The Right to Privacy — Article 21, Cases, Acts, GDPR etc.
Right to Privacy
Welcome to Barristery.in, where we dive deep into the essence of one of the most vital human rights in today’s digital era — the Right to Privacy. In a world where our lives are increasingly online, and personal data can easily become public, the significance of privacy has never been more pronounced.
This Article will guide you through the intricate landscape of privacy rights, exploring its legal battles, societal impacts, and personal ramifications. We’ll uncover how landmark judgements have shaped the way we understand privacy today and what it means for your personal freedom in a world of constant surveillance.
From protecting your digital footprint to understanding your rights against data breaches, join us as we navigate the complex interplay between privacy, technology, and individual liberty.
On December 15, 1890, young law partners from Boston, Samuel D. Warren and Louis D. Brandeis, contributed a seminal article titled “The Right to Privacy” to the Harvard Law Review. This article suggested solutions for addressing intrusions into personal privacy by the press. Fast forward over ninety years, and the legal system has elevated the protection of privacy to a principal concern. A comprehensive body of case law on privacy has been systematically compiled by legal experts into a unified common law of privacy. Additionally, the Supreme Court has recognized the right to privacy as implicitly protected by the Bill of Rights, and Congress has passed further protective measures.
What is the Right to Privacy?
The right to privacy is a fundamental human right recognized in many countries around the world. It protects individuals against unwarranted invasions of their personal space, communications, and information by the government, organizations, and other individuals. Privacy enables individuals to make personal choices without interference, live their lives with dignity and autonomy, and express themselves freely.
The scope of the right to privacy can vary from one jurisdiction to another but generally includes aspects such as:
- The protection against searches of one’s body or home without consent.
- Safeguards against the collection, use, and disclosure of personal data without consent.
- The right to communicate freely without surveillance or interception.
- Protection against unauthorized entry into one’s private premises.
- The right to control the collection and sharing of data about oneself.
In the digital age, the right to privacy has become increasingly complex, encompassing issues related to data protection, online identity, and digital surveillance. Countries have developed various laws and regulations to address these challenges, such as the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) in the European Union, which aims to give individuals control over their personal data and simplify the regulatory environment for international business.
The right to privacy is not absolute and can be limited under certain conditions, such as national security, public safety, or the prevention of crime. However, any infringement on privacy rights must be justified as necessary, proportionate, and in accordance with the law.
Famous Persons Quote on Right to Privacy
One of the most cited definitions of the right to privacy comes from Samuel D. Warren and Louis D. Brandeis in their famous 1890 Harvard Law Review article, “The Right to Privacy.” They defined privacy as:
Samuel D. Warren and Louis D. Brandeis
“The right to be let alone; the most comprehensive of rights, and the right most valued by civilized men.”
This definition, though over a century old, captures the essence of privacy as a fundamental human right, emphasizing the importance of personal space and autonomy. Warren and Brandeis articulated this concept in response to the increasing reach of newspapers and photographs into private lives, showing how concerns about privacy have evolved alongside technology. Their work laid the groundwork for the legal and philosophical discussions on privacy that continue to this day.
Alan Westin
Alan Westin, a pioneer in privacy studies, defined privacy in his 1967 book “Privacy and Freedom” as:
“The claim of individuals, groups, or institutions to determine for themselves when, how, and to what extent information about them is communicated to others.”
Westin’s definition emphasizes the control over personal information, which has become increasingly relevant in the digital age.
Article 12 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR)
While not a definition per se, Article 12 of the UDHR, adopted by the United Nations General Assembly in 1948, lays down a foundational principle of privacy rights:
“No one shall be subjected to arbitrary interference with his privacy, family, home or correspondence, nor to attacks upon his honour and reputation. Everyone has the right to the protection of the law against such interference or attacks.”
This article highlights the universal importance of privacy as a human right, protected against arbitrary interference.
Justice Louis Brandeis
Before the famous Harvard Law Review article with Samuel Warren, as a Supreme Court Justice, Louis Brandeis famously articulated the concept of privacy in the case of Olmstead v. United States in 1928, concurring opinion:
“The right to be let alone — the most comprehensive of rights and the right most valued by civilized men.”
