ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWXYZAA
1
ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
2
JUDICIAL FORUMCASE NAMECASE DETAILSBENCH ASPECTS OF PRIVACYIMPORTANT QUOTESNOTES
3
Allahabad High CourtRajiv Kumar vs. State of U.P. and Ors.Decision Date - 11.03.2019
Citation - 2019 (4) ADJ 316, MANU/UP/1164/2019
Case Type - Civil Misc. Writ Petition
Case Status - Disposed
Legal Provisions - S. 452, 323, 504, 506 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.
S. 3(1)(10) of The Scheduled Castes and Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989
1Dignity, Informational Privacy"The right of privacy of a child would be meaningful if such prosecution is not made part of public discourse as a criteria for appointment to public posts or admission to any institution of learning or for that matter any other transaction in life. ... Similarly, the right to privacy in the context of a child would include his right to deny information relating to his prosecution as a child under the Juvenile Justice Act and for offences which do not come in the category of heinous offences under the said Act."Right to privacy of a child would include the right to deny information relating to his prosecution as a child for offences not falling in the category of heinous offences.
4
Allahabad High CourtAnant Narayan Mishra vs. Union of India and Ors.Decision Date - 02.12. 2019
Citation - (2020) ILR 1 All 598, MANU/UP/4662/2019
Case Type - Civil Misc. Writ Petition
Case Status - Disposed
Legal Provisions - Article 21 of the Indian Constitution, 1950
1Dignity "The essence of proportionality is that, the competent authority while imposing a punishment upon a delinquent student, has to co-relate and balance the imperatives of institutional discipline with the demands of individual rights. Too light a punishment will not be conducive to institutional discipline. Too harsh a punishment will not be consistent with norms of justice.

The suspension of the petitioner from the university, for an undefined or indefinite period, is an action of extreme severity. It is a de-facto expulsion from the university. These actions carry drastic penal consequences for the students. Denial of education to a soul, in quest of knowledge is the severest form of restriction. Moreover, the instigatory role of the Professor Y in causing the incident, has not been factored into the decision.

The measures undertaken against the petitioner, are not rationally connected to the fulfillment of the purpose sought to be achieved. The proper and designated purpose of a punishment in a university, has to include reform of the student, not mere imposition of penalty. Clearly there are alternative reformative measures, that can achieve the same purpose, with a lesser degree of curtailment of the students rights.

The impugned action fails the test of proportionality."
Right to human dignity includes privacy under Art. 21 of the Constitution of India, 1950.
5
Allahabad High CourtIn-Re Banners Placed On Road Side in The City of Lucknow vs. State of U.P.Decision Date - 09.03.2020
Citation - 2020 (5) ALJ 609, MANU/UP/0676/2020
Case Type - Public Interest Litigation
Case Status - Disposed
Legal Provisions - Article 21 of the Constitution of India, 1950
2Informational Privacy "The legitimate goal as held by the Supreme Court in the case of K.S. Puttaswamy (supra) ... must be necessary for a democratic society for a legitimate aim."Right to privacy is violated by road side display of banners containing photographs, names and addresses of persons accused of vandalism
6
Allahabad High CourtRam Charan Jatav vs. State of U.P.Decision Date - 30.04.2020
Citation - 2021 (1) ALJ 632, MANU/UP/0933/2020
Case Type - Criminal Appeal
Case Status - Disposed
Legal Provisions - S. 18, 20 and 42 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985
1Surveillance, Search and Seizure "In K.S. Puttaswamy v Union of India, it has been remarked that right to privacy is a fundamental right and is not lost in public places, but attaches to the person."Right to privacy is violated if the formal legal procedure of search and seizure is not followed.
7
Allahabad High CourtKishan Paswan vs. Union of India and Ors.Decision Date - 22.10.2020
Citation - 2021 (1) ALJ 588, MANU/UP/2197/2020
Case Type - Civil Misc. Writ Petition
Case Status - Disposed
Legal Provisions - S. 19 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and
Protection of Children) Act, 2000. S. 24, 74 and 99 of the Juvenile
Justice (Care and Protection of
Children) Act, 2015.
Rule 14 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Model
Rules, 2016
1Dignity, Informational Privacy"The requirement to disclose details of criminal prosecutions faced as a juvenile is violative of the right to privacy and the right to reputation of a child guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. It also denudes the child of the protection assured by the Juvenile Justice Act, 2000 (as amended from time to time). Hence the employer cannot ask any candidate to disclose details of criminal prosecution faced as a juvenile."The requirement to disclose details of criminal prosecutions faced as a juvenile is violative of the right to privacy and the right to reputation of a child guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.
8
Allahabad High CourtSalamat Ansari and Ors. vs. State of U.P. and Ors.Decision Date - 11.11.2020
Citation - 2021 (1) ALJ 453, MANU/UP/2029/2020
Case Type - Criminal Misc. Writ Petition
Case Status - Disposed
Legal Provisions - S. 363, 366, 352, 506 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.
S. 7 and 8 of The Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012
2Autonomy"Right to choose a partner irrespective of caste, creed or religion, is inhered under right to life and personal liberty, an integral part of the Fundamental Right under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. The Apex Court in KS Puttaswamy vs. Union of India while deciding the issue of right to privacy, held as under:-

"Privacy of the body entitles an individual to the integrity of the physical aspects of personhood. The intersection between one's mental integrity and privacy entitles the individual to freedom of thought, the freedom to believe in what is right, and the freedom of self-determination. When these guarantees intersect with gender, they create a private space which protects all those elements which are crucial to gender identity. The family, marriage, procreation and sexual orientation are all integral to the dignity of the individual. Above all, the privacy of the individual recognises an inviolable right to determine how freedom shall be exercised."

"An individual on attaining majority is statutorily conferred a right to choose a partner, which if denied would not only affect his/her human right but also his/her right to life and personal liberty, guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India."
An individual, after attaining majority, is entitled to the autonomy of choosing their partner, which is an aspect of right to privacy.
9
Allahabad High CourtSafiya Sultana and Ors. vs. State of U.P. and Ors.Decision Date - 12.01.2021
Citation - 2021 (2) ALJ 363, MANU/UP/0011/2021
Case Type - Habeas Corpus
Case Status - Disposed
Legal Provisions - S. 5, 6, 7 and 46 of Special Marriage Act, 1954.
Uttar Pradesh Prohibition of Unlawful Conversion of Religion
Ordinance, 2020
1Informational Privacy"The interpretation of Sections 6 and 7 read with Section 46 containing the procedure of publication of notice and inviting objections to the intended marriage in Act of 1954 thus has to be such that would uphold the fundamental rights and not violate the same. In case the same on their simplistic reading are held mandatory, as per the law declared today, they would invade in the fundamental rights of liberty and privacy, including within its sphere freedom to choose for marriage without interference from state and non-state actors, of the persons concerned."Provision of mandatory public notice under the Special Marriage Act, 1954 is an invasion of the right to privacy.
10
Allahabad High CourtAnuj Kumar vs. State of U.P. and Ors. Decision Date - 30.04.2021
Citation - MANU/UP/0591/2021
Case Type - Writ Petition
Case Status - Disposed
Legal Provision - S. 74, Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015
1Dignity, Informational Privacy"The requirement to disclose details of criminal prosecutions faced as a juvenile is violative of the right to privacy and the right to reputation of a child guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. It also denudes the child of the protection assured by the Juvenile Justice Act, 2000 (as amended from time to time). Hence the employer cannot ask any candidate to disclose details of criminal prosecution faced as a juvenile."Right to privacy of a child to include the right to deny information relating to his prosecution as a child for a heinous crime.
11
Allahabad High CourtGuruvinder Singh vs. State of U.P. and Ors.Decision Date - 04.10.2021
Citation - MANU/UP/1855/2021
Case Type - Bail Order
Case Status - Disposed
Legal Provisions - S. 354 and 509 of Indian Penal Code, 1860. S 161 and 164 of CrPC, 1973
1Dignity, Bodily Integrity "It would be appropriate to observe that the sexually explicit images or videos may be made by a partner of an intimate relationship with the knowledge and consent of the subject, or it may be made without his or her knowledge, however, the same if used as a form of revenge or harassment would definitely distort/damage the dignity of concerned and the Court in such type of cases cannot close its eyes and being parens patriae and protector of fundamental rights, the Court should come forward to protect the right of the subject and similarly the Court should stringently deal with the person concerned."Sharing sexually explicit images or videos made with consent, for the purpose of revenge or harrassment, violates the privacy and dignity of an individual.
12
Allahabad High CourtSaumya Tiwari vs. State of U.P. and Ors.Decision Date - 16.12.2021
Citation - (2022) 1 All LJ 732
Case Type - Writ Petition (Civil)
Case Status - Disposed
Legal Provisions - Article 14, 15, 16, 19, 21 of the Constitution of India,1950.
S. 29 of Uttar Pradesh Technical University Act, 2000
1Dignity
"The need to ameliorate the constraints imposed by pregnancy and its aftermath and to dignify motherhood by providing institutional support systems for expectant mothers and new mothers is an imperative command of law. The respondent University has to implement the fundamental rights of the petitioner vested by the aforesaid pronouncements of law made by constitutional courts."
Disallowing a woman to appear for exams due to pregnancy violates her right to live with dignity and privacy. Providing prenatal and postnatal support, and other maternity benefits to students is a statutory function of the university.
13
Allahabad High CourtMohan Singh vs. State of U.P. and Ors.Decision Date - 06.08.2022
Citation - MANU/UP/2039/2022
Case Type - Criminal appeal
Case Status - Disposed
Legal provision - S. 75, 233 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. S. 302 of the Indian Penal Code 1860
1Bodily Integrity"While making such observation, this Court is mindful of the fact that DNA test is not to be directed as a matter of routine and in only deserving cases where strong prima facie case is made out, such direction may be given. Since the life of the applicant is stake as he is accused of offence under Section 302 IPC, it is must to ascertain and test the truthfulness of the prosecution case.

