at night, periodic inquiries about a person, surveillance of their activities,
etc. The claimant alleges that “this regulation violates the right of movement in Article 19
(1)(d) and individual liberty in Article 21”. In addition to deciding the duration of “Article 19
(1) (d), Article21” had to determine the extent of "personal liberty" to determine the petitioner's
claim.

Speaking on behalf of the majority, Ayyangar J rejected the idea that "personal liberty"
was limited to "freedom from bodily restraint or freedom from imprisonment within the walls
of a prison."He lashed out at "freedom from physical restraint or freedom from bondage in
prison" and said that "personal liberty" was utilized as a proper term in the article to cover all

60
(1954)SCR1077
61
AIR1963SC 1295
kinds of rights within itself. It makes the "personal liberties" of a human being except those
which are mentioned in many provisions of Art.19., Art.19(1) provides the special races or
qualities of freedoms where as Art. 21 contains residue. The remnants are taken and contained.
"Unauthorized intrusion into a person's home and the resulting disturbance violates
the"“personal liberty” contained in Article21. So, the regulation is not valid because it
authorizes visits of local officials but any of the remaining “Article 19 (1) (d) or Article 21”. He
also stated that "the right to privacy is not a guaranteed right under our Constitution and
therefore an attempt to ensure the movement of an individual is the only way to invade
privacy." This is not an infringement of rights ensured under Part III.

For minorities, J Subha Rao said “the right to privacy is an essential component of individual
liberty” and the privilege to individual freedom is the option to be “liberated from limitations or
infringements” on an individual, regardless of whether it be “limitations or infringements” are
forced directly or by implication by computation measures. In carrying out that test, they
tracked down the full guideline of “Article 21 andArticle19(1) (a)and (d)” to be in violation.
In Gobind v. State of M.P62J Matheustarted to lead given by the minority judgment of J
SubaRao in the above-mentioned “Kharak Singh's Case” and “adverting to the American lawful
and philosophical writing on right to privacy” and “to the American cases revealed in Griswold
Vs. Connecticut(1965) and Jane Roe Vs.Henry Wade(1973)”, decided thatArt.21of our
constitution accept “the right to privacy and human dignity”. “At the heart of the judgment for
Govind's situation is the way that the right to privacy is an important part of Art. 21”. This
judgment emphasized the significance and calling for its security. The judge at that point
inspected the substance of the privilege to privacy and saw that "any privilege to protection
should incorporate and ensure the individual closeness of home, family, marriage, parenthood,
pregnancy, and youngster raising." They focused on the primary significance of the “privilege
to privacy for human joy and coordinated the courts not to deny the privacy pride claims
brought before them aside from where the interests of the litigant state are over emphasized”.

Without any reference to Article 21, in Maharashtra State Vs. Madhukr N.Mardikar63, the
apex court had said that the “right to secrecy belongs to a woman of easy virtue and no one can

62
AIR1975SC 1378.
63
AIR1991SC 207(1979-80)8
invade her privacy”. An inspector of Police in uniform went to the house of a Banubai and
demanded sex. When she refused, he tried to stay with her. The woman raised a voice and cried.
At the point when she was indicted, she told the court that she was a lady of straight forward
excellence and thusly ought not to depend on her proof. The court dismissed the claimant’s
contention and considered him liable for the infringement of his entitlement to privacy.

