RIGHT TO PRIVACY: A FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT

There were plenty of case related to right to privacy but only after K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India, Right to privacy got recognised.

What is Right to Privacy ?

Right to privacy means ‘to be let alone’, In other words, no invasion of personal space, being free from unwanted interruption or interference. It’s the definition according to black law dictionary.

Tom Gaiety said right to privacy is bound to include body inviolability, integrity and personal identity including marital privacy

Privacy depends upon individual to individuals some wants to communicate, some likes to be left alone, So, if they choose to not interact or communicate it’s their right to privacy to do so.

As Justice Dr. D.Y. Chandrachud held- “Privacy is concomitant of right of individual to exercise control over his or her personality. It finds an origin in the notion that there are certain rights which are natural to or inherent in human being, Natural rights are inalienable because they are inseparable from human being” for case K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India.

Case- K.S.Puttaswamy and Union of India

Brief Fact of the case

This case was about Right to Privacy which was brought by 91- year old retired Karnataka High Court Judge K.S. Puttaswamy against the Union of India before a nine-judge bench of the Supreme Court to determine whether the Right to Privacy was guaranteed as a fundamental right under the Indian Constitution.

This case concerned with the Aadhaar Card Scheme of the government of India which was collecting and compiling both the demographic and biometric data of the residents of the country to be used for various purposes.

This case was first represented to three-judge bench in Supreme Court on the issue that Aadhaar Card scheme is violating Right to privacy.

Since there appeared to be certain amount of unresolved contradiction in the law declared by the Supreme Court, it directed the Registry the matter to be placed before the Chief Justice of India for appropriate orders.

Court held

The Supreme Court in Justice K. Puttaswamy v. Union of India, by a Bench of nine judge overruled M.P. Sharma v. Satish Chandra, which had held the right to privacy not protected by the Constitution. It also overruled Kharak Singh v. State of U.P.

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-3 of the Constitution.

Various aspects of Right to privacy

Right to privacy

In R. Rajagopal v. State of T.N., popularly known as “Auto Shankar case” the Supreme Court has expressly held the “Right to privacy” or the right to let alone is guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution.

A citizen has a right to safeguard the privacy of his own, his family, marriage, procreation, motherhood, child-bearing and education among other matters. None can publish anything concerning the above matters without his consent whether truthful or otherwise. If he does so, he would be violating the right of the person concerned and would be liable in an action for damages. However, position may be differed if he voluntarily puts into controversy or voluntarily invites or raise a controversy.

Exception

● If any publication of such matters are based on public record including court record it will be unobjectionable. If a matter becomes a matter of public record the right to privacy no longer exists and it becomes a legitimate subject for comment by press and media among others.

● The right to privacy or the remedy to action for damages is simply not available to public officials as long as the criticism concerns the discharge of their public duties; not even when the publication is based on untrue facts and statements unless the official can establish that the statement had been reckless disregard of truth.

Right to privacy available to a women of easy virtues

In State of Maharashtra v. Madhulkar Narain, It has been held that the ‘right to privacy is available in even to a women of easy virtue virtue and no one can invade her privacy’.

Right to privacy not an absolute right

In Mr. ‘X’ v. Hospital ‘Z’, the Supreme Court has held that although the ‘Right to privacy’ is a fundamental right under Article 21 of the constitution but it is not an absolute right and restrictions can be imposed on it for the prevention of crime, disorder or protection of health or morals or protection of rights and freedom of others.

Right to privacy and virginity test

In Surjit Singh Thind v. Kanwaljit Kaur the Punjab and Haryana High Court held that allowing medical examination of a women for her virginity would amount to violation of her right to privacy and personal liberty enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution.

Such an order would amount to roving enquiry against a female who is vulnerable even otherwise. The virginity test cannot constitute the sole basis, to prove the consummation of marriage.

Right to privacy and surveillance

In Malak Singh v. State of Punjab, the question was whether a person whose name was included in the surveillance register had right of opportunity to be heard before such inclusion. While the court held that the rule of natural justice was not attracted but it made the law on the subject clear and laid down the guideline, regarding the mode of surveillance by the police. It was held that under Section 23 of the Punjab Police Act it was duty of the police officers to keep surveillance over bad characters, and habitual offenders for the purposes of preventing crimes.

Phone tapping

Husband tapping conversation of his wife with others seeking to produce in Court, violates her right to privacy under Article 21.

In Rayala M bhuvaneswari v. Nagaphamender Rayala

In this case, the Court held that act of tapping by the husband of conversation of the wife with others without her knowledge was illegal and amounted to infringement of her right under Article 21 of the Constitution.

The court observed that the purity of the relation between husband and wife is the basis of marriage. The husband was recording her conversation on telephone with her friends and parents in India without her knowledge. This is clear infringement of right to privacy of the wife. If husband is of such a nature and has no faith in his wife even about her conversations to her parents, then the institution of marriage itself becomes redundant.

Telephone Tapping

An invasion on Right to privacy,

In People’s Union Civil Liberties v. Union of India, popularly known as ‘Phone Tapping case’. The Supreme Court has held that telephone tapping is a serious invasion of an individual’s right to privacy which is part of the right to “life and personal liberty” enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution, and it should not be resorted to by the State unless there is public emergency or interest of public safety requires.

Conclusion

Right to privacy is constitutionally protected right which emerges primarily from the guarantee of life and personal liberty in Article 21 of the Constitution. Elements of privacy also arise in varying contexts from the other facets freedom and dignity recognised and guaranteed by the fundamental rights contained in Part 3.

Right to privacy is considered as fundamental right, but it’s not an absolute right, Since there can be circumstances where reasonable restriction can prevent crime or protect others.

With time passing by, we are getting more exposed to the environment where our details are not hidden, in the world of social media and cameras, protection of privacy is what everyone needs, laws are what we need which can prevent people from invading other people privacy or becoming a intrusion, and such law should be applicable in such a way that one should think before act.

Privacy should be protected in every aspect though it is reasonable to have restriction under the Constitution and other provisions of relevant statutory.