Considering the facts and circumstances in entirety, this Court is of the opinion that to arrive at just decision of the case and to avoid any suspicion or doubt in the prosecution case, it would be in the interest of justice that DNA test may be conducted and thus the learned Court below has committed an illegallity in passing the impugned order, therefore the same is liable to be set aside."
The right to privacy is taken into consideration while ordering for a DNA test only if the test is being ordered to establish paternity or similar relationship. However, if a person has sought for a DNA test to prove his innocence then it would not be violative of their right to privacy.
14
ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
15
JUDICIAL FORUMCASE NAMECASE DETAILSBENCHASPECTS OF PRIVACYIMPORTANT QUOTESNOTES
16
Andhra Pradesh High CourtGujjula Sreenu vs. CID, Chittoor and Ors.Decision Date - 21.09.2020
Citation - MANU/AP/0671/2020
Case Type - Writ Petition
Case Status - Disposed
Legal Provisions - S. 77-79, 91-94 of CrPC, 1973. Article 20 and 21 of the Constitution of India, 1950
1Surveillance, Search and Seizure "The Apex Court in its judgment in Justice K.S. Puttaswamy vs. Union of India, while holding that the right to privacy is protected as an intrinsic part of the right to life and personal liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution, overruled the decision in M.P. Sharma vs. Satish Chandra (supra), to the extent of its holding that the right to privacy was not protected by the Constitution. Sans that, the other part of the decision in MP. Sharma's case (supra), to the effect that searches and seizures do not offend the fundamental right under Article 20 was not disturbed. It is also to be noted that in Justice K.S. Puttaswamy vs. Union of India (supra), the Apex Court has not specifically held that the searches and seizures will in any way offend the right of privacy enshrined under Article 21."Lawful search and seizure is not violative of the right to privacy.
17
Andhra Pradesh High Court
Podili Siva Murali and Ors. vs. State of Andhra Pradesh and Ors.
Decision Date - 08.10.2021
Citation - (2021) 6 ALT 128,
MANU/AP/1168/2021
Case Type - Writ Petition
Case Status - Disposed
Legal Provisions - Article 14, 15, 21 of the Indian Constitution, 1950. S. 6 of the Registration Act, 1908. S. 2(b) of the Andhra Pradesh Assigned Lands (Prohibition Of Transfers) Act, 1977. S. 184 of the Andhra Pradesh Municipalities Act, 1965
1Dignity"As the limited site is allotted to the eligible women household, right of privacy shall be taken into consideration since the house is meant for living with family to lead matrimonial life. The Apex Court declared right to privacy as a fundamental right in “Justice K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India (UOI)76” and “Bibhuti Bhusan Chakraborty v. Deputy Registrar”.

"In view of the law laid down by the Supreme Court, it is the duty of the State to protect the privacy to lead marital life by a couple in a small house with grownup children and elders in the family. Hardly, there will not be any space to move freely in the house either to the children or to the elder people, who required some assistance at the old age."
The right to privacy should be considered a necessary factor while designing housing policies to ensure the sanctity of marital life.
18
Andhra Pradesh High CourtPetchetti Kondaiah vs. State of Andhra PradeshDecision Date - 09.10.2022
Citation - MANU/AP/1519/2022
Case Type - Writ Petition
Case Status - Disposed
Legal provision - S. 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1908
1Informational Privacy, Surveillance, Search and Seizure "The legal validity of Chapter-37 of the said A.P. Police Manual or A.P. Police Standing Orders, on the basis of which the said rowdysheets/suspect sheets/history sheets are being opened, has been questioned and challenged before this Court in W.P. No. 3568 of 2022 and batch. This court, by its common order, dated 15.07.2022, passed in the above batch of writ petitions, after considering the law on the issue elaborately with reference to the earlier judgments rendered by the Apex Court and, more particularly, with reference to the Constitution Bench judgment of the Apex Court rendered in the case of K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India , held that Chapter-37 of the A.P. Police Manual or A.P. Police Standing Orders on the basis of which the rowdy-sheets/ suspect-sheets/ history-sheets are being opened and surveillance is being kept on the individuals on the basis of the said rowdy-sheets/suspect sheets/history-sheets, as void."The maintenance of rowdy sheets, suspect sheets and history sheets by the police should be in conformity with the right to privacy.
19
Andhra Pradesh High CourtState of Andhra Pradesh, Rep by its Principal Secretary and Ors., vs. Udathu Suresh Order Date - 12.09.2022
Citation - I.A. NO. 1 OF 2002 in WRIT APPEAL NO. 674 of 2022
Case Type - Writ Petition
Case Status - Dismissed
Legal provisions - S. 21, S.9 of A.P. (Andhra Area) District Police Act, 1859. Article 21 of the Consitution of India, 1950.
2Informational Privacy, Surveillance, Search and Seizure "It is no doubt true that, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in K.S. Puttaswamy's [cited 1st supra], held that right to privacy is a fundamental right guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. But, learned Government Pleader for Home, mainly submits that the issue in K.S. Puttaswamy's [cited 1st supra], was totally different. It was a case where an individual was asked to furnish details for the purpose of issuing Aadhar Cards, and under those circumstances, the Court dealt with right of privacy. According to him, the case on hand relates to suspects/accused against whom rowdy sheets are opened for regulating the crime. This argument of learned Government Pleader, in our view, cannot be brushed aside at this stage and the same requires adjudication at length. Therefore, merely because a rowdy sheet is opened against an individual, prima facie, can it be said that it invades his privacy thereby violating Article 21 of the Constitution of India?

Having regard to the prima facie findings, arrived at by us, in the preceding paragraphs, the Order of the learned Single Judge in declaring the Standing Orders of A.P. Police Manual/A.P. Police Standing Orders to the extent of opening/continuation of rowdy sheets/history sheets/suspect sheets and the surveillance of an individual [in terms of Chapter 37 of the above said Standing Orders] as void, is hereby suspended. However, the rowdy sheets/history sheets/suspect sheets, which are closed pursuant to the Orders of the learned Single Judge, shall not be reopened until further orders."
The maintenance of history sheets/rowdy sheets by the police does not violate the right to privacy of individuals and can be used to surveil suspicious persons. The court suspended a previous order of a single judge bench that directed the closure of history sheets/rowdy sheets on the basis of privacy concerns.
20
Andhra Pradesh High CourtBaddila Reddy Swami Naidu vs. B. Neelavathi and Ors.Decision Date - 22.11.2022
Citation - MANU/AP/2300/2022
Case Type - Criminal Revision Case (Maintenance under S. 125 of CrPC
Case Status - Dismissed
Legal provision - S. 391, 397, 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. Article 21 of the Constitution of India.
1Bodily Integrity "Since the petitioner has denied his relationship with the respondents, the only alternative available to them is to prove the said relationship is through scientific examination as held in Kadhavarapu Prashu Ram v. Shaik Janibhee and others. Thus, in order to arrive at justice decision and to safeguard the interest of the 2nd respondent and to protect him from adverse consequences, there is eminent need to refer the petitioner and the 2nd respondent to scientific examination. It is also pertinent here to note that the petitioner in his cross examination expressed no objection for subjecting himself to the DNA test..."DNA test ordered by the court to determine paternity of a child does not violate the right to privacy of the parties.
21
BOMBAY HIGH COURT
22
JUDICIAL FORUMCASE NAMECASE DETAILSBENCHASPECTS OF PRIVACYIMPORTANT QUOTESNOTES
23
Bombay High Court (Aurangabad Bench)Shantaram vs. The State of Maharashtra and Ors. Decision Date - 31.01.2019
Citation - 2019 (2) ALLMR 375, MANU/MH/0154/2019
Case Type - Writ Petition
Case Status - Disposed
Legal Provisions - Rule 41 of the Agricultural Produce Market Committee Rules, 1966.
S. 8 of the Representation of People's Act, 1951
2Dignity, Informational Privacy"... In view of the right of privacy, which arises out of Article 21 of the Constitution of India and in view of the policy accepted by the Parliament, which can be seen in Representation of Peoples Act, 1951, it can be said that we have to presume that the period must be reasonable period if such period is not mentioned in the regulations and rules made by the State Government for the purpose of disqualification or eligibility to contest the elections."