Explaining this right in R Rajgopal v. State of TN64, the court said, the "right to
privacy", or “the right to be let alone is guaranteed by Art.21 of the Constitution”. People have
the privilege of the protection of the “privacy of his/her own, his/her family, marriage, children,
maternal offspring and other matters of education”. It is not possible to expect to distribute
anything about the above issue without their assent whether it is valid or something else and
commendable or basic. “If he does as such, he will disregard the privileges of the individual
concerned and will be obligated in the procedures for harms”. Notwithstanding, t he position
might be contrasted on the off chance that he intentionally places into discussion or deliberately
welcomes or raises a contention.
This requirement is predicated on the exceptional circumstance that it would not be
disagreeable if any dissemination of such material relied on publicly accessible information,
including court records. The right to privacy is no longer protected if an issue is the subject of
the public report; instead, it becomes a legitimate topic for commentary by "the press and media
among others."Similarly, there must be an alternative. This norm shall be described considering
a justified concern for decorum under Art (2).In the cases that are presented here, a rape victim
snatches. Compulsion or such misbehavior shouldn't be exposed to the negative press or media
coverage that his name and the incident are receiving”.

Another unique circumstance is when the right to privacy or compensation for damages
is not just available to public authorities because of concerns from opponents about the release
of their public duties; Even when the distribution depends on false realities and proclamations,
not until the specialists can setup that the explanation has been made with wild breaking down
of reality. What the supposed petitioner needs to do is to demonstrate that he composed after an
appropriate check of current realities. However, the court said the judiciary has the power to
contempt and legislators have different scales with their privileges.

64
AIR2000Delhi217
 A spouse applied for the disintegration of the marriage, in Mr. z Vs. Ms. X65, “on the
grounds of cruelty and adultery against the husband under Sec.10 of the Divorce Act”. The
spouse likewise demanded that his better half had submitted infidelity with a man which
brought about a family affair. “The spouse's pregnancy was ended at the AIIMS (All India
Institute of Medical Sciences) and even pregnancy records and slides were saved in the
emergency clinic. The spouse applied for DNA testing of the said slides to learn whether the
husband is the dad of the baby”. The court decided that the right to privacy, notwithstanding
being a crucial right to life contained under Articles 21,is not distinct. “While the privilege to
privacy has become part of public documents”, all things considered, nobody can demand that
“such a DNA test would abuse their entitlement to privacy”. “The baby was not, at this point a
piece of the body and when it is protected in the AIIMS the spouse who has effectively emitted
can't guarantee that it influences her entitlement to privacy. At the point when infidelity in such
conditions is claimed to be a justification separate, said the use of the spouse looking for a DNA
trial of the slides may be granted”.
In Surjit Singh tind Vs. Kanwaljit Kaur66, P&H High Court observed, permitting a lady
to go through a clinical assessment for her virginity is equivalent to an infringement of the
“privilege to privacy and individual freedom revered in Art.21 of Indian constitution”. For this
litigation, the spouse has recorded an application for “a decree rejecting the marriage”, saying
that the marriage was never spent because it was void. Another spouse defended that the
marriage was over and that he was not impotent. To establish that his wife was not a virgin, the
husband asked for a medical examination. According to the court, allowing a clinical evaluation
of a woman's virginity violates her right to protection under Article 21 of our constitution. The
chances of "such an order" are the same as those of a Rocky probe into a normally sensitive
lady. The virgin test cannot be the only evidence used to establish a marriage.
In Rayla M. Bhuvaneswri Vs. Nagaphamender Rayla, 67 the applicant documented a
separation request in court against his better half and demanded the submission of his case
seeking the submission of a hard disk relating to his wife's conversations recorded in the US.
He rejected some parts of the conversation. The court held that it was illegal for a husband to

65
AIR2003P&H353
66
AIR2003P&H353
67
AIR 2008AP98
tap into the conversation without his wife's knowledge and that it added upto an infringement of
her entitlement to privacy, as provided in Art.21 of the Indian constitution. Although this is
true, it can't be acknowledged in the proof. The spouse can't be compelled to take the “voice
test” and the expert is then approached to compare the part she has rejected with the voice she
has accepted.

“The court saw that the immaculateness of the connection among a couple is the
premise of marriage. The spouse was recording her phone conversations with her companions
and guardians in India without her insight. This is a reasonable infringement of the spouse's
entitlement to privacy”. If the husband is of such a nature and doesn't even trust his wife about
the conversation with his folks. At that point the establishment of marriage itself gets
purposeless.

