Supreme Court Rulings On Health App Data
🧠 Introduction
Health app data refers to the information collected through digital platforms like:
Mobile health apps (Apple Health, Samsung Health, Google Fit),
Medical record apps, and
Telemedicine or fitness apps.
This data includes heart rate, calorie intake, exercise logs, menstrual cycles, oxygen levels, and even medical history.
Courts have increasingly been asked to decide whether such data is admissible in evidence, or whether collecting it violates the right to privacy.
⚖️ Landmark Supreme Court Cases on Health App Data
🏛️ 1. Justice K.S. Puttaswamy (Retd.) v. Union of India (2017) – Supreme Court of India
(Right to Privacy Case)
Facts:
This case challenged the constitutional validity of the Aadhaar scheme, which collected citizens’ biometric and demographic data.
Petitioners argued that collecting and storing such sensitive personal data violated the fundamental right to privacy.
Issue:
Does the collection and processing of health or biometric data by the government or private apps violate the Right to Privacy under Article 21?
Judgment:
A 9-judge Constitution Bench unanimously held that Right to Privacy is a fundamental right under Article 21.
The Court specifically mentioned that medical and health data fall under “informational privacy.”
It ruled that such data cannot be collected, processed, or shared without consent, and must follow principles of necessity, legality, and proportionality.
Significance:
The judgment set the constitutional foundation for data protection laws in India.
It established that health app data is sensitive personal information, protected under the right to privacy.
It led to future data protection frameworks like the Digital Personal Data Protection Act, 2023.
🏛️ 2. Carpenter v. United States (2018) – Supreme Court of the United States
(Digital Location and Health Data Privacy)
Facts:
Timothy Carpenter’s cell phone location data was used to track his movements and convict him of robbery.
The defense argued that accessing such sensitive digital data without a warrant violated his Fourth Amendment rights (right against unreasonable searches).
Issue:
Does the government need a warrant to access digital data (including health or fitness app data) stored by third parties?
Judgment:
The U.S. Supreme Court held that digital data stored by third-party apps, such as health or fitness trackers, cannot be accessed by law enforcement without a warrant.
It recognized that health and fitness apps can reveal intimate details about a person’s life, deserving strong constitutional protection.
Significance:
Established that digital health data is constitutionally protected under privacy rights.
Laid the groundwork for limiting government access to personal health app data without judicial authorization.
🏛️ 3. United States v. Chatrie (2020, reaffirmed by appellate courts)
(Google Fit and Health App Data in Criminal Investigation)
Facts:
Police used a “geofence warrant” to obtain data from Google Fit and Google location services, identifying everyone near a bank during a robbery.
One suspect, Chatrie, challenged the use of such broad health and location app data.
Issue:
Whether collecting mass health or fitness app data (including movement or heart rate info) violates privacy rights under the Fourth Amendment.
Judgment:
The court held that geofence warrants must be narrowly tailored, and collecting health app data without probable cause is unconstitutional.
The data collected from Google Fit was not admissible because it violated the defendant’s reasonable expectation of privacy.
Significance:
Set limits on the use of health or fitness app data in investigations.
Reinforced the principle that digital health data is private and needs judicial oversight before being accessed.
🏛️ 4. Navtej Singh Johar v. Union of India (2018) – Supreme Court of India
(Privacy, Dignity, and Health Data Context)
Facts:
The petition challenged the criminalization of same-sex relationships under Section 377 IPC.
The case involved broader discussions of autonomy, dignity, and informational privacy, especially concerning medical and psychological records.
Issue:
Whether the State can intrude upon private, intimate, or health-related data of individuals.
Judgment:
The Supreme Court struck down Section 377 as unconstitutional.
It emphasized that health data, sexual orientation, and medical history fall under informational privacy.
The Court held that any disclosure of health data without consent is a violation of dignity and privacy.
Significance:
Reinforced the principle from Puttaswamy that health-related information must be treated as highly confidential.
Recognized the right to control one’s own health and personal data as part of individual autonomy.
🏛️ 5. Riley v. California (2014) – Supreme Court of the United States
(Health & Fitness Data on Smartphones)
Facts:
Riley’s smartphone was seized during an arrest, and police accessed its data, including health, fitness, and personal app data, without a warrant.
Issue:
Can the police search a smartphone (which contains health or fitness data) without a warrant?
Judgment:
The Supreme Court unanimously held that law enforcement must obtain a warrant before searching digital data on smartphones.
The Court stated that modern phones store “the privacies of life”, including health data, which cannot be treated like physical evidence.
Significance:
One of the first cases to protect health and app data privacy under constitutional rights.
It made clear that personal data stored digitally deserves full Fourth Amendment protection.
📚 Summary Table
| Case Name | Court | Key Issue | Judgment / Principle Established |
|---|---|---|---|
| Justice K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India (2017) | Supreme Court of India | Privacy of health & biometric data | Health app data is part of the fundamental right to privacy. |
| Carpenter v. United States (2018) | U.S. Supreme Court | Warrantless access to digital/health data | Health app data is constitutionally protected; warrants required. |
| United States v. Chatrie (2020) | U.S. Federal Courts | Mass data collection via Google Fit | Broad collection violates privacy; limits on geofence warrants. |
| Navtej Singh Johar v. Union of India (2018) | Supreme Court of India | Informational privacy and dignity | Unauthorized access to health or personal data violates dignity. |
| Riley v. California (2014) | U.S. Supreme Court | Access to smartphone health data | Phones hold private health data; warrants needed for search. |
⚖️ Conclusion
These landmark rulings collectively established that:
Health app data = Sensitive personal information, deserving the highest level of privacy protection.
Government or police must obtain consent or a warrant before accessing such data.
Courts can admit health app data as evidence, but only if legally obtained and authenticity verified.
The Right to Privacy (under Article 21 in India and Fourth Amendment in the U.S.) applies fully to digital health and fitness data.
RELATED Blog
0 comments