"After undergoing the sentence, it can be said that the convict has right to say that he needs to be allowed to forget the past and he needs to be allowed to make new beginning. The others also cannot be allowed to harass him and to deprive him of aforesaid rights and the previous conviction cannot be allowed to haunt him for the remaining period of his life. It is learnt that a Commission headed by Justice B.N. Shrikrishna, Former Hon'ble Judge of Supreme Court, is appointed to prepare a draft of personal Data Protection Bill, 2018, which will protect right to privacy and steps are likely to be taken to see that the data of criminal activity of a person is erased after particular period from the relevant records of the agencies. It will be proper step on the part of the State to take such steps in view of the right of privacy of such persons."
Right to privacy requires that persons who have served a legal sentence should come out of disqualification from contesting elections after a reasonable period of time.
24
Bombay High CourtXYZ vs. Union of India and Ors.Decision Date - 03.04.2019
Citation - 2019 (5) ALLMR 531, MANU/MH/0565/2019
Case Type - Writ Petition
Case Status - Disposed
Legal Provisions - S. 3(2)(b), 4 and 5 of Medical Termination of Pregnancy Act, 1971
2Autonomy, Bodily Integrity"It is important to recognize that reproductive choices can be exercised to procreate as well as to abstain from procreating. The crucial consideration is that a woman's right to privacy, dignity and bodily integrity should be respected. This means that there should be no restriction whatsoever on the exercise of reproductive choices such as a woman's right to refuse participation in sexual activity or alternatively the insistence on use of contraceptive methods. Furthermore, women are also free to choose birth control methods such as undergoing sterilisation procedures. Taken to their logical conclusion, reproductive rights include a woman's entitlement to carry a pregnancy to its full term, to give birth and to subsequently raise children. ... Therefore, in a situation where the continuance of pregnancy poses grave injury to the physical or mental health of the mother or in a situation where there is substantial risk that if the child were born, would suffer from deformities and diseases, the pregnant mother is forced to continue with her pregnancy merely because the pregnancy has extended beyond the ceiling of 20 weeks, there would arise a serious affront to the fundamental right of such mother to privacy, to exercise a reproductive choices, to bodily integrity, to her dignity."Right to make reproductive choices and terminate pregnancy is part of women's right to privacy.
25
Bombay High CourtVinit Kumar vs. CBI and Ors.Decision Date - 22.10.2019
Citation - 2019 ALLMR (Cri) 5227, MANU/MH/2931/2019
Case Type - Writ Petition
Case Status - Disposed
Legal Provisions - S. 5(2) of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885
2Search and Seizure, Surveillance, Phone Tapping "The proposition that illegal tapping of telephone conversation violates right to
privacy is now accepted and reinforced as guaranteed fundamental right under Article
21 of the Constitution of India, by a nine Judge Constitution Benchdecision in K.S. Puttaswamy versus Union of India."
Illegal phone tapping is violative of the right to privacy.
26
Bombay High Court (Aurangabad Bench)Dnyaneshwar vs. The State of Maharashtra and Ors.Decision Date - 29.11.2019
Citation - 2020 ALLMR (Cri) 2718, MANU/MH/3334/2019
Case Type - Writ Petition (Crl.)
Case Status - Disposed
Legal Provisions - S. 161 of the Maharashtra Police Act, 1951.
S.165 of CrPC, 1973
2Surveillance, Search and Seizure "... as police officers entered the house that too in night time when he
was sleeping with his family which included two ladies and the issues, this Court
holds that it was intrusion into privacy. If such act is done illegally without following
the procedure which is contemplated in Article 21 of the Constitution of India, the
consequences follow. In such a case, there cannot be defence that it was a mistake
on the part of the police officers."
Illegal house searches at night are violative of the right to privacy.
27
Bombay High Court (Goa Bench)Tarunjit Tejpal vs. State of GoaDecision Date - 24.11.2021
Citation - MANU/MH/3984/2021
Case Type - Criminal Misc. Petition
Case Status - Disposed
Legal Provisions - S. 327(2) of CrPC, 1973. Article 21 of the Constitution of India, 1950
2Informational Privacy"There is no embargo or restriction on the applicant to argue his case freely nor his right to argue his case can be curtailed. In proceedings such as these i.e. rape cases in general, it is expected that all parties conduct themselves with dignity, sobriety and some sensitivity that is required, particularly, whilst reading evidence pertaining to intimate details. This, we think is not too much to expect from the Advocates appearing for the respective parties. Maintaining decorum in the courtroom is not merely a superficial means of protecting the image of lawyers and judges - but it is absolutely essential to the administration of justice."Rejecting in-camera proceedings by the court would not violate the right to privacy and dignity of the applicant. Also, such rejection would not violate the right to defend oneself freely.
28
Bombay High Court (Goa Bench)C. Radhakrishnan vs Public Information Officer and OrsDecision Date - 08.09.2021
Citation - MANU/MH/4067/2021
Case Type - Writ Petition
Case Status - Dismissed
Legal Provisions - S. 8 (1) (j) of Right to Information Act, 2005
1Right to Know and Access Information "Insofar as R. Rajagopal alias R.R. Gopal (supra) is concerned, it is an admitted position that the said judgment was rendered before the aforesaid Act was enacted. A perusal of the same shows that when a question arises regarding information pertaining to public officials, the right to privacy may not be available where the information sought pertains to the acts and conduct of the public officials relevant to discharge of official duties."

"There cannot be any doubt about the fact that invasion of privacy has to be construed in the facts of each case and, in any case, when it is found that divulging of such information can be said to in larger public interest, the exemption under Section 8(1) (j) of the said Act, would not be available."
Disclosure of personal information pertaining to public officials may not tantamount to invasion of privacy if made in the interest of the public and relates to discharge of official duties.
29
Bombay High Court

Dhanlaxmi Chandu Devrukar vs. The Town Planning/Land Acquisition Officer and Ors.
Decision date - 18.02.2022
Citation - MANU/MH/0520/2022
Case Type - Intervention Application
Case Status - Disposed
Legal Provisions - Article 215 of the Constitution of India,1950. S. 15, 138, 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881
2Informational privacy"A Notary's Register contains sufficient sensitive and confidential information to enable identity theft/ misuse/ impersonation etc. This sensitive and confidential information, such as a party's biometric identifier merits protection."The court offered comments and suggestions to the draft Notaries (Amendment) Bill, 2021 and suggested that additional responsibilities must be cast on Notaries to ensure safe keeping and protection of the sensitive and confidential data with which they are entrusted with.
30
CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
31
JUDICIAL FORUMCASE NAMECASE DETAILSBENCHASPECTS OF PRIVACYIMPORTANT QUOTESNOTES
32
Calcutta High CourtMursaleen Mohammad vs. Union of IndiaDecision Date - 19.06.2018
Citation - 2018 CriLJ 4083, MANU/WB/0620/2018
Case Type - Criminal Appeal
Case Status - Disposed
Legal Provisions - S. 103 of the Customs Act, 1962.
S. 50 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985
2Bodily Integrity, Dignity "Procedure entailing recovery of Narcotics/contraband from the body of the suspect requires invasion into the physical body of the suspect and an encroachment into his privacy. Such exercise being invasive in nature must not only be in strict compliance of statutory safeguards as contemplated in Section 103 of the Customs Act but also must be in consonance to the dignity of the suspect and ought not involve any cruel, degrading or inhuman treatment lest such procedure runs fowl of Article 21 of the Constitution."Invasive recovery of narcotics/contraband from the body of accused amounting to breach of right to privacy.
33
Calcutta High CourtVineet Ruia and Ors. vs. Principal Secretary, Department of School Education and Ors.Decision Date - 13. 10. 2020
Citation - MANU/WB/0696/2020
Case Type - Writ Appeal
Case Status - Disposed
Legal Provisions - Articles 226, 30(1) and 14 of the Constitution of India, 1950
2Informational Privacy, Data Protection "As for privacy, every person is entitled to his accounts not being opened up to all and sundry unless mandated by law as in the case of public companies or some categories of trusts or societies. But the ordinary right of privacy is not so absolute as to deny a constitutional court the authority to assess whether a wholesome charge of unjust enrichment or profiteering is substantiated by calling for such accounts or by having the accounts evaluated by an expert. The rights as asserted under Articles 19 and 30(1) of the Constitution and even the right of privacy may be used as a shield against invasive instruments and blatantly intrusive acts of the State; they cannot be used as swords to parry a credible charge of profit-making in an educational institution, minority or otherwise, whether aided or unaided."The right to privacy includes protection of personal information like financial statements/accounts.
34
Calcutta High Court

The West Bengal College Service Commission and Ors. vs. Binay Krishna Pal and Ors.
Decision Date - 15.11.2021
Citation - MANU/WB/0806/2021
Case Type - Writ Appeal
Case Status - Dismissed
Legal Provisions - S. 8, 8 (1) and 10 of the Right to Information Act, 2005
2Right to Know and Access Information "That apart, the preamble of the RTI Act is its soul clearly spelling out the aims and objectives of the Act to provide a practical regime of the right to citizens to secure access to information under the control of public authorities in order to promote transparency and accountability in the working of every public authority. The Constitution of India has established a Democratic Republic. Democracy requires an informed citizenry and transparency of information which are vital to its functioning and also to contain corruption and to hold governments and their instrumentalities accountable to the governed"Disclosure of information under the control of public offices, if done in public interest, promotes transparency and accountability in a democracy.
35
Calcutta High CourtMahendra Kumar Jain vs. State of West BengalDecision Date - 29.09.2022
Citation - MANU/WB/1442/2022
Case Type - Writ Petition
Case Status - Disposed
Legal provisions - S. 8(1)(h) & 8(1)(j) of Right to Information Act, 2005
1Informational Privacy, Right to Know and Access Information"The significance of section 8(1)(j) which upholds the right to privacy and ultimately the reputation and dignity of an individual under Article 21 of the Constitution goes against the tide of a free flow of information and remains steadfast in holding on to the private space of an individual. The significance of this provision must not be forgotten or diluted under any circumstances (Ref. Subramanian Swamy vs. Union of India, Ministry of Law; (2016) 7 SCC 221).

