Landmark Judgments On Privacy Rights In The Digital Age
detailed explanation of landmark Supreme Court judgments on privacy rights in the digital age, especially in the context of surveillance, data collection, technological advancement, and state accountability. These cases lay the constitutional and legal foundation for data privacy, digital autonomy, and informational self-determination in India.
1. Justice K.S. Puttaswamy (Retd.) v. Union of India
Citation: (2017) 10 SCC 1
Bench: 9-Judge Constitution Bench
Issue: Whether the right to privacy is a fundamental right under the Constitution.
Facts:
The petitioner, a retired judge, challenged the constitutionality of Aadhaar, particularly the collection and use of biometric data. While Aadhaar was the immediate issue, the broader question was whether privacy was a fundamental right under the Indian Constitution.
Judgment:
The Court unanimously held that the right to privacy is a fundamental right under Article 21 (Right to Life and Personal Liberty).
It overruled previous judgments (M.P. Sharma and Kharak Singh) that denied privacy as a fundamental right.
The Court recognized informational privacy, bodily privacy, and decisional autonomy as components of this right.
In the digital age, data collection, storage, and sharing by the state and private entities were seen as major threats to privacy.
Significance:
This judgment is the cornerstone of digital privacy jurisprudence in India. It mandates that any invasion of privacy must be:
Backed by law,
Pursue a legitimate state aim, and
Be proportionate and necessary.
2. Shreya Singhal v. Union of India
Citation: (2015) 5 SCC 1
Issue: Constitutionality of Section 66A of the Information Technology Act, 2000.
Facts:
Section 66A criminalized sending offensive messages via communication devices. It was misused by law enforcement to arrest individuals for posts on social media.
Judgment:
The Supreme Court struck down Section 66A as unconstitutional, citing violation of freedom of speech under Article 19(1)(a).
While the main issue was free speech, the judgment emphasized that vague laws affecting digital expression and surveillance are dangerous to personal liberty and privacy.
The Court emphasized that privacy in digital communication is protected, and arbitrary data control or censorship by the government is not permissible.
Significance:
This case reinforced freedom and privacy in online expression, emphasizing the need for specific, narrow, and justifiable digital laws.
3. Aadhaar Case – Justice K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India (Aadhaar Constitutionality Case)
Citation: (2019) 1 SCC 1
Issue: Constitutionality of the Aadhaar scheme with respect to privacy rights.
Facts:
After the 2017 privacy judgment, the Supreme Court had to decide whether mandatory linking of Aadhaar for welfare and other services violated privacy.
Judgment:
The majority upheld the Aadhaar scheme but struck down provisions that allowed sharing of Aadhaar data with private entities.
Held that Aadhaar can be used only for welfare benefits and essential state services, not for opening bank accounts or telecom services.
The Court noted the need for a robust data protection framework.
Significance:
The Court created a framework for balancing digital identity systems with privacy protections, pushing for stronger legislation to regulate data handling by the state and private bodies.
4. Anuradha Bhasin v. Union of India
Citation: (2020) 3 SCC 637
Issue: Legality of internet shutdowns in Jammu and Kashmir and its impact on fundamental rights.
Facts:
Following the revocation of Article 370, the government imposed a communication and internet blackout in Jammu and Kashmir. Journalists and citizens challenged the restrictions, arguing it violated freedom of speech and the right to carry on trade.
Judgment:
The Court held that access to the internet is part of the right to freedom of expression under Article 19(1)(a) and right to carry on trade under Article 19(1)(g).
The Court acknowledged the role of the internet in modern life and stated that restrictions must be temporary, necessary, and proportionate.
Directed that any internet shutdowns must adhere to constitutional principles and judicial review.
Significance:
This case established that digital access is fundamental to exercising other rights, and blanket or indefinite shutdowns are not constitutionally valid.
5. People’s Union for Civil Liberties (PUCL) v. Union of India (Telephone Tapping Case)
Citation: AIR 1997 SC 568
Issue: Whether telephone tapping violated the right to privacy under Article 21.
Facts:
PUCL challenged provisions of the Indian Telegraph Act that permitted the government to intercept telephone communications without adequate safeguards.
Judgment:
The Court recognized telephone conversations as private and protected under Article 21.
It laid down procedural safeguards, requiring oversight by a review committee and stating that interceptions must be time-bound and justified.
Significance:
This judgment, though pre-digital age, remains vital. Its principles now apply to email, social media, and internet surveillance, ensuring the state cannot arbitrarily intercept digital communications.
✅ Key Principles from These Judgments:
| Principle | Established By |
|---|---|
| Privacy is a fundamental right under Article 21 | K.S. Puttaswamy (2017) |
| Digital data collection must follow legality, necessity, and proportionality | Aadhaar Case (2019) |
| Online expression and communication are protected | Shreya Singhal (2015) |
| Access to the internet is integral to fundamental rights | Anuradha Bhasin (2020) |
| Surveillance must be transparent and legally justified | PUCL v. Union of India (1997) |
RELATED Blog
0 comments