In a notable judgment PUCL Vs. U.O.I.68 prominently known as the “Telephone

Tapping case”. The apex court observed that “phone tapping is a genuine attack of a person's
entitlement to privacy” which is important for the privilege to "life and individual freedom"
cherished under “Article 21 of the Indian Constitution”, and it ought not to be turned to by the
State except “if there is a public crisis or interest of public security requires”. The claim was
documented via a PIL under “article 32 of our constitution by the PUCL (a voluntary
organization)” by featuring the occurrences of phone tapping.The applicant has questioned the
established legitimacy of “Section5 of the Indian Telegraph Act1885”. It authorizes the Central
as well as State Government to turn to telephone tapping in the conditions referenced in that.
“The writ request was documented in the wake of the report on Tapping of Politicians’ Phones
by the C.B.I. (Central Bureau of Investigation)”.
“The Court set down comprehensive rules to direct the prudence vested in the State
under Section 5 of the Indian Telegraph Act for the reasons for phone tapping and interference
of different messages to protect public interest against the discretionary and unlawful exercise
of force by the govt.” The Court has communicated disappointment that the State has so far not
out lined standards to forestall abuse of the force. The non-availability of “just and reasonable

68
AIR1997SC568
method” for directing the activity of force under “Section 5(2) of the Indian Telegraph Act”, it
is absurd to expect to protect the privileges of residents ensured under article 21. “The C.B.I.
examinations have uncovered a few breaches in the execution of the orders passed by the State
while practicing power under the sec. 5(2) of the Act allows the block attempt of messages as
per the arrangements of the Act. "Event of any open crisis" or considering a legitimate concern
for public security" is the sine qua non "for the use of the arrangements under Section 5(2) of
the Act except if a public crisis has happened or the interest of public wellbeing requests, the
specialists have no ward to practice the forces under the said enactment. The Court said the
public crisis would mean the predominant of unexpected conditions or situations influencing
individuals everywhere calling for guaranteed activity. The articulation 'public well-being'
signifies the state or state of grave peril or hazard for individuals on the loose. At the point
when either of these two conditions is not present, the Court said, the Central govt. or the State
govt. or the approved officials can't depend on phone tapping even though there is the
fulfillment that it is vital or practical so to do considering a legitimate concern for power and
trust worthiness of the nation”.
Whereas, in Veeran Vs. Veravarualle, 69applicants specifically recorded a “writ for
DNA testing” to demonstrate the revelation that she is a genuine youngster she brought forth to
her folks i.e.,(father and responding mother). The father objected “because it violated his right
to personal liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution”. The court ruled that directing the
father to undergo DNA testing could not be said to affect his “fundamental right to personal
liberty enshrined in Article 21 of the Constitution”. The father's DNA test will just demonstrate
that the applicant is the dad with no testing on the mother. “The mother has not had a party for
the case”.
ln Malak Singh Vs State of Punjab,70an inquiry was whether the individual whose name is
mentioned “in the Surveillance Register” got an opportunity to hear before making such
incorporation. The court observed that the standard of normal equity was not appealing but
rather it explained the law regarding the matter and set down rules on the condition of
observation by the police. He said that under “Section 23 of the Punjab Police Act”, it was the

69
AIR2009Mad.64
70
AIR1981SC 760
obligation of the cops to watch out for terrible characters and routine wrongdoers to forestall
violations. However long observation is with the end goal of anticipation of wrongdoings and is
restricted as far as possible endorsed by “Rule 23 (7) of the Punjab Police Rules”, no individual
can hold up an objection against the incorporation of his name in the “Surveillance Register”.
Be that as it may, on the off chance that it is unnecessary and goes past the cutoff points
recommended by the standard, i.e., the oversight of an individual who doesn't fall into the
above class, its acknowledgment might be tested by disregarding the privilege to the protection
of a resident as a principal right to individual freedom under it.
In the quick instance of opportunity of development in Article21 and Article, the court was
fulfilled based on the significant records that there was adequate ground to remember the name
of the candidate for the “Surveillance Register”.