29. In view of the above discussion WPA 18543 of 2022 is allowed and disposed of by directing the Police Authorities to immediately withdraw the entire series of photographs and WhatsApp messages between the deceased Rashika Jain and Abhishek Padia and treat the same as private information which falls within the clamp of section 8(1)(j) of The Right to Information Act. The authorities are to ensure that the WhatsApp messages and the photographs are not disclosed to any person or authority by way of an application under the Right to Information Act or otherwise."
Private communication between two individuals over WhatsApp is exempt from disclosure under the Right to Information (RTI) Act, Section 8(1)(j).
36
Calcutta High CourtAuup Kumar Maity vs. State of West Bengal and Anr.Decision Date - 22.09.2022
Citation - C.R.R 2039 of 2022
Case Type - Criminal Revision Petition
Case Status - Disposed
Legal provisions - S.125 of the Criminal Procedure Code
1Dignity, Autonomy"Keeping in mind the issue of burden of proof, it would be safe to conclude that in a case, like, the present one, the Court's decision should be rendered only after balancing the interests of the parties, i.e, the quest for truth, and the social and cultural implications involved therein. The possibility of stigmatizing a person as a bastard, the ignominy that attaches to an adult who, in the mature years of his life is shown to be not the biological son of his parents, may not only be a heavy cross to bear but would also intrude upon his right of privacy. No person can be compelled to provide a sample for DNA."One may face heavy consequences in light of the social and cultural implications from a DNA test that could deny parentage rights. Therefore, compelling a person to provide a sample for DNA test can be an intrusion upon their right to privacy.
37
Calcutta High CourtAkg vs. Ct. 238 St. Xavier's UniversityDecision Date - 15.09.2022
Citation - WPA 20837 of 2022
Case Type - Writ Petition
Case Status - Disposed
Legal provisions - Article 226 of The Constitution of India
1Informational Privacy"It cannot be denied that in the cases relating to sexual offences, the disclosure of the identity of the victim lady during the course of the trial may cause further victimization to her.
There also may be other facts and circumstances, which may justify non-disclosure of the identity of a litigant to maintain his privacy.

In the present case, the principal grievance of the petitioner relates to her resignation from the relevant post. It is a service matter. In my view no justification has been shown by the petitioner to proceed with this writ petition without disclosing her name."
Non-disclosure of identity of the victim in a litigation is a valid request, for example a litigation related to sexual misconduct. However, disclosure of identity of the parties in a litigation cannot be excused for service matter cases.
38
CHATTISGARH HIGH COURT
39
JUDICIAL FORUMCASE NAMECASE DETAILSBENCHASPECTS OF PRIVACYIMPORTANT QUOTESNOTES
40
Chattisgarh High CourtRanichand Baiga and Ors. vs. State of Chhattisgarh and Ors. Decision Date - 12.12.2018
Citation - MANU/CG/0554/2018
Case Type - Write Petition (PIL)
Case Status - Disposed
Legal Provisions - Article 21 of the Constitution of India, 1950
2Bodily Integrity, Dignity "A nine judges bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in K.S. Puttaswamy vs. Union of India, while recognising right to privacy as a fundamental right under Article 21 of the Constitution recognised a woman's right to make reasoned reproductive choices as an important facet of right to life and personal liberty under Article 21."The right to privacy, dignity, and bodily integrity includes women's right to make reproductive choices.
41
Chattisgarh High Court Shankar Verma vs. Vidya VermaDecision Date - 27.07.2022
Citation - MANU/CG/0687/2022
Case Type - Civil Appeal
Case Status - Disposed
Legal provisions - Article 21 of the Constitution Of India, 1950. S. 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955
2Bodily Integrity"In our view, when there is apparent conflict between the right to privacy of a person not to submit himself forcibly to medical examination and duty of the court to reach the truth, the court must exercise its discretion only after balancing the interests of the parties and on due consideration whether for a just decision in the matter, DNA test is eminently needed. DNA test in a matter relating to paternity of a child should not be directed by the court as a matter of course or in a routine manner, whenever such a request is made. The court has to consider diverse aspects including presumption under section 112 of the Evidence Act; pros and cons of such order and the test of 'eminent need' whether it is not possible for the court to reach the truth without use of such test."The Court must balance the interests of both parties, the petitioner and the child, and consider the test of ‘eminent need’ before ordering for a DNA test to determine the paternity of a child.
42
Chhattisgarh High CourtRam Sewak Jaiswal vs. State of ChattisgarhDecision Date - 10.10.2022
Citation - WPCR No. 797 of 2022
Case Type - Writ Petition
Case Status - Disposed
Legal provisions - Article 226 of the Constitution of India
1"The word "sensitive" apart from the other aspects which may be thought of being sensitive by the competent authority as stated hereinbefore would also include concept of privacy, regard being had to the nature of the FIR." When considering the sensitivity of cases, privacy of individuals must be taken into account, in addition to other factors.
43
DELHI HIGH COURT
44
JUDICIAL FORUMCASE NAMECASE DETAILSBENCHASPECTS OF PRIVACYIMPORTANT QUOTESNOTES
45
Delhi High CourtSangamitra Acharya and Ors. vs. State (NCT of Delhi) and Ors.Decision Date - 18.04.2018
Citation - 250 (2018) DLT 36, MANU/DE/1453/2018
Case Type - Writ Petition (Crl.)
Case Status - Disposed. Some SLP disposed of, some SLP pending.
Legal Provisions - S.19 of Mental Health Act, 1987
2Dignity"Protection against an attack on the right of life, liberty, privacy and dignity can be exercised not only against the State but also against non-State actors. .... The horizontal dimension of these rights enables an aggrieved person to invoke constitutional remedies to seek the protection and enforcement of such rights against invasion by a non-state actor."Protection against an attack on right of life, liberty, privacy and dignity can be sought against non-State actors.
46
Delhi High CourtRavinder vs. Govt of NCT of Delhi and Ors.Decision Date - 26.04.2018
Citation - 2018 (171) DRJ 346, MANU/DE/1548/2018
Case Type - Writ Petition (Crl.)
Case Status - Disposed. SLP Pending.
Legal Provisions - S. 23, 24 and 28 of Mental Health Act, 1987
2Autonomy, Dignity "It is time to abandon the earlier approach of using the mental health law to control or punish people whose behaviour is unacceptable but to view it as an instrument that facilitates care and treatment of the mentally ill in need of it, consistent with their rights to life, liberty, dignity, privacy and autonomy. The indiscriminate use of the mental health law has to stop. It is high time that we dismantled the penal custodial model of the mental health law."This case discusses the consequence of admission to mental health institution on life, liberty, privacy, freedom and dignity.
47
Delhi High CourtPrime Minister's National Relief Fund vs. Aseem TakyarDecision Date - 23.05.2018
Citation - MANU/DE/1960/2018
Case Type - Letter Patents Appeal (LPA)
Case Status - Disposed by Diviosn Bench. Referred to a third judge on account of divergence of opinions.
Legal Provisions - S. 8(1)(e) and (j) of the Right to Information Act, 2005
2Informational Privacy, Right to Know and Access Information"Once something becomes a matter of 'public record', the right of privacy ceases to exist."Once something becomes a matter of 'public record', the right of privacy ceases to exist.
48
Delhi High CourtSwami Ramdev vs. Juggernaut Books Pvt. Ltd. and Ors.Decision Date - 29.09.2018
Citation - MANU/DE/3565/2018
Case Type - Civil Misc. (Main)
Case Status - Disposed. SLP Pending.
Legal Provisions - S. 499 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.
Article 19(1)(a) and 21 of the Constitution of India, 1950
1Dignity, Informational Privacy ""Reputation" of one cannot be allowed to be crucified at the altar of the other's right of free speech. ... whatever may be of the interest to the public but has no element of public interest may amount to breach of privacy and an individual thus has a right to protection to protect his reputation from being unfairly harmed in relation thereto not only against false truth but also certain truths."The judgment discusses the right to privacy in publication of unauthorised biographies. Right to privacy includes the right to reputation and must be balanced with other rights.
49
Delhi High CourtHorlicks Ltd and Ors. vs. Heinz India Pvt. Ltd.Decision Date - 17.12.2018
Citation - 256 (2019) DLT 468, MANU/DE/4628/2018
Case Type - Civil Suit (Commercial)
Case Status - Disposed. Appeal pending before DB.
Legal Provisions - Chapter IV of Advertising Standards Council of India Code.
Article 19(1)(a), 19(2) and 21 of the Constitution of India, 1950
1Informational Privacy"The right of a person to claim privacy ... includes rights in relation to commercial use of identity of such person. However, the right to privacy cannot be asserted against information that is already in the public domain."The right to privacy cannot be claimed over information already available in the public domain.
50
Delhi High CourtSunil Sachdeva vs. Owner of domain name crj7.com and Ors.Decision Date - 13.11.2019
Citation -2019 (178) DRJ 246, MANU/DE/3836/2019
Case Type - Civil Suit (OS)
Case Status - Disposed.
Legal Provisions - S. 499 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860
1Dignity "The fundamental right of freedom of speech and expression is subject to reasonable restrictions in the interest of defamation." "No relief of restraining public at large from publishing, circulating the allegedly defamatory content can be granted in general and no relief with respect to similar content also, without adjudicating whether there is any similarity or not, can be granted."The judgment discusses the contours of the right to privacy against defamatory online posts.
51
Delhi High CourtSasikala Pushpa vs. Facebook India and Ors.Decision Date - 02.06.2020
Citation - MANU/DE/1143/2020
Case Type - Civil Suit (OS)
Case Status - Disposed.
Legal Provisions - S. 66A, 79 of the Information Technology Act, 2000. Rule 3 of the Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines) Rules, 2011
1Informational Privacy, Data Protection"This Court is required to balance the right claimed by the plaintiff of privacy qua whom she meets at her residence, has to be balanced with the right of the public to know the identity of the person whom the plaintiff meets and hobnobs with, behind closed doors."The judgment discusses the right to privacy in re photograph/video/audio messages. Right to privacy must be balanced with the right to know in cases of public interest.
52
Delhi High CourtDeepti Kapur vs. Kunal JulkaDecision Date - 30.06.2020
Citation - AIR 2020 Delhi 156, MANU/DE/1314/2020
Case Type - Civil Misc. (Main)
Case Status - Disposed.
Legal Provisions - S. 14, 20 of Family Courts Act, 1984.
S. 5, 7, 8 and 65B of Indian Evidence Act, 1872
1Search and Seizure, Surveillance, Phone Tapping "Merely because rules of evidence favour a liberal approach for admitting evidence in court in aid of dispensation of justice, this should not be taken as approval for everyone to adopt any illegal means to collect evidence, especially in relationships of confidence such as marriage. If the right to adduce evidence collected by surreptitious means in a marital or family relationship is available without any qualification or consequences, it could potentially create havoc in people's personal and family lives and thereby in the society at large."This judgment examines the admissibility of evidence collected in breach of privacy.
53
Delhi High CourtKrishna Kishore Singh vs. Sarla A. Saraogi and Ors Decision date - 10.06.2021
Citation - CS(COMM) 187/2021; MANU/DE/1056/2021
Case type - Civil Writ Jurisdiction
Case status - Disposed
Legal provisions - Article 21 of the Constitution of India, 1950
1Dignity, AutonomyOn this aspect, we must also note that in Puttaswamy (supra), wherein the right to privacy was declared to be a fundamental right on the anvil of Article 21 of the Constitution of India, the Supreme Court has reflected upon
personality rights also, and observed that:
"58. Every individual should have a right to be able to exercise control over his/her own life and image as portrayed to the world and to control commercial use of his/her identity. This also means that an individual may be permitted to prevent others from using his image, name and other aspects of his/her personal life and identity for commercial purposes without his/her consent."
Right to publicity or celebrity rights rests with that specific individual, and such rights cannot be enforced posthumously.
54
Delhi High CourtX vs. Union of India and OrsDecision date - 20.04.2021
Citation - 280 (2021) DLT 57,
MANU/DE/0767/2021
Case type - Criminal Misc. Writ Petition
Case status - Disposed
Legal provisions - S. 67, 67A, 67B, 67C, 75, 79, 81 and 85 of the Information Technology Act, 2000
1Dignity, Bodily Integrity"That apart, the inclusion of the name and/or likeness of a person on such website, even if the photograph of the person is not in itself obscene or offensive, without consent or concurrence, would at the very least amount to breach of the person's privacy, which a court may, in appropriate cases, injunct or restrain."The action of taking a person's photographs and posting them to another website without their consent is violative of a persons privacy.
55
Delhi High CourtDr. Sitanshi Sharma vs. Vandana Sharma and OrsDecision Date - 20.09.2021
Citation - MANU/DE/2470/2021
Case Type - Civil Misc. (Main)
Case Status - Dismissed
Legal Provisions - S. 26 of The Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005. S. 65B in The Indian Evidence Act, 1872
1Informational Privacy, Phone Tapping"Therefore, the Trial Court has rightly observed that the application filed by the petitioner is in the nature of a roving inquiry, which is not warranted in the present case. In the considered view of this Court, even if the contention of the petitioner is accepted that she is not seeking access to the said CDR through production thereof and the same are only for perusal of the Court at the time of trial, this would still amount to invasion of privacy of the respondent No. 3."The court held that Call Detail Records (CDR) which were collected/requested in contradiction to the Evidence Act, could not be preserved in response to the petitioners' roving query, as this would amount to a violation of the respondents' privacy.
56
Delhi High CourtSandeep Aggarwal vs. Priyanka AggarwalDecision Date - 24.12.2021
Case Citation - (2022) 286 DLT 39 (DB)
Case Type - Matrimonial Appeals
Case Status - Disposed
Legal Provisions - Article 20, 21 of the Constitution of India, 1950.
S. 12, 28 Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. S. 114 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872
2Bodily Integrity, Autonomy "The prime concern of the Court is to find out as to whether a person who is said to be mentally ill could defend himself properly or not. Determination of such an issue although may have some relevance with the determination of the issue in the lis, nonetheless, the Court cannot be said to be wholly powerless in this behalf. Furthermore, it is one thing to say that a person would be subjected to test which would invade his right of privacy and may in some case amount to battery; but it is another thing to say that a party may be asked to submit himself to a psychiatrist or a psychoanalyst so as to enable the Court to arrive at a just conclusion."A court order directing a medical evaluation of one of the parties to a marriage in a prima facie case of unsoundness of mind, mental disorder or insanity, under the Hindu Marriage Act would not be considered an invasion of privacy.
57
Delhi High CourtShahrukh vs. The State NCT of DelhiDecision Date - 22.03.2022
Citation - MANU/DE/0915/2022
Case Type - Criminal Misc. Case
Case Status - Disposed
Legal Provisions - Article 142, 20(3) of the Constitution of India, 1950. S. 120B, 34, 364A, 368 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. S. 173(8) of CrPC, 1973
1Surveillance, Search and Seizure"Furthur, in Ritesh Sinha it is rather stated fundamental right to privacy cannot be considered to be as absolute and but must bow down to compelling public interest. Thus, there appear to be no doubt upon the power of the learned Trial Court to allow an application seeking permission to get the voice sample of accused."When there is a compelling public interest, collecting voice samples of accused persons does not violate their right to privacy.
58
Delhi High CourtRIT Foundation and Ors. vs. The Union of India and Ors.Decision Date - 11.05.2022
Citation - MANU/DE/1638/2022
Case Type - Writ Petition (Civil)
Case Status - Disposed
Legal Provisions - Article 14, 15, 19 and 21 of the Constitution of India, 1950. Exception 2, S. 375 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860
2Bodily Integrity, Dignity"There is a sui generis entitlement, of the marital sphere, to its own privacy. This cannot be compromised. The contention of the petitioners that the impugned Exception unconstitutionally accords preference, to the privacy of the marital institution, over the privacy of the individuals involved (particularly the wife) does not, I am constrained to say, make sense, as the impugned Exception does not compromise, in any manner, with the "privacy of the individuals involved". It, on the other hand, advises against unwarranted judicial, or executive, incursions into the privacy of the marital bedroom and, in doing so, cannot, in my view, be regarded as sanctioning an unconstitutional dispensation."The court delivered a split verdict on the issue of constitutionality of the Marital Rape Exception (MRE) under the Indian Penal Code. The opinions differed over the status of consent and the potential violation of the autonomy of women in regards to MRE.
59
Delhi High CourtDelhi Sarkari Ration Dealers Sangh Delhi vs. Comissioner Food And Supplies Govt of NCT of DelhiDecision Date - 19.05.2022
Citation - MANU/DE/1759/2022
Case Type - Writ Petition (Civil)
Case Status - Disposed
Legal Provisions - Article 21, 47 of the Constitution of India, 1950. S.12 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955
2Dignity"In our view, it is only civil that persons – who desire to obtain/ buy anything from an outlet, should queue up, if such a queue is necessary looking to the number of persons, who may land up at the outlet at the same time. It does not offend the right to dignity and privacy of any person, merely because the person may be required to queue up at the outlet. The outlet could be for anything, or for any service." Compelling beneficiaries under the Targeted Public Distribution System to stand in a queue at fair price shops, to receive their allocated services does not violate their right to privacy and dignity.
60
Delhi High Court X vs. Government of NCT of Delhi and Ors.Decision Date- 19.07.2022
Citation- MANU/DE/2894/2022
Case Type - Civil Misc. Writ Petition
Case Status - Disposed
Legal provisions: Article 21 of the Constitution Of India, 1950. S. 376 of the Indian Penal Code 1860 (IPC). S.3, 3(2) of the Medical Termination Of Pregnancy Act, 1971
1Bodily Integrity, Autonomy"Undisputedly, the petitioner is a victim of rape. She is stated to be about 13 to 17 years old. The assault on her person and the defilement of her body would have undoubtedly left scars which would take years to heal. Her misery and suffering would stand compounded even more if she were forced to bear the mantle of motherhood at such a tender age. The Court shudders to even imagine the state of despondency that would descend over her life. The mental and physical trauma that she would have to undergo if she were forced to carry the foetus and take on the onerous duties of motherhood is unimaginable. This Court is of the firm opinion that if the petitioner was forced to go through with the pregnancy despite the same having been caused on account of the incident of sexual assault, it would permanently scar her psyche and cause grave and irreparable injury to her mental health. The Court cannot visualize a more egregious invasion of her right to life as guaranteed by Article 21 of the Constitution."A minor rape survivor can be allowed to terminate a pregnancy at 28 weeks to uphold her right to life under Article 21 of the Constitution.
61
Delhi High Court T.V. Today Network Limited vs. News Laundry Media Private Limited and Ors. (Decision Date - 29.07.2022
Citation- MANU/DE/2679/2022
Case Type - Civil Misc. Writ Petition
Case Status - Dismissed
Legal provisions - Article 19(1), 19(2), 21 Constitution Of India, 1950. S.13, 14, 37, 37(2), 37(3), 39, 52, 52(1), 499, 500 of the Copyright Act, 1957. S. 2(1) of the Information Technology Act, 2000
1Press Freedom, Dignity"As observed by the Supreme Court in Subramanium Swamy (supra) reputation is an integral part of the dignity of an individual and if reputation is damaged, society as well as the individual would be the loser. The old Bonnard Principle which set the high thresh-hold for grant of injunction restraining publications on the ground of defamation and harm to the reputation, has been watered-down by the courts, as noticed above. The right to free speech is an important right, but reputation is an equally important right. The courts, over a period of time, have pronounced that reputation is an internal and central facet of right to life, as protected under Article 21 of the Constitution. Thus, a balance would have to be struck between the two rights, one under Article 19(1)(a) and the other under Article 21 of the Constitution."The freedom to express an opinion or to comment on content on social media or the TV through satire is a facet of the fundamental right to freedom of speech and expression insofar as it does not violate the right to privacy or reputation of an individual.
62
Delhi High Court Sunil Kumar vs. State of UT of Chandigarh Decision Date - 05.08.2022
Citation- MANU/DE/2825/2022
Case Type - Criminal Misc. Writ Petition
Case Status - Disposed
Legal provisions - S.160, 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. Article 142, 20(3) of the Constitution Of India, 1950
1Surveillance, Search and Seizure "A Full Bench of the Supreme Court in Ritesh Sinha (supra) has re- affirmed that a judicial order compelling a person to give a sample of his voice did not violate his Fundamental Right to Privacy, including under Article 20(3) of the Constitution of India. It also held that a Judicial Magistrate must be conceded the powers to order a person to give a sample of his voice for the purposes of investigation of a crime, and ordered the vesting of such a power under Article 142 of the Constitution of India."A judicial order compelling individuals to provide a voice sample does not violate their right to privacy. Collecting voice samples for the purpose of investigation would be valid even if it is collected after the charge sheet has been filed.
63
Delhi High Court Whatsapp LLC vs. Competition Commission of India and Ors.Decision Date - 25.08.2022
Citation- MANU/DE/3093/2022
Case Type - Latter Patent Appeal and Civil Misc. Appeal
Case Status - Dismissed
Legal provisions - Article 21 of the Constitution Of India, 1950. Information Technology (reasonable Security Practices And Procedures And Sensitive Personal Data Or Information) Rules, 2011 - Rule 5(7). S. 3, 4, 18, 19, 21, 26, 27, 28, 53, 57, 62 of the Competition Act, 2002
2Data Protection, Informational Privacy"The 2021 Policy, however, places its users in a “take-it-or-leave-it” situation, virtually forcing its users into agreement by providing a mirage of choice, and then sharing their sensitive data with Facebook Companies envisaged in the policy."WhatsApp's privacy policy, which allows it to share user information with Facebook could invoke violation of privacy rights since it leaves users in a 'take it or leave it' situation forcing them into an agreement without any voluntary or specific user consent.
64
Delhi High Court
Neetu Singh and Anr. vs. Telegram FZ LLC & Ors
Decision Date - 30. 08. 2022
Citation- MANU/DE/3170/2022
Case Type - Civil Suit (Commercial)
Case Status - Disposed
Legal provisions - Section 72 A, 79, 81 of the Information Technology Act, 2000. S. 62, 63, 65 of the Copyright Act, 1957
1Informational PrivacyAs per the above extract from K.S. Puttaswamy (supra) it is clear that the Supreme Court recognises that if there is a law in existence to justify the disclosure of information and there is a need for the disclosure considering the nature of encroachment of the right then privacy cannot be a ground to justify non-disclosure, so long as the same is not disproportionate. In India, the Copyright Act is clearly a law, which requires “infringing copies” to be taken into custody. The Copyright Act recognizes the right of the copyright owner to claim damages and rendition of accounts in respect of such infringement. Secondly, whenever the data is sought for a legitimate purpose, and for curbing the violation of law, including infringement of copyright, the same would be in accordance with the legal position recognised in K.S. Puttaswamy (supra).The right to privacy cannot be used as a ground to justify the non-disclosure of user data in a copyright infringement case.
65
Delhi High Court Ruba Ahmed and Ors. vs. Hansal Mehta and Ors.Decision Date - 14. 10. 2022
Citation - MANU/DE/4011/2022
Case Type - Civil (Ad-interim injunction)
Case Status - Dismissed
Legal provisions - Order XXXIX Rule 1 & 2 read with S. 151 of Code of Civil Procedure,1908
1Dignity"The Right of Privacy which is agitated by the plaintiffs is that of the two daughters who have admittedly died in the attack. As already discussed above, Right to Privacy is essentially is a right in personam and is not inheritable by the mothers/legal heirs of the deceased persons.

In the present case, the mother's right to privacy is in no way getting impinged by the movie which is sought to be screened by the defendants. Neither is the privacy of the mother's/plaintiff's in any way being compromised nor is there any affront to their dignity and privacy, merely because their two daughters happened to be the victims of the terror attack. The plaintiffs may have been successful if their personal right to privacy was in any way being infringed by the making of this movie but unfortunately, no such circumstance has been pleaded by the plaintiffs.

The 'right to be left alone', undoubtedly, is an aspect of Right to Privacy, but it can also operate within its limits and in the given circumstances, it cannot be termed as a right to be left alone especially when the two plaintiffs get barely any mention in the entire movie."
Legal heirs cannot bring about claims for the right to privacy on behalf of someone else because the right to privacy is a right in personam and is not inheritable.
66
Delhi High CourtRajesh Kumar vs. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) and Ors.Decision Date - 28. 09. 2022
Citation -
Case Type - Writ Petition (Crl.)
Case Status - Dismissed
Legal provisions - Articles 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India, 1950. S. 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code.
1Dignity, Autonomy"Measures taken by CCIs cannot be limited to surveillance by way of CCTVs and security guards, especially in view of how children are also entitled to their right to privacy and confidentiality."Child Care Institutions have to ensure that the right to privacy and confidentiality of children would not be violated while taking safety and protection measures. Judgement lays down the guidelines for Child Care Institutions in view of the aforementioned concerns.
67
Delhi High Court Gurjit Kaur vs. Harpercollins Publishers IndiaDecision Date - 19. 09. 2022
Citation- MANU/DEOR/144034/2022
Case Type - First Appeal Order
Case Status - Ongoing
Legal provisions - Article 21 of the Constitution of India, 1950
2Dignity, AutonomyThere is furthermore no gainsaying, the legal situation that obtains, pursuant to the decision in K.S. Puttaswamy (supra), "that privacy is the constitutional core of human dignity. At a normative level, privacy subserves those internal values upon which the guarantees of life, liberty and freedom are founded. At a descriptive level, privacy postulates a bundle of entitlement and interest which lie at the foundation of order and liberty".

In view of the foregoing, we are also prima facie of the view that, the Author further owes a duty of care to Ms. Gurjit Kaur, who was in his charge as an International Hockey Player at all relevant times.
The court issued an order to protect the petitioner's right to privacy by preventing the disclosure of confidential medical information about them in a book.
68
Delhi High CourtMichelle Camilleri and Ors. vs. Central Adoption Resource Authority (CARA) and Ors.Decision Date - 25.11.2022
Citation - MANU/DE/4758/2022
Case Type - Writ Petition
Case Status - Petition allowed
Legal provision - S. 13(1), 13(i) of the Commissions For Protection Of Child Rights Act, 2005. S.31, 32, 35, 36, 37, 38, 40, 58, 59 of the Juvenile Justice (care And Protection Of Children) Act, 2015.
1Informational Privacy"The adoption agency shall in the meanwhile stand restrained from granting third parties unauthorized access to the child which may tend to compromise the identity and the privacy rights of Child "S". The aforesaid restraint, however, shall not be construed as depriving Child "S" the facility to participate in group activities which may be organized or held within the precincts of the adoption agency and are duly supervised by the caregivers of the agency."This writ petition was regarding, inter alia, the medical treatment of a child in an adoption agency, and the validity of withdrawal of adoption petition of the child. The court noted that various documents filed by the parties in the petition may lead to breach of identity of a child and even invasion of privacy rights of the child. All parties and their counsels were required to mask and redact the documents.
69
Delhi High CourtSanjay Pandey vs. Directorate of Enforcement Decision Date - 08.12.2022
Citation - MANU/DE/4984/2022
Case Type - Criminal Bail Application
Case Status - Bail granted
Legal provision - Article 21 of the Constitution of India. S. 24, 25, 120-A, 120-B, 403, 405, 409, 415, 420, 461, 464, 465 of the Indian Penal Code 1860. S. 3(1), 3(1AA), 4, 5, 20, 21, 23, 24, 25, 25(b), 26 of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885. R. 2(tt), 419A of the Indian Telegraph Rules, 1951. S. 3, 6 of the Indian Wireless Telegraphy Act, 1933. S. 69B, 69B(2), 72, 72-A of the Information Technology Act, 2000. S. 13, 13(1), 13(2) of the Prevention Of Corruption Act, 1988. S. 2(u), 3, 4, 45 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002.
1Phone tapping"I am prima facie of the view that tapping phone lines or recording calls without consent is a breach of privacy. The right to privacy enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution demands that phone calls not be recorded. Only with consent of the individuals concerned, can such activity be carried out otherwise it will amount to breach of the fundamental right to privacy.

