Privacy challenges in digital administration
📌 Privacy Challenges in Digital Administration
🔷 A. Introduction: What is Digital Administration?
Digital administration refers to the use of information technology, digital tools, and automated systems in governance and public service delivery. Examples include:
Aadhaar-based services
Online tax portals
Digital land records
E-governance platforms
AI-driven decision-making by state authorities
Biometric surveillance and facial recognition
These developments improve efficiency and transparency, but also raise serious privacy concerns.
🔷 B. What is Privacy in This Context?
Privacy in digital administration refers to the individual’s right to control their personal data, and the state’s obligation to protect that data from:
Unauthorized access
Misuse or excessive surveillance
Data breaches or leaks
Profiling or discrimination through algorithmic decisions
🔷 C. Core Privacy Challenges in Digital Administration
| Challenge | Explanation |
|---|---|
| Mass Surveillance | State’s ability to monitor individuals’ digital activities (CCTV, biometric systems) |
| Data Collection Without Consent | Mandatory data submission without proper user consent |
| Lack of Data Protection Law | Absence of comprehensive legal safeguards for data usage |
| Digital Exclusion | People denied services due to failed biometric verification |
| Algorithmic Bias | Automated systems making unfair or opaque decisions |
| Profiling and Targeting | Personal data used for commercial or political targeting |
🔷 D. Key Constitutional and Legal Frameworks
Article 21 of the Constitution: Right to life includes the Right to Privacy
Article 14: Protection against arbitrary actions
Article 19: Freedom of expression and informational autonomy
Information Technology Act, 2000
(Now awaited: Digital Personal Data Protection Act – 2023)
🔷 E. Landmark Case Laws (More than Five, With Detailed Explanation)
✅ 1. Justice K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India (2017) 10 SCC 1
(Privacy Judgment – 9-Judge Bench)
Facts:
Petitioners challenged the validity of Aadhaar and the lack of a recognized right to privacy in Indian law.
Held:
The Supreme Court unanimously held that the Right to Privacy is a fundamental right under Article 21. It includes informational privacy, i.e., control over personal data.
Importance:
Laid down that any intrusion into privacy must satisfy:
Legality (law must exist)
Necessity (must serve legitimate aim)
Proportionality (must not be excessive)
Became the foundation for all privacy-related litigation.
✅ 2. Justice K.S. Puttaswamy (Aadhaar) v. Union of India (2019) 1 SCC 1
(Aadhaar Final Judgment – 5-Judge Bench)
Facts:
Petitioners challenged the Aadhaar Act, alleging violation of privacy due to mass data collection and mandatory use of Aadhaar in services.
Held:
Aadhaar can be used for welfare schemes, but:
Cannot be made mandatory for bank accounts, mobile SIMs, schools, etc.
Private companies cannot access Aadhaar data.
Section 57 of the Aadhaar Act (allowing private use) was struck down.
Importance:
Balanced public interest and individual privacy.
Limited the scope of digital identity use.
✅ 3. Internet and Mobile Association of India v. Reserve Bank of India (2020) 10 SCC 274
(Cryptocurrency and Data Regulation Case)
Facts:
RBI prohibited banks from dealing with cryptocurrency exchanges, citing security concerns.
Held:
The Supreme Court held that the ban was disproportionate and lacked empirical evidence. Citizens' freedom to trade and informational autonomy must be protected.
Importance:
Reinforced the idea that data-related restrictions must be justified and not overbroad.
Supports privacy in financial digital spaces.
✅ 4. Bombay High Court – Beghar Foundation v. Union of India (2019)
(Digital Exclusion Case)
Facts:
Poor and homeless citizens were denied access to welfare due to failure in Aadhaar authentication.
Held:
The Court ordered that alternate identification methods must be used. Denial of food or shelter due to tech failure is unconstitutional.
Importance:
Protects dignity and privacy of marginalized groups.
Confirms that technology cannot override fundamental rights.
✅ 5. Anuradha Bhasin v. Union of India (2020) 3 SCC 637
(Internet Shutdown in Jammu & Kashmir)
Facts:
Petitioners challenged the internet shutdown post abrogation of Article 370, alleging violation of rights.
Held:
The Court held that freedom of speech and trade over the internet is a fundamental right, and any restriction must meet tests of proportionality and transparency.
Importance:
Though not about data privacy, it affirmed digital rights as part of constitutional rights.
Protects against arbitrary shutdowns and control of digital access.
✅ 6. Binoy Viswam v. Union of India (2017) 7 SCC 59
(PAN-Aadhaar Linkage Case)
Facts:
The government made linking Aadhaar with PAN mandatory under the Income Tax Act.
Held:
Upheld the linkage, finding it proportionate to curb tax evasion.
Importance:
Highlights the limits of privacy when weighed against compelling state interest.
Emphasizes that any data-related mandate must be justified.
✅ 7. People’s Union for Civil Liberties (PUCL) v. Union of India (1997) 1 SCC 301
(Telephone Tapping Case)
Facts:
PUCL challenged arbitrary telephone tapping by the government.
Held:
The Court recognized that telephone conversations are part of privacy, and surveillance must follow strict legal safeguards.
Importance:
Applied privacy rights even before the Puttaswamy judgment.
Set standards for surveillance accountability.
🔷 F. Key Principles from the Cases
| Principle | Origin | Description |
|---|---|---|
| Right to Privacy | Puttaswamy (2017) | Recognized as fundamental right under Article 21 |
| Proportionality Test | Puttaswamy & Anuradha Bhasin | Restrictions must be legal, necessary, and minimal |
| No Service Denial Due to Tech Failures | Beghar Foundation | Alternate access to welfare must be provided |
| Consent and Data Minimization | Aadhaar Case (2019) | Only essential data should be collected with informed consent |
| Transparency in Surveillance | PUCL v. Union of India | Legal oversight of surveillance mechanisms is mandatory |
🔷 G. Conclusion
Digital administration brings efficiency but poses serious privacy risks. Courts have played a key role in:
Balancing state interests with individual rights
Ensuring surveillance, data collection, and digital identification meet constitutional standards
Protecting vulnerable populations from digital exclusion
As digital governance expands, strong data protection laws, technological safeguards, and judicial vigilance are essential to preserve the dignity, autonomy, and freedom of individuals.
RELATED Blog
0 comments