In Mr X Vs. Hospital “Z”,71 apex court observed that the “right to privacy” is an
essential right under “article 21 of the Constitution” however it's anything but an outright right
and can be forced with limitations to ensure wrongdoing, confusion, or wellbeing or profound
quality or to secure the rights and opportunities of others. In this matter, the “appealing party
joined the Nagaland State Medical and Health Service in 1987 as an Assistant Surgeon GradeI”
in the wake of getting his MBBS degree. “An administration worker was experiencing some
illness”. He was encouraged “to go to 'Z' Hospital in Madras”.

The Nagaland government guided the litigant to “send the said patient to Madras for
treatment”. The patient needs blood for treatment of the infection. The litigant's primary care
physicians requested that the patient give blood. “At the point when his blood tests were taken,
specialists tracked down that the appealing party had a blood type HIV+”. Meanwhile, the
appealing party has settled his marriage with Miss 'Y', which is scheduled for “December 12,
1995”. Notwithstanding, the marriage was called because the blood trial of the appealing party
directed by the respondent medical clinic uncovered that it was HIV + ve. Accordingly, he said,
his standing among his relatives was harmed.

71
AIR1995SC495
 The appealing party had recorded a request in the Bombay High Court charging that
the data which should be classified under clinical morals was illicitly uncovered and hence the
litigants were at risk to pay the portions. He expressed that it was the obligation of the
respondents to keep up secrecy based on clinical morals defined by the Medical Council of
India. He expressed that the respondent's "entitlement to protection" had been abused by
asserting that the offended party was HIV+and in this manner 'they' were obligated for harm.
A two-judge division seat of our apex court, involving Sagir Ahmed and Kripal, Jazeera,
decided that the appealing party was experiencing AIDS and that the specialists didn't encroach
on the litigant's entitlement to privacy enacted under article 21. The Court observed that “the
privilege to privacy is a principal directly under article 21, yet this is certainly not a flat-out
right and can be precluded. The privilege to marriage is a significant part of the privilege to
privacy, but not the total. Marriage is the holy sex, lawfully allowable, two solid as sentiments
of the other gender”. As indicated by each arrangement of marital law, if an individual
experiences a sickness, he is available to the next accomplice in the union to get a separation. If
an individual experiences the sickness before marriage, he has no option to wed until the illness
is restored. For instance, when a patient is determined to have HIV (+), the specialist's
divulgence doesn't disregard the privacy control or ensure the “patient's entitlement to privacy
with the lady with whom the patient is probably going to wed. If he gets hitched, he will get an
awful infection”.

Miss Y has the right to appreciate every one of the common liberties accessible to other
people. It is extraordinary and separated from the principal right accessible to him under article
21. It ensures the privilege of life for each resident of the country. The patient has the right to
the life of the lady to be emphatically hitched, and the man proposed to wed her has the option
to say that he is a casualty of a dangerous explicitly sent sickness. The privilege of everyday
routine incorporates the option to experience a sound life so all workforce in the human body
can have a good time in their predominant position. Moreover, the contention of two essential
rights in the prompt setting, to be specific the patient's entitlement to protection as a privilege to
everyday routine and his central option to experience a solid existence with his proposed spouse
is article 21. Developing “the public ethical quality or public interest” must be upheld through a
court interaction. Moral perceptions couldn't be kept under control and the appointed authorities
didn't consider the courts to be quieted constructions of mud in the corridor, yet to be touchy. In
the "sense" they need to put “their fingers solidly on the beat of the acknowledged ethical
quality of the day”.

