PRIVACY IN INDIA: UNPACKING THE JURISPRUDENCE BEHIND AND IMPACT AFTER PUTTASWAMY JUDGMENT

INTRODUCTION

In a unified world where everything is getting interrelated, the principle of privacy entails much more than one would envisage because it is fast turning out to be one of the primary pillars of personal freedom and human dignity. In the case of India, which is quickly moving towards digitalisation, the protection of personal data and privacy has become the priority. In practice, however, before recent amendments to the Indian constitution, there was never a guaranteed right to privacy, and taking a piecemeal view of the judicial interpretations, they have been historically fragmented and ambiguous as well. This ambiguity left a gap that allows citizens to be exposed to unjustified state interference and growing risks of data misuse.The Supreme Court of India finally found solutions to this gap in its path-making 2017 judgment, K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India. This article traces the legal historical case-by-case basis that led to this landmark decision and how the Court made privacy a fundamental right in itself establishing it as an intrinsic right to the natural rights like the Right to Life and Personal Liberty under Article 21 and its relationship to the right to equality under Article 14 and the right to freedom of speech and expression under Article 19. Moreover, it examines the significant post-Puttaswamy influence in India's legal path and how some privacy laws and data protection systems were built and, in turn, provides a timeline of privacy rights in the biggest democracy in the world.

PRIVACY: BEFORE 2017 JUDGEMENT

Before 2017, the right to privacy in India was in a constitutional limbo. Although it was not explicitly listed as one of the fundamental rights in the Constitution, the judiciary over the years had given certain aspects of privacy serious consideration through diverse interpretation, which was mainly as a result of the wide interpretation of the concept of personal liberty in Article 21. The first judgements, e.g., M.P. Sharma v. Satish Chandra and Kharak Singh v. The State of Uttar Pradesh, tended to interpret the matter with a restrictive approach, which led to the view that privacy was not a fundamental right. These instances mostly concerned physical invasions such as searches or surveillance, and the constitutional safeguard afforded them was not identified directly by the courts. But over time, decisions of the court started to slowly expand this interpretation. Cases such as the Gobind v. State of Madhya Pradesh and R. Rajagopal v. The State of Tamil Nadu recognised a small right to privacy, which was frequently connected with the area of personal space and family life as well as reputation. However, these could be potentiated as secondary rights and not an independent basic right per se. It implied that the rights that had been granted to privacy were not uniform and were subject to a specific set of facts in each particular case, which made people susceptible to the intrusion of the state and non-state actors, particularly in an era of digital technologies and mass data gathering. Privacy did not have a coherent, comprehensive constitutional mandate, and therefore, there was no formidable legal framework that could effectively deal with emerging issues such as data protection, surveillance, and informational autonomy, thereby making the Puttaswamy judgement fill this required gap.

JURISPRUDENTIAL ASPECTS BEHIND THE PRIVACY AND THE SIGNIFICANCE OF STATUTORY PROVISIONS

Jurisprudence of privacy, in an overall layman's term, simply refers to the legal philosophy and the set of legal principles that determine, interpret, and enforce the right of a person to regulate his or her premises, his or her information, and his or her decisions. The most important jurisprudential values that have formed the basis of this right are the "right to be left alone", which focuses on the absence of an unwelcome intrusion; “informational self-determination”, which asserts the individual to be in control of his or her personal information, and the “right to privacy as a precondition to the exercise of other freedoms” such as freedom of expression and freedom of association, among others. Moreover, it is common to impose restrictions on privacy based on the harm principle,which implies restrictions on privacy are only justified if one’s actions cause harm to others. The significance of the statutory provisions in such a context cannot be ignored. Although the pivotal legal principles or constitutional statements define the right to privacy, statutes are the working tools to bring a right to life. They help realise abstract rights in their practical terms and determine what the violation of privacy means, what duties are on agencies processing personal data (such as the government or businesses), and what redress can be given to those whose privacy rights have been infringed. Legislation also offers the requisite regulation, such as the establishment of supervisory organisations, enforcement methods, and penalties against defiant actions. A defined right to privacy would only be an abstract notion that would not be realised in practice without elaborate provisions in the statute and the instruments to enforce them, without which the right to privacy can never be developed.

INTERCONNECTION AMONG FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS

Privacy is not explicitly expressed through the Indian constitutional framework; it is subtly woven into the fabric of fundamental rights, mostly around Articles 14, 19, and 21. Article 21, the foundation of personal freedom, has received a broader (diverse) interpretation from the Supreme Court in matters concerning privacy (among others), including bodily integrity, decisional autonomy and informational privacy. This development in jurisprudence acknowledges that human existence, which is guaranteed a dignified existence in the realm of Article 21, cannot be without a safe private space that is not subjected to unnecessary search. As an example, the doctrine of “ procedure established by law “, under Article 21, requires that any state action which encroaches upon personal liberty, such as upon privacy, must be fair, just, and reasonable, as pronounced in the case of Maneka Gandhi v. UOI, 1978. 

Moreover, privacy is the requisite element when it comes to the exercise of the rights prescribed in Article 19. Rights to freedom of speech and expression (Article 19(1)(a)), in its example, may be crushed when a person is afraid of being spied on or of his/her inner thoughts and messages being leaked to the masses. In the same way, the right to peaceful assembly (Article 19 (1)(b)) or to live wherever one wants (Article 19(1) (e)) is in some way dependent on the amount of privacy being worthy of the name. Lastly, privacy is in relationship with Article 14 (Right to Equality). State actions that intrude on privacy without a legal basis or discrimination in law based on private characteristics (e.g., sexual orientation, as was the case in Navtej Singh Johar v. Union of India) are wrong as they directly insult the principle of equality before the law. The interrelatedness in these articles shows that privacy is not only a right alone but a constitutional component that can guarantee the maximum enjoyment and complete enjoyment of the other liberties in the constitution, which ensure individual self-determination and dignity.

POST EFFECT OF PUTTASWAMY JUDGEMENT

The K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India judgement became a historical moment in India as privacy became a fundamental part of the Indian Law. Greater importance was the absolute statement by a bench consisting of nine judges that the right to privacy is a fundamental right, it mainly arises out of Article 21 of the Constitution, and it is intertwined with Articles 14 and 19. This reversed years of equivocations and limited conceptions of privacy and settled the matter by determining that privacy is an inherent, inalienable component of human decency and self-autonomy. The verdict introduced under post-Puttaswamy required the state to create an effective data protection regime. This resulted directly in the formation of the Digital Personal Data Protection Act, 2023 (DPDP Act), which represents the most important change in legislation. DPDP Act realises the right to privacy that exists in the constitution by: Rights of data principals: Provides the rights to individuals (data principals) to have the rights over their data, such as their right to access, correct, and erase their personal data and to have their grievances redressed. Providing a strict duty on data fiduciaries: It imposes very restrictive duties on the entities (the data fiduciaries) that collect and process personal data, imposing an explicit consent requirement for data processing as well as reasonable security requirements. Putting in place a proportionality framework: The Act does not overtly follow the Puttaswamy test, but the principles of purpose limitation and data minimisation do find embedded reflection of the need and proportionality postulates the Supreme Court imposed in any reasonable state interference with privacy. Institution of a regulatory body: The Act seeks to provide a Data Protection Board of India to administer the Act and settle disputes. Other legal achievements in the Puttaswamy Decision, other than the DPDP Act, relate to the decriminalisation of homosexuality in Navtej Singh Johar v. Union of India case; the court itself referred to privacy when it