This quote, though echoing the earlier work, was significant in its judicial context and has been influential in shaping American privacy law.
European Union’s General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR)
The GDPR, which came into effect in May 2018, doesn’t provide a direct definition of privacy but is one of the most comprehensive legal frameworks for protecting personal data. It is grounded in the broader concept of data protection as a fundamental right, as articulated in Article 8 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union:
“Everyone has the right to the protection of personal data concerning him or her.”
This emphasizes the right to data protection as an aspect of privacy in the context of personal data.
International recognition of the right to privacy as a fundamental right
The right to privacy is internationally recognized as a fundamental human right, enshrined in various global and regional human rights instruments. This recognition underscores the universal acknowledgment of privacy as essential to the dignity and autonomy of individuals. below are the key documents and conventions that establish the right to privacy on the international stage:
Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) — Article 12 of the UDHR, adopted by the United Nations General Assembly in 1948, explicitly mentions privacy. It states, “No one shall be subjected to arbitrary interference with his privacy, family, home or correspondence, nor to attacks upon his honour and reputation. Everyone has the right to the protection of the law against such interference or attacks.”
International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) — Article 17 of the ICCPR, which came into force in 1976, provides a more detailed right to privacy. It prohibits arbitrary or unlawful interference with an individual’s privacy, family, home, or correspondence, and unlawful attacks on their honor and reputation, mirroring the protections offered in the UDHR.
European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) — Article 8 of the ECHR, enforced by the European Court of Human Rights, protects the right to respect for private and family life, one’s home, and correspondence. The ECHR applies to the member states of the Council of Europe.
American Convention on Human Rights — Article 11 of this convention provides for the protection of personal privacy, the privacy of the family, the home, and correspondence. This convention applies to member states of the Organization of American States (OAS).
African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights — Also known as the Banjul Charter, it implicitly recognizes privacy rights through protections against arbitrary arrest (Article 6) and the right to receive information and express and disseminate opinions (Article 9), which can be interpreted to include aspects of privacy.
General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR): Enacted by the European Union in 2018, the GDPR is one of the most comprehensive data protection regulations globally. It has set a new standard for privacy rights, emphasizing consent, transparency, and control over personal data for individuals within the EU. The GDPR’s influence extends beyond Europe, as international businesses must comply with its provisions to offer goods and services to EU residents.
United Nations Guidelines for the Regulation of Computerized Personal Data Files: Adopted in 1990, these guidelines were among the first international efforts to address data protection and privacy in the context of emerging digital technologies. They set out principles for the collection, processing, and storage of personal data.
These instruments reflect a global consensus on the importance of protecting privacy rights. However, the implementation and interpretation of these rights can vary significantly across different legal and cultural contexts. In recent years, the right to privacy has gained renewed attention, especially concerning digital privacy, data protection, and surveillance. Legislative and judicial bodies worldwide have been tasked with balancing these rights against national security interests, technological advancements, and other competing rights.
Right to privacy in different countries
The right to privacy is recognized and protected to varying degrees around the world, reflecting diverse legal traditions, cultural values, and technological landscapes. In today’s data-centric world, where personal information is more accessible than ever, the establishment of data protection and privacy laws by various countries is crucial.
The United Nations Conference on Trade and Development (UNCTAD) reports that out of 194 countries globally, 137 have implemented legislation concerning privacy and data protection. In regions like Asia and Africa, there is a notable embrace of such legislation, with 57% and 61% of the countries, respectively, having adopted laws to safeguard privacy. These international data protection laws are grounded in five fundamental global privacy principles.
United States
The U.S. Constitution does not explicitly mention the right to privacy, but the Supreme Court has interpreted several amendments to imply this right, particularly through the Fourth Amendment (protection against unreasonable searches and seizures) and the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
The U.S. has a sector-specific approach to privacy law, with various statutes addressing privacy in contexts such as healthcare (HIPAA), financial information (GLBA), and online privacy for children (COPPA).