2.9 Significance of Privacy Right’s

Privacy is always high on the hierarchy of people's values. If people have to make
choices, they will probably leave a little or a lot of privacy to get what is a big goal for them.
For some reason, social and behavioral scientists have made little inquiries about the social or
psychological basis for the desire for privacy. 72 People's need for privacy is not limited to the
middle or upper class. The need is most acute where the ability to achieve confidentiality is
minimal, on the interface between the law enforcement weapons of society and the individuals
accused of the crime73.
As important as it is for people to tell the courts to protect their right to privacy, it is
hard to defend that right, and it is ample evidence that there is a real need for privacy as well as
a basic and social need. The goal of any common political ideology should be the freedom of all
human beings. Psychologically, we want all people to experience a sense of freedom.
Undoubtedly, people should be able to free themselves from thoughts and feelings that give
them trouble and upset their relationships with others, which in many cases confuse and harm
institutions. Children should be allowed to disclose their problems safely to school staff, their
inner world workers to each other, and their bosses, and family members to each other. People
need to confess or tell others the pieces and fragments of their private lives. But if the raising
need to disclose, there is also a need to defend and prevent.74The pursuit of privacy is the
instinct of all human beings. In a real sense, privacy is a natural requirement of an individual to
maintain personal territories with almost complete solitude.

Privacy is fundamental for who we are as people, and we settle on choices about it
consistently.“It provides a place to be without judgment, permits us to think unreservedly
without separation, and is a significant component in giving us authority over who thinks about
us”. We can understand its importance with the help of private functions. Professor Alan F.

72
S.K Sharma, “Privcay Law-A Comparative Study”4,Atlantic Publishers & Distributors, New Delhi, 1994
73
Lbidp 25
74
S.K.Sharma,“Privcay Law-A Comparative Study” 6, Atlantic Publishers & Distributors, New Delhi,1994
Westin75 divided the functions of privacy under the following four heads:

2.10 Concept of Personal Autonomy in Privacy Right

Privacy is a guarantee of a person’s “moral autonomy”, a key worth in a “popularity-
based arrangement” of govt. “Privacy can be characterized as the option to control physical
existence and information system. The two rights are firmly identified with the rule of regard
for people”. Both should be rethought considering changing mechanical and social settings.
Privacy, the person’s control and control of the person’s expansion in the form of information,
is based on “man’s claim to human dignity”. Data about an individual is an augmentation of
self-interest and can be communicated to or stopped in a way that suits him. Even when a
person discloses individual data to get certain advantages, like credit or protection, or to win a
claim, the person has a personal stake in keeping up authority over data outside of the first
exposure and specifically has the option to choose whether or not Should be conveyed to the
gatherings.76

Privacy is abused without affecting “a person's moral autonomy or self-image”.

Changing one's self-perception against one's own will hurts one's reputation. If we were to be
“able to control a person's behavior or keep him under surveillance” (albeit in a distributed
welfare system), we would, indeed, lessen his duty as an ethical specialist by settling on a free
decision. These limits open alternatives for people to relate to others, “their physical mobility
and their self-vision”. 77

The most serious threat to a person's autonomy is that a person can enter the inner zone
and learn its ultimate secrets, physically or mentally. The intentional intrusion of a person’s
defensive shell, his psychological reinforcement, will leave him bare for mocking and disgrace
and hold him heavily influenced by the individuals who know his insider facts. Autonomy
protected by privacy is also important for the improvement of uniqueness and cognizance
throughout everyday life. This advancement of personality is particularly significant in a vote-

75
Prof. Alan F. Westin, Privacy and Freedom, available at jstor.org/stable/40708684?seq=1, visited on
04/06/2021at09:20AM
76
S.K .Sharma,“Privcay Law-A Comparative Study” 3, Atlantic Publishers & Distributors, New Delhi,1994
77
Id at 211
based society because the characteristic so f autonomous intuition, variety of assessment, and
contradiction are viewed as attractive attributes of people. 78

The right to personal autonomy means that a person has the freedom to make his own
decisions. No one has the right to interfere in a person's personal decision. “Personal autonomy”
includes the “freedom to choose or not to choose” any friend, partner, education, sexual
orientation, gender, religion, the exercise of reproductive rights, medical treatment, etc.

