New Delhi: What is considered a violation of a person’s right to privacy? According to some recent legal arguments, this includes courts demanding details of hotel bills and call records for divorce cases, strip-searching of bomb blast accused, identity proof by authorities.
Claims by litigants of their “right to privacy” have grown manifold since the 2017 Supreme Court judgment in the Puttaswamy Aadhaar case. In this historic verdictThe court established privacy as a fundamental right, essential to the dignity, autonomy and liberty of an individual.
Subsequently, cases centering on privacy often involve complex considerations of public policy, individual rights, and even the national interest or social welfare. Significantly, the right to privacy is also its axis. data protection bill It is likely to be presented before Parliament in the upcoming monsoon session.
According to legal experts, the courts have become more proactive in protecting the privacy of individuals in various matters.
“The Puttaswamy judgment has brought about a paradigm shift in the way matters relating to personal privacy are decided. It has brought a new consciousness to protect individual dignity and rights,” Supreme Court lawyer Swarnendu Chatterjee told ThePrint.
“In matrimonial, criminal or other matters, the courts are now more proactive in protecting the privacy of the litigants in a judicious manner, which I would say is a welcome development,” he added.
Here are some cases that show how different aspects of the right to privacy have been applied and how the courts have responded.
Read also: ‘Right to be forgotten’ gains momentum in India, High Courts consider multiple petitions
personal wrong vs public wrong
There has been a sea change in how litigants are seeking protection of their right to privacy from the judiciary.
This can be seen in a case that came to the Supreme Court, where a husband appealed against a Delhi High Court order that allowed his wife access to his phone records and hotel bills to prove that Was that he was having an affair.
The husband has argued that since adultery is a private wrong and not a crime or a public offence, access to his call records and hotel bills, as sought by his wife, would violate his right to privacy. It has also been argued that access to such records can be justified only if it is in the national interest.
Earlier this month, a Supreme Court bench hearing the case sent a notice to the man’s wife and asked her to respond.
Speaking to ThePrint, senior advocate Geeta Luthra said that while privacy concerns are important, a person’s right to prove his or her case must also be considered.
“In a misdemeanor between private parties involving call records and DNA, one should have the right to prove his innocence or to defend himself. In my view, the right to prove one’s case must co-exist with the right to privacy,” Luthra said.
“Though the Hon’ble Supreme Court has largely decided against it, but in some cases I do not quite agree with the Court’s approach. “A balance is needed – the concerns of one must be balanced against the concerns of many,” he said.
He further said, “It must be remembered that there is no right to privacy among individuals, it is only against the state.”
‘Strip-search inmate violates right to privacy’
Courts have applied the principle of right to privacy equally to all individuals, even if they are on the wrong side of the law.
This is evident in the case of Ahmed Kamal Shaikh, an accused in the 1993 Bombay blasts, who claimed that he was “strip-searched” at the entrance of a Mumbai jail after a court hearing.
Taking legal recourse, they complained that the exercise, which is carried out to search for weapons or other prohibited items, violated their right to privacy.
In an order passed this April, the special judge under the Maharashtra Control of Organized Crime Act (MCOCA) agreed with Shaikh that such searches violated his right to privacy.
“Definitely, strip-searching the UTP (undertrial prisoner) is violative of his fundamental right to privacy, humiliating as well,” the judge said.
He also asked the Jail Superintendent to ensure that no such incident takes place and instead of strip-searching, use gadgets like scanners.
‘Above 10 Offenders’, and protection from ‘reproach’
The Allahabad High Court ruled in 2021 that the Uttar Pradesh Police’s practice of publishing a list of alleged “top 10 criminals” in the absence of legal promulgation was prejudicial to dignity and a violation of the right to privacy.
The court’s decision was based on a petition filed by three people – Zeeshan, Balveer and Dudh Nath – who were aggrieved by the publication of their names in such a list. The people argued that they were facing only one case and their names were included in the list due to political enmity. He also claimed that his privacy was violated by publishing such a list.
Finding merit in their argument, the court said that privacy rights protected one from indiscriminate exercise of the right. It further stated that the publication of their names on “flysheet boards” at police stations was derogatory to their human dignity and privacy.
The court had said, “This judgment focusing on one aspect of privacy in the form of the right to life, has alienated an individual from the exercise of a right by law or the state so as not to make an individual subject to ridicule or scorn.” Can go.” Instructing the police not to put up such lists until a statutory proclamation is issued.
not go for ‘regular attack’
Even in cases involving police verification of personal documents, courts have emphasized the need to be consistent with privacy rights.
This became evident when Justice Asha Menon of the Delhi High Court dismissed a petition seeking police verification of personal documents of a defendant in July last year.
After an altercation, the petitioner had sought the assistance of the police in verifying the true identity of the respondent through personal documents such as Aadhaar card and driver’s license.
However, the judge did not agree with this argument, saying that such a “routine invasion” was unacceptable.
“Subjecting a citizen along with his documents to the police investigation without any good reason, except on the whimsical demand of the petitioner, would amount to a grave violation of the respondent’s right to privacy,” the order said.
right to be forgotten
Indian courts have also recognized it after the privacy decision “The Right to Be Forgotten”. It provides for the right to have personal information deleted in certain circumstances.
With this as a guiding principle, courts have sometimes attempted to find a way around “digital permanence” – the idea that what’s on the Internet stays on the Internet.
For example, in June The Delhi High Court directed a legal website to “hide” the name of a man who was acquitted in a rape case after the prosecutor’s testimony was found to be unreliable.
The man had approached the High Court for help, claiming he was “extremely pained” as the verdict went online.
He argued that his name has been maligned in the said case and that his right to privacy includes the “right to be forgotten”.
Justice Pratibha Singh of the Delhi High Court concurred and directed that her name should be hidden on the website. He also directed the website to file its policy on right to be forgotten.
(Edited by Asawari Singh)