European Union
General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR), The GDPR is a comprehensive data protection law that came into effect in May 2018. It emphasizes consent, data protection by design, and the rights of individuals to control their personal data, including the right to be forgotten. European Convention on Human Rights, Article 8 protects the right to respect for private and family life, home, and correspondence.
India
In 2017, the Supreme Court of India ruled that the right to privacy is a fundamental right protected under the Constitution of India, underlining its importance to freedoms and personal liberty.
India also has specific regulations for the protection of personal data in the digital environment, though a comprehensive data protection law is under consideration to enhance privacy protections under the Information Technology Act, 2000 and Rules.
Brazil
Enacted in August 2020, the LGPD is influenced by the General Data Protection Law (LGPD) and establishes detailed rules for the collection, use, processing, and storage of personal data. It emphasizes consent and grants individuals rights over their data.
China
Implemented in November 2021, Personal Information Protection Law (PIPL) is China’s first comprehensive data protection law. It shares similarities with the GDPR but also reflects China’s unique legal and social context, with a notable focus on national security and social governance.
Canada
Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act (PIPEDA) governs how private sector organizations collect, use, and disclose personal information in the course of commercial activities across Canada, except in provinces with substantially similar laws.
Australia
Privacy Act 1988 includes the Australian Privacy Principles (APPs), which outline how most Australian Government agencies, all private sector and not-for-profit organisations with an annual turnover of more than $3 million, and all private health service providers must handle, use, and manage personal information.
Japan
Act on the Protection of Personal Information (APPI) Revised significantly in 2020, the APPI regulates the use of personal data and is considered Japan’s counterpart to the GDPR, with a focus on data subject rights and cross-border data transfer protections.
These examples illustrate the global landscape of privacy law, which ranges from comprehensive data protection regimes in places like the EU and Brazil to more sector-specific approaches in the U.S., and evolving frameworks in countries like India and China. Despite these differences, there is a growing global consensus on the importance of protecting individuals’ privacy rights in the face of rapid technological advancements and increasing data flows.
Right to Privacy in India
The right to privacy in India has evolved significantly, especially in recent years, to become a fundamental right protected under the Indian Constitution. This evolution reflects India’s commitment to protecting the personal freedoms and dignity of its citizens in the face of technological advancements and growing concerns about data protection.
Constitutional Recognition
The landmark judgment that established the right to privacy as a fundamental right in India came from the Supreme Court in August 2017, in the case of Justice K.S. Puttaswamy (Retd.) vs Union Of India And Ors. The Court unanimously ruled that the right to privacy is protected as an intrinsic part of the right to life and personal liberty under Article 21 and as a part of the freedoms guaranteed by Part III of the Indian Constitution.
Implications of the Judgment
This judgment has wide-ranging implications for various aspects of law and policy, including:
Data Protection: It laid the foundation for more stringent data protection laws and policies, acknowledging the need for regulations that safeguard personal data against unauthorized use.
Aadhaar Case: The verdict played a crucial role in the Aadhaar case (Justice K.S. Puttaswamy (Retd.) vs Union Of India, September 2018), where the Supreme Court upheld the constitutional validity of the Aadhaar scheme but with conditions to ensure privacy, such as striking down Section 57 of the Aadhaar Act to prevent private companies from demanding Aadhaar for identification.
Sexual Orientation: The judgment also had implications for the recognition of privacy concerning personal choices, including sexual orientation, leading to the decriminalization of homosexuality in India in 2018 (Navtej Singh Johar vs Union Of India).
Legal and Regulatory Framework
Following the Supreme Court’s decision, there has been a push toward establishing a more robust legal framework for data protection in India:
Personal Data Protection Bill: Inspired by global standards such as the GDPR, India has been working on its own data protection law, the Personal Data Protection Bill, which aims to regulate the use of individual data by the government and private entities. However, as of my last update in April 2023, the Bill was still under consideration and had not been enacted into law.
Information Technology Act, 2000: Before the Personal Data Protection Bill, the primary law dealing with data protection in India was the Information Technology Act, 2000, and its rules, which address electronic commerce and cybercrime, including certain provisions about data privacy.