Restrictions or prohibitions on one's right to marry are unconstitutional. “Under Article

21 of the Indian Constitution”, marriage is parcel of personal autonomy. 79Same-sex marriages
also part of a person's right to personal autonomy. Sexual intercourse, between two adults
within formed consent in their private place, does not affect any moral or public interest. It is a
completely personal matter. The state or society has nothing to do with this In S.Khusboov.
Kanniammal,80 the Supreme Court accepted that a live-in-relationship comes in the free
expression of a person. It is a part of one's autonomy. Any persecution of a person's statements
in favor of a live-in relationship is unconstitutional, as it violates a person's freedom of speech
and expression.
2.11 Concept of Restricted and Secure Communication
The ultimate role of privacy is limited and safe communication, which gives a person
the chances necessary to share loyalty and intimacy with the people they can trust. Everyone
wants to keep their spouse, family, friends, and business secrets private. Its foundation is
utilitarian philosophy. This is founded on the idea that it is essential for the administration of
justice.

In real life between mature individuals, depending on the complementary relationships

between them, “all communication is partial and limited”.“Limited communication is especially
important in urban life”. There are two general aspects to this act of privacy. First, it provides
the person with the need to share trust with a trusted spouse, “family”, “personal friends, and

78
Deepak Kumar & Gaurav Goyal, “The Right to Privacy in India: Concept and Evolution”,43 Partridge: A
Penguin Random House Company, 2016
79
Deepak Kumar & Gaurav Goyal,“The Right to Privacy in India : Concept and Evolution”,32 Partridge: A
Penguin Random House Company,2016
80
Alan Bradley, The grane’s fine and private place, available at https:// www. goodreads.com/book/show/3359609-
the-grave-s-a-fine-and-private-place, visited on 15/06/2019 at03:25PM
close colleagues at work”. The person makes the declaration because he is aware that a lack of
confidence is against social standards in a society that values civility. To preserve the freedom
of restricted communication, relationships with doctors, lawyers, ministers, psychiatrists, and
others are afforded different but significant degrees of legal privilege from obligatory
declarations. Privileges granted to religious confession are well known in local societies, but the
need for confession is so common that institutionalization of their choice in psychiatric and
counseling services without religious commitment.

"Privacy through limited communication establishes the essential boundaries of mental

distance in interpersonal interactions, from the most intimate to the formal, formal, and public,"
states the second general feature of privacy. In a marriage, for instance, couples must keep
islands of privacy between their intimacy if they want to preserve savings respect, and
confidentiality in the relationship. These aspects of reserved communication "range from minor
issues to financial management, individual habits and extracurricular activities, to serious levels
of past experiences and innermost secrets of personality."

Professor Westin adds that using privacy to accomplish one's own "objective of self-
realization". In this way, it is only a little part of the erratic and fluid arrangement of a person's
social requirements, how he modifies his impassioned example to the person, and the social
advancements he encounters in daily life. People require friendship and publicity on a par with
their private needs”. Being able to travel in privacy when one wants to is just as uncomfortable
as wanting privacy but not being permitted there. The cultural norms of society, a person's
standing, and their current condition of affairs will all have an impact on how efficiently
privacy and disclosure are balanced.

As Westin said, it’s hard to add anything more to a detailed description of privacy
functions. However, its full description is predicted in civilized social life. He has not thought
about the role of privacy in transforming natural society in to a civilized one. Culture, itself is a
progression towards society of secrecy. Functional endorsement of privacy “as a human right is
a human right to” be protected from feelings of anxiety, humiliation, shame, humiliation,
discomfort, resentment, shame, and guilt. It protects the ideas of morality and etiquette.