Administrative law and privacy authorities
✅ Part 1: Understanding the Concepts
What is Administrative Law?
Administrative Law deals with the functions, powers, and limitations of administrative or executive authorities (government departments, regulatory bodies, commissions, tribunals, etc.). It governs:
How decisions are made by public authorities.
Whether those decisions follow principles of natural justice, fairness, and non-arbitrariness.
Whether power is exercised within legal limits (rule of law).
Whether there are procedural safeguards and opportunities for appeal or review.
What is the Right to Privacy?
The Right to Privacy means an individual’s right to keep their personal life, communications, data, and decisions free from intrusion by others, especially the state. In India, it is now recognized as a fundamental right under Article 21 of the Constitution (Right to Life and Personal Liberty).
✅ Part 2: How Administrative Law Interacts with Privacy
Administrative authorities (e.g., police, surveillance agencies, UIDAI, etc.) collect and manage personal information, conduct investigations, and regulate public services. Their actions can affect privacy.
Thus, Administrative Law ensures that:
There is legal authority for data collection/surveillance.
There are procedural safeguards.
Power is not exercised arbitrarily or excessively.
Individual rights are balanced with public interest.
✅ Part 3: Landmark Case Laws – Detailed Explanation
Below are six major cases showing how Indian courts have addressed administrative power and privacy rights.
🔹 Case 1: Kharak Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh (1962)
Facts:
Kharak Singh was a suspect in a dacoity case. The police began surveillance, including night visits to his home, shadowing his movements, and gathering personal information. He challenged these actions under Articles 21 and 19.
Issue:
Do such surveillance measures violate personal liberty and privacy?
Judgment:
The majority held that the Constitution does not explicitly mention a "right to privacy" and upheld most surveillance measures.
However, they struck down the "domiciliary visits" at night as a violation of personal liberty under Article 21.
Justice Subba Rao (dissenting) recognized that privacy is implicit in personal liberty, and the surveillance was unconstitutional.
Significance:
This case introduced the idea that unauthorized surveillance may violate personal liberty, setting the groundwork for privacy jurisprudence.
🔹 Case 2: Gobind v. State of Madhya Pradesh (1975)
Facts:
Similar to Kharak Singh, this case also dealt with police surveillance regulations. The petitioner argued that these violated his right to privacy and personal liberty.
Issue:
Is surveillance by state authorities a violation of the right to privacy?
Judgment:
The Supreme Court acknowledged that while privacy is not explicitly mentioned, it is part of Article 21.
However, the right to privacy is not absolute; reasonable restrictions are permitted in the interest of public order and security.
Surveillance may be allowed if it is based on law, necessary, and not arbitrary.
Significance:
This case implicitly recognized privacy as a part of personal liberty and introduced the idea of balancing privacy with public interest.
🔹 Case 3: R. Rajagopal v. State of Tamil Nadu (1994)
Facts:
A magazine sought to publish the autobiography of "Auto Shankar," a death-row convict, which exposed the involvement of public officials. The government tried to prevent publication, claiming privacy and defamation.
Issue:
Can the state prevent the publication of content that affects the privacy of public officials?
Judgment:
The Supreme Court recognized the Right to Privacy under Article 21.
However, it ruled that public officials cannot claim privacy over actions conducted in their official capacity.
The freedom of the press (Article 19(1)(a)) was given precedence, unless the information is false or defamatory.
Significance:
This case affirmed the right to privacy but also emphasized that public interest and press freedom can override privacy in some cases.
🔹 Case 4: PUCL v. Union of India (1997) – Telephone Tapping Case
Facts:
The People’s Union for Civil Liberties challenged the government’s power to tap phones under the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885, claiming it violated privacy.
Issue:
Is telephone tapping by the government without procedural safeguards a violation of privacy?
Judgment:
The Court held that telephone conversations are private, and tapping them violates privacy under Article 21.
However, Section 5(2) of the Telegraph Act was upheld, but only if procedural safeguards are followed.
The Court laid down guidelines for tapping, including:
Tapping must be authorized by the Home Secretary.
It must be justified by public emergency or public safety.
It must be reviewed periodically.
Duration should be limited.
Significance:
This case connected administrative action (phone tapping) with privacy rights, emphasizing the need for checks and balances.
🔹 Case 5: Justice K.S. Puttaswamy (Retd.) v. Union of India (2017)
Facts:
Justice Puttaswamy challenged the Aadhaar scheme, arguing that collection of biometric data without safeguards violated the Right to Privacy.
Issue:
Is the Right to Privacy a Fundamental Right? Can the government collect biometric data without violating privacy?
Judgment:
A 9-judge bench unanimously held that Privacy is a Fundamental Right under Article 21, and also touches Articles 14 and 19.
The Court ruled that any infringement of privacy must pass three tests:
Legality: There must be a law authorizing the action.
Legitimate Aim: The law must pursue a legitimate state interest.
Proportionality: The invasion must be proportionate to the need.
Significance:
This is the most important privacy judgment in India. It overruled earlier decisions (like in Kharak Singh) that denied privacy as a fundamental right and laid the constitutional foundation for protecting personal data and autonomy.
🔹 Case 6: Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India (1978)
Facts:
Maneka Gandhi’s passport was impounded by the government without giving reasons. She challenged the action as a violation of Article 21 (personal liberty).
Issue:
Can the government restrict a citizen’s liberty without providing a fair procedure?
Judgment:
The Court held that any restriction on personal liberty must follow a law, and that law must be just, fair, and reasonable.
A mere technical “procedure” is not enough; it must meet constitutional standards of fairness.
Significance:
This case expanded the scope of Article 21, laid down the requirement for procedural fairness in administrative actions, and later served as a base for recognizing privacy and dignity as part of personal liberty.
✅ Part 4: Principles Derived from These Cases
| Principle | Explanation |
|---|---|
| Legality | Any administrative action affecting privacy must be authorized by law. |
| Reasonableness & Fairness | State action must be reasonable, just, and non-arbitrary. |
| Proportionality | The extent of intrusion must be proportionate to the objective. |
| Procedural Safeguards | Proper procedures must be in place—prior approvals, oversight, time limits. |
| Right to be Informed / Heard | Individuals must be given a chance to be heard before their rights are affected. |
| Review Mechanisms | There must be independent bodies or courts to check abuse of power. |
✅ Part 5: Conclusion
Administrative law plays a crucial role in protecting privacy rights by ensuring that state agencies act within legal boundaries. Courts in India have progressively expanded privacy protections, especially after the Puttaswamy case. At the same time, administrative necessity and public interest (e.g., national security, law enforcement) are valid considerations, but must be balanced against individual liberty and dignity.
RELATED Blog
0 comments