The right to privacy in India represents a critical balance between individual freedoms and the needs of the digital economy and state security. The legal landscape continues to evolve, reflecting the ongoing dialogue between privacy rights, technological innovation, and regulatory frameworks.
Article 21 of the Constitution and the right to privacy
Article 21 of the Indian Constitution is a fundamental provision that guarantees the protection of life and personal liberty. It states, “No person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty except according to procedure established by law.”
Historically, Article 21 was interpreted narrowly, focusing mainly on physical restraints or deprivations. However, the Supreme Court, through various judgments, expanded the interpretation to include a wide range of rights that are essential for the enjoyment of life and personal liberty, effectively embedding the right to privacy within its ambit.
Over the years, the interpretation of Article 21 has significantly evolved, especially with the landmark judgment by the Supreme Court of India in the case of Justice K.S. Puttaswamy (Retd.) vs Union Of India And Ors. in 2017, which explicitly recognized the right to privacy as an intrinsic part of the right to life and personal liberty.
Landmark Judgment: Justice K.S. Puttaswamy (Retd.) vs Union Of India And Ors.
The Supreme Court’s unanimous decision in the Puttaswamy case marked a turning point for the right to privacy in India. The nine-judge bench overruled previous Supreme Court judgments that had held that privacy was not a fundamental right, thereby affirming that privacy is protected under Article 21 and other parts of the Constitution that guarantee fundamental rights.
The court recognized privacy as a conglomeration of various rights, including the rights to personal autonomy, bodily integrity, protection of personal information, and the freedom to make choices about one’s own life. This broad understanding of privacy extends to various aspects of existence, encompassing the physical realm, informational privacy, and the autonomy to make personal choices.
Implications of the Judgment
The recognition of the right to privacy as a fundamental right under Article 21 has several implications:
Data Protection and Privacy Laws: The judgment served as a catalyst for the development of more stringent data protection and privacy laws in India, emphasizing the need to protect individuals’ data from unauthorized access and use.
Aadhaar and Other Policies: It critically examined the Aadhaar project, leading to significant changes to ensure that the use of Aadhaar complies with privacy principles. It also impacts various policies and practices that must now align with the privacy standards set by this judgment.
Personal Freedoms: The ruling supports the protection of a range of personal freedoms, including sexual orientation, marital choices, and food preferences, among others, affirming that these choices are part of the right to privacy.
State Surveillance: The judgment imposes limits on state surveillance, requiring that any invasion of privacy by the state must satisfy the conditions of legality, necessity, and proportionality.
The Supreme Court’s decision to include the right to privacy within Article 21’s guarantee of life and personal liberty represents a pivotal enhancement of constitutional rights in India. It underscores the Constitution’s living nature, adapting to contemporary challenges and advancing the protection of fundamental human rights in the digital age. This judgment reaffirms the importance of personal freedoms, autonomy, and dignity in the face of growing technological advancements and state powers.
Right to Privacy and Government Surveillance
The intersection of the right to privacy and government surveillance has been a contentious issue globally, balancing individual privacy rights against national security and law enforcement needs. With the advancement of technology, the capability of governments to conduct surveillance — be it through internet tracking, phone tapping, or the use of drones and other monitoring devices — has significantly increased, raising concerns about the potential for privacy infringements.
In India, the Supreme Court’s landmark judgment in Justice K.S. Puttaswamy (Retd.) vs Union Of India And Ors. (2017) recognized privacy as a fundamental right under Article 21 of the Constitution, which protects life and personal liberty. This recognition imposes a constitutional check on government surveillance activities, ensuring they must meet the criteria of legality, necessity, and proportionality to be deemed valid.
Legal and Ethical Considerations
Any surveillance by the government must be authorized by law. This means there must be a legal framework in place that explicitly allows such surveillance, detailing the scope, manner, and conditions under which surveillance can be carried out.
Government surveillance must serve a legitimate state aim, such as national security, prevention of crime, or protection of public health.