In the present case, recording or tapping of phone lines by ISEC was not an action of the State. The facets of privacy include right of non-interference with the individual body, protection of personal information and autonomy over personal choices. Consent is essential when it comes to recording phone lines which aspect was disregarded by both NSE and ISEC."
Phone tapping by a private entity at the employer's behest in the execution of a contractual obligation is a violation of the right to privacy of the employees, as enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution.
70
GAUHATI HIGH COURT
71
JUDICIAL FORUMCASE NAMECASE DETAILSBENCHASPECTS OF PRIVACYIMPORTANT QUOTESNOTES
72
Gauhati High CourtSurajit Gogoi vs. Union of India and Ors.Decision Date - 01.02.2018
Citation - 2018 (2) GLT 9, MANU/GH/0411/2018
Case Type - Writ Petition (Civil)
Case Status - Disposed.
Legal Provisions - S. 125 of the Army Act, 1950.
S. 475 of CrPC, 1973
2Surveillance, Search and Seizure "Privacy of a person within the confines of his house or residence is a cherished right and has to be respected. Intrusion into the residence of a citizen would be permissible only subject to confirmation with the standards mandated by our Constitution and the laws of the land which the army scrupulously follows."The right to privacy is violated by illegal entry, search and seizure of valuables by army personnel.
73
Gauhati High Court (Kohima Bench)Mangyang Lima vs. State of Nagaland and Ors.Decision Date - 09.01.2019
Citation - 2019 (1) GLT 409, MANU/GH/0240/2019
Case Type - Writ Petition (Civil)
Case Status - Disposed.
Legal Provisions - Article 19 and Article 21 of the Constitution of India, 1950.
1Dignity, Surveillance, Search and Seizure"It may be mentioned that with the latest view of the Supreme Court in K.S. Puttaswamy Vs. Union of India, holding that right to privacy is a fundamental right and part of Article 21, in the opinion of this Court, the restricted view expressed in Kharak Singh (supra) about the freedom of movement as guaranteed under Article 19(1)(a) read with Article 21 may require an expansive interpretation as had been done by the minority view as expressed by Subba Rao J. in the aforesaid case. The freedom of movement in clause (d) of Art. 19(1) must be a movement in a free country i.e. in a country where he can do whatever he likes, speak to whomsoever he wants, meet people of his own choice without any apprehension, subject of course to the law of social control. The petitioner being banished and ex-communicated is certainly deprived of these freedom.

We would, therefore, define the right of personal liberty in Article 21 as a right of an individual to be free from restrictions or encroachments on his person, whether those restrictions or encroachments are directly imposed or indirectly brought about by calculated measures. It so understood, all the acts of surveillance under Regulation 236 infringe the fundamental right of the petitioner under Article 21 of the Constitution."
The righ to privacy is violated by banishment and ex-communication by village council.
74
GUJARAT HIGH COURT
75
JUDICIAL FORUMCASE NAMECASE DETAILSBENCHASPECTS OF PRIVACYIMPORTANT QUOTESNOTES
76
Gujarat High CourtJinnat Fatma Vajirbhai Ami vs. Nishat Alimadbhai PolraDecision date- 20.12.2022
Citation- (2022)1CCC1
Case Type- First Appeal with Civil Application (For Stay)
Case Status- Disposed
Legal Provisions- S. 19 of the Family Courts
Act, 1984. S. 282 of Muslim Personal Law (Shariat) Application Act, 1937
2Autonomy"A perusal of the aforesaid provision indicates that a decree for restitution of conjugal rights cannot be enforced except by way of attachment of the property of the other party or compensation and mense profits. In the case on hand, there is nothing on record to indicate that the appellant-wife has a property of her own which could be attached. The object behind Order XXI Rule 32(1) and (3) CPC is that no person can force a female or his wife to cohabit and establish conjugal rights. If the wife refuse to cohabit, in such case, she cannot be forced by a decree in a suit to establish conjugal rights."A woman cannot be forced to cohabit against her will through a decree of restitution of conjugal rights.
77
Gujarat High CourtThakor Devrajbhai Ramanbhai vs. State of GujaratDecision Date - 15.03.2022
Citation - MANU/GJ/1096/2022
Case Type - R/Special Criminal Application
Case Status - Disposed
Legal Provisions - Article 19(2), 21, 42 of the Constitution of India, 1950
2Autonomy, Dignity"We would like to quote the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Laxmibhai Chandaragi B. and Anr. v. State of Karnataka and Ors. reported in (2021) 3 SCC 360, where it considered the right to marry person of one's choice an integral part of Article 21. It is construed as an autonomy of an individual inter alia in relation to family and marriage is integral to the dignity of the individual.

Intimacies of marriage lie within a core zone of privacy, which is inviolable and even matters of faith would have the least effect on them. The right to marry a person of choice was held to be integral Article 21 of the Constitution of India. In this behalf, the judgment of the nine Judges Bench in K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India may also be referred to where the autonomy of an individual inter alia in relation to family and marriage were held to be integral to the dignity of the individual."
The right to marry a person of one's choice is integral to the dignity of the individual.
78
Gujarat High CourtABC (Victim) vs. State of GujaratDecision Date - 17.03.2022
Citation - MANU/GJ/0771/2022
Case Type - R/Special Criminal Application
Case Status - Disposed
Legal Provisions - S. 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. Article 227 of the Constitution of India, 1950. S. 363, S. 366, S. 376(n) of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. S. 3 of the Medical Termination Of Pregnancy (Amendment) Act, 2021. S. 12, 4, 6, 8 of the Protection Of Children From Sexual Offences Act, 2012
1Bodily Integrity, Autonomy"Considering the contents of the petition, provision of the applicable law, ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in above referred to cases, right of privacy of the petitioner, medical reports, and bearing in mind the best interest principle, as discussed herein above, I am of the view that the present petition deserves to be allowed as prayed for only with a view to save and protect the life of the petitioner - victim."While considering cases of termination of pregnancy of a minor rape survivor, their right to privacy and the best interest principle should be factored in.
79
Gujarat High CourtSultana Jahangirbhai Mirza vs. State of GujaratDecision Date - 04.04.2022
Citation - MANU/GJ/1330/2022
Case Type - R/Special Criminal Application
Case Status - Disposed
Legal Provisions - Article 21, 42 of the Constitution of India, 1950. S. 141, 143, 503, 506 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. S. 144, 151 of CrPC, 1973
2Autonomy, Dignity"In Shafin Jahan vs. Asokan K.M. this Court noticed that the society was emerging through a crucial transformational period. Intimacies of marriage lie within a core zone of privacy, which is inviolable and even matters of faith held to be integral to Article 21 of the Constitution of India. In this behalf, the judgment of the nine-Judge Bench in K.S. Puttaswamy (Privacy-9 J.) v. Union of India may also be referred to where the autonomy of an individual inter alia in relation to family and marriage were held to be integral to the dignity of the individual."The right to life and personal liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution encompasses the right to marry a person of one's choice. The consent of the individuals entering into wedlock must be given primacy over the consent of the community or family.
80
Gujarat High CourtAnjaliben Senjibhai Thakor vs. State of GujaratDecision Date - 05.04.2022
Citation - MANU/GJ/1015/2022
Case Type - R/Special Criminal Application
Case Status - Disposed
Legal Provisions - S.3 of the Medical Termination Of Pregnancy Act, 1971. S.114, 363, 376(3) of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. S. 4, 6, 8 of the Protection Of Children From Sexual Offences Act, 2012
1Autonomy, Bodily Integrity"Considering the contents of the petition, provision of the applicable law, ratio laid down by the Supreme Court in the above referred to cases, right of privacy of the petitioner, medical reports, and bearing in mind the best interest principle, as discussed hereinabove, I am of the view that the present petition deserves to be allowed, as prayed for only with a view to save and protect the life of the victim."While considering cases of termination of pregnancy of a minor rape survivor, their right to privacy and the best interest principle should be factored in.
81
HIMACHAL PRADESH HIGH COURT
82
JUDICIAL FORUMCASE NAMECASE DETAILSBENCHASPECTS OF PRIVACYIMPORTANT QUOTESNOTES
83
Himachal Pradesh High CourtVinod Mittal vs. State of H.P. and Ors.Decision Date - 23.06.2020
Citation - 2020 (2) ShimLC 1130, MANU/HP/0524/2020
Case Type - Criminal Misc. Petition (Main) u/s 482 CrPC
Case Status - Disposed.
Legal Provisions - Article 20(3) of Constitution of India, 1950
1Bodily Integrity"Subjecting a person to the impugned techniques in an involuntary manner violates the prescribed boundaries of privacy and forcible interference with a person's mental processes is not provided for under any statute and it most certainly comes into conflict with the "right against self-incrimination""Undergoing Narco Analysis, polygraph and BEAP tests with consent of the accused is not violative of right to privacy.
84
JAMMU AND KASHMIR HIGH COURT
85
JUDICIAL FORUMCASE NAMECASE DETAILSBENCHASPECTS OF PRIVACYIMPORTANT QUOTESNOTES
86
Jammu and Kashmir High CourtMonika Mehra and Ors. vs. State and Ors.Decision Date - 02.07.2018
Citation -III (2018) DMC 76, MANU/JK/0752/2018
Case Type - Other Writ Petition
Case Status - Disposed.
Legal Provisions - Article 21 of Constitution of India, 1950
1Autonomy, Dignity "In Justice KS Puttasivamy vs. Union of India, this Court in a decision of nine Judges held that the ability to make decisions on matters close to one's life is an inviolable aspect of the human personality."The ability to make decisions on matters close to one's life such as marriage is a part of the right to privacy.
87
Jammu & Kashmir High Court
Aditya Raj Kaul and Ors. vs. Naeem Akhter
Decision Date - 13.10.2021
Citation - MANU/JK/0748/2021
Case Type - Criminal Misc. Case
Case Status - Disposed
Legal Provisions - S. 499 of CrPC,1973
1Press Freedom, Informational Privacy"As already noted, in R. Rajagopal's case (supra), the Supreme Court has clearly emphasized that once a matter becomes a matter of public record, the right to privacy no longer subsists and it becomes a legitimate subject for comment by press and media among others. The Court has further observed that publication of the matters relating to conduct relevant to the discharge of official functions of a public figure is not defamation. Therefore, on the touchstone of the broad principles enunciated by the Supreme Court in the aforenoted case, the reporting of contents of letter written by Shri Khalid Jahangir touching the official functioning of the department that was under the Ministry headed by the complainant, would not amount to offence of defamation."Broadcasting of information by a news channel, particularly relating to public figures, that is already in the public domain and is a matter of public interest does not violate an individual's right to privacy.
88
JHARKHAND HIGH COURT
89
JUDICIAL FORUMCASE NAMECASE DETAILSBENCHASPECTS OF PRIVACYIMPORTANT QUOTESNOTES
90
Jharkhand High CourtAnurag Gupta vs. The Election Commission of India and Ors.Decision Date - 03.05.2019
Citation - 2019 (2) J.L.J.R. 650, MANU/JH/0571/2019
Case Type - Writ Petition (S)
Case Status - Disposed.
Legal Provisions - Art. 324 of the Constitution of India, 1950.
S. 28-A of Representation of People Act, 1951
1Autonomy "The petitioner contended that ... the order directing him to report at New Delhi is in violation of his fundamental rights and right to privacy, as he has a right to move freely within the territory of India. ... The petitioner has got no right to remain posted at a particular place nor does he have the right over his present assignment. Leave also cannot be sought by way of right. Thus, no right of the petitioner has been infringed by the impugned order, far less a fundamental right."Curtailment of right of movement pending inquiry by Election Commission is not violative of right to privacy.
91
KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
92
JUDICIAL FORUMCASE NAMECASE DETAILSBENCHASPECTS OF PRIVACYIMPORTANT QUOTESNOTES
93
Karnataka High CourtBushra Abdul Aleem and Ors. vs. Government of Karnataka, Department of Health and Family Welfare and Ors.Decision Date - 30.08.2019
Citation - ILR 2020 KARNATAKA 963, MANU/KA/6862/2019
Case Type - Writ Petition
Case Status - Disposed.
Legal Provisions - S. 2(g), 3 and 6 of the the Karnataka Compulsory Service Training by Candidates Completed Medical Courses Act, 2012 as amended by the Karnataka Act No. 35 of 2017. The Karnataka Compulsory Service Training by Candidates completed Medical Course Rules 2015
1Autonomy "Although, an exhaustive enumeration or catalogue of entitlements or interests comprised in right to privacy is left undetermined; Privacy includes at its core, the preservation of personal intimacies, sanctity of family life, marriage, procreation, home and sexual orientation. "Privacy also connotes right to be left alone"; Privacy safeguards individual autonomy and recognizes ability of individual to control vital aspects of his or her life. Personal choices governing way of life are intrinsic to privacy."