The surveillance measures must be proportionate to the needs of the legitimate aim being pursued. This implies that the measures should be the least intrusive means necessary to achieve the objective and should be accompanied by adequate safeguards against abuse.
To protect the right to privacy while allowing for necessary government surveillance, several safeguards and forms of oversight are essential:
Many democracies require that surveillance activities, especially those potentially infringing on individual privacy, be approved by a court or judicial body.
Legislative bodies often have committees or oversight mechanisms to review and regulate surveillance practices, ensuring they comply with legal standards and respect privacy rights.
While operational details of surveillance programs may not be publicly disclosed, the existence of such programs, their legal basis, and oversight mechanisms should be transparent to ensure accountability.
Individuals should have avenues to seek redressal if their privacy rights are violated by government surveillance.
Global Perspective
The debate over privacy and government surveillance is not unique to India; it’s a global concern. Different countries have different legal frameworks and societal norms regarding surveillance. For example, the European Union’s General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) sets strict limits on data collection and processing, emphasizing individual privacy rights. In contrast, other countries may grant their governments relatively broad surveillance powers in the interest of national security.
In an era of advancing technologies, the Court recognized the critical need to safeguard individuals’ informational privacy more effectively. While the right to privacy is not absolute and can be limited by law, any restrictions must follow a legally established procedure. The Court emphasized that the government must implement adequate mechanisms to protect the personal and biometric information of citizens, ensuring that data is used solely for its intended purpose and not for surveillance.
In summary, while government surveillance is sometimes necessary for national security and public safety, it must be conducted within the bounds of law, respecting the fundamental right to privacy. Balancing these interests requires a nuanced approach, ensuring that surveillance practices are subject to strict legal standards, oversight, and accountability mechanisms.
Important Cases on Right to Privacy
The potential for government misuse of surveillance capabilities poses significant concerns. Authorities may exploit these powers to establish a regime of constant monitoring, effectively stifling any opposition. Such practices constitute a violation of individuals’ privacy rights. High-profile cases like the Pegasus Spyware attacks and the Cambridge Analytica scandal illustrate instances where governments are accused of conducting surveillance on individuals. These incidents have been widely condemned as severe breaches of privacy, highlighting the risks associated with such invasive monitoring techniques.
The legality of surveillance provisions was scrutinized in several landmark cases, including M.P. Sharma v. Satish Chandra (1954), Kharak Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh (1963), and Govind v. State of Madhya Pradesh (1975), all of which centered on allegations of privacy infringement. The Supreme Court’s stance varied across these cases.
M.P. Sharma v. Satish Chandra (1954): the Court ruled that search and seizure operations do not infringe on the right to privacy, arguing that the Constitution does not explicitly guarantee such a right. It justified these powers as essential for upholding law and order and facilitating police functions.
Kharak Singh vs State of Uttar Pradesh (1963): This case involved a challenge to the Uttar Pradesh Police Regulations, which allowed for surveillance activities like domiciliary visits and secret picketing. The Supreme Court held that certain aspects of the regulations violated the “personal liberty” of individuals. However, the court did not explicitly recognize a fundamental right to privacy at this time.
Gobind vs State of Madhya Pradesh (1975): In this case, the Supreme Court took a step forward by acknowledging that the right to privacy could be inferred from the Constitution’s provisions on the “right to life” and “personal liberty.” This case set the stage for the recognition of privacy as a constitutional right.
R. Rajagopal vs State of Tamil Nadu (1994): Also known as the Auto Shankar case, this marked a significant moment in the recognition of the right to privacy in India. The Supreme Court explicitly recognized the right to privacy as a part of the right to life under Article 21 of the Constitution, establishing that individuals have a right to privacy against state and non-state actors.
People’s Union for Civil Liberties (PUCL) vs Union of India (1997): This case was pivotal for privacy in the context of communication surveillance. The Supreme Court laid down guidelines for wiretapping under the Indian Telegraph Act, emphasizing the need to protect individuals’ privacy.
You can read full article on our Website: https://www.barristery.in/2024/02/the-right-to-privacy-article-21-cases.html