"The Apex Court in the second K.S. Puttaswamy (Adhaar) Vs. UOI, has held that the Right to Privacy can be abridged by a just, fair & reasonable law as any other Fundamental Rights can be; such abridgment has to fulfill the test of proportionality i.e., it should be proportionate to the need for such interference; in addition to this, the law in question must also provide procedural guarantees against abuse of such interference; abridgment has to be co-terminus with true requirement; going by this standard, it is difficult to countenance petitioners' argument that the impugned Act is constitutionally invalid, especially when State's power to compel citizens to render public service is sanctioned under Article 23(1) of the Constitution."
Compulsory medical service is not violative of the right to privacy.
94
Karnataka High CourtSudarshan vs. State of Karnataka and Ors.Decision Date - 11.08.2020
Citation - 2020 (6) KarLJ 495, MANU/KA/2725/2020
Case Type - Criminal Petition
Case Status - Disposed.
Legal Provisions - S. 482 of CrPC, 1973.
Article 20(3) of the Constitution of India, 1950
1Surveillance, Search and Seizure "There is no merit in the contention that collection of voice samples for the purpose of comparing that with voice in phone conversation records amounts to self incrimination and violative of Article 20(3) of the Constitution."Collection of voice samples for the purpose of comparing that with the voice in phone conversation records does not amount to self incrimination or breach of privacy.
95
Karnataka High CourtM.K. Pushpitha vs. State of Karnataka
and Ors.
Decision date - 04.08.2021
Citation - MANU/KA/3480/2021
Case type - Criminal Misc. Writ Petition
Case status - Writ petition allowed
Legal provisions - S. 380, 403, 409, and 420
read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.
S. 53 of the Disaster Management Act, 2005.
1Surveillance, Search and Seizure"On the other hand, the act of the Police arresting the petitioner, seizing the articles prior to registering of the FIR is illegal and search and seizure in non-cognizable offences amounts to violation of right of privacy and the liberty guaranteed under Article 21 of Constitution of India. Therefore, registering the FIR after conducting the investigation is bad in law in view of the principles laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Lalitha Kumari stated supra. Therefore, the Police shall not be allowed to conduct investigation, which amounts to abuse of process of law. Hence, the FIR registered against the petitioner requires to be quashed."Registration of FIR is mandatory if the information discloses commission of a
cognizable offence
96
Karnataka High Court

Venkateshappa and Ors. vs. State of Karnataka and Ors.
Decision Date - 03.09.2021
Citation - MANU/KA/3879/2021
Case Type - Criminal Appeal
Case Status - Disposed
Legal Provisions - S. 45 of The Indian Evidence Act, 1872. S. 293 and 311 of CrPC, 1973
2Bodily Integrity"That apart, we also find that there has been a serious infraction of right to privacy of accused in the matter of prosecution having ventured to draw blood for the purpose of conducting DNA test. It is also settled law that no DNA analysis of any person can be conducted by the State without obtaining the consent of the party concerned. The Hon'ble Apex Court has settled the law in this regard in the case of Smt. Selvi and Others vs. State of Karnataka."The right to privacy of an individual is violated if the State orders for a DNA test without the individual's consent.
97
Karnataka High CourtResham and Ors. vs. State of Karnataka and Ors.Decision Date - 15.03.2022
Citation - AIR 2022 Kant 81,
MANU/KA/1012/2022
Case Type - Writ Petition
Case Status - Disposed
Legal Provisions - Article 14, 15, 19, 21, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 39(f), 44(2), 51 of the Constitution of India, 1950. S. 309 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. S. 133, 133(2), 142, 143, 33, 34, 35, 7(1), 7(2) of the Karnataka Education Act, 1983
3Autonomy"Autonomy and privacy rights have also blossomed vide K.S Puttaswamy, supra. We have no quarrel with the petitioners' essential proposition that what one desires to wear is a facet of one's autonomy and that one's attire is one's expression. But all that is subject to reasonable regulation."The ban on wearing hijab in schools and colleges is a reasonable restriction on the exercise of the right to privacy and the right to freedom of expression.
98
Karnataka High CourtHrishikesh Sahoo vs. State of KarnatakaDecision Date - 23.03.2022
Citation - MANU/KA/1175/2022
Case Type - Writ Petition
Case Status - Disposed
Legal Provisions - S. 375 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. Article 14, 15, 16, 21, 23, 39 of the Constitution of India, 1950
1Bodily Integrity "The Constitution does not in any sense depict the woman to be subordinate to a man. The Constitution guarantees fundamental rights under Articles 14, 15, 19 and 21 which are right to live with dignity, personal liberty, bodily integrity, sexual autonomy, right to reproductive choices, right to privacy, right to freedom of speech and expression. Under the Constitution, the rights are equal; protection is also equal."The exception of marital rape under Section 375 of the Indian Penal Code is not absolute and the husband cannot be exempted of the allegation of rape.
99
Karnataka High CourtB S Prakash vs. The State of Karnataka And OrsDecision Date - 22.04.2022
Citation - MANU/KA/1912/2022
Case Type - Writ Petition
Case Status - Disposed
Legal Provisions - Article 13(2), 14, 19, 21, 22 of the Constitution of India, 1950. S. 21, 23 of the Karnataka Police Act, 1963
1Informational Privacy, Autonomy"The existing provisions of the Manual as interpreted by the Courts hitherto supposedly prove inadequate in the light of Puttaswamy jurisprudence which has expanded the content & contours of privacy and autonomy of individuals."The police should follow guidelines issued by the High Court that are in conformity with the right to privacy before entering the name of an individual in the Register of Rowdies (a list of habitual offenders maintained by police stations).
100
Karnataka High CourtNational Investigation Agency, Hyderabad vs. Union of India and Ors. Decision Date - 10.08.2022
Citation - MANU/KA/3782/2022
Case Type - Civil Misc. Writ Petition
Case Status - Petition Allowed
Legal provisions - S. 2, 28, 29. 33 of the Aadhaar (targeted Delivery Of Financial And Other Subsidies, Benefits And Services) Act, 2016. S.4 of the Foreigners Act, 1946. S. 3, 4, 5, 6 of the Immoral Traffic (prevention) Act, 1956. S. 6, 8 of the National Investigation Agency Act, 2008
1Informational Privacy, Dignity"The protection of privacy rights & information lying in the domain of 2nd Respondent – UIDAI is confined to the cases of ‘residents’ as defined u/s 2(v) wherein genuine data is stored & authentic documents like Aadhar Cards, are generated. This becomes clear from the provisions of Chapter VI 2016 Act which deal with security & confidentiality of information and restriction on sharing such information. The provisions of Sec.33 have been structured as an exception inter alia to the provisions of Sections 28 & 29 inasmuch as they authorize sharing of information & documents on ‘an order of a Court not inferior to that of a Judge of a High Court’."The confidentiality provision under the Aadhaar Act is not absolute and the UIDAI can be asked to furnish Aadhaar card details of individuals through a court order to implement anti-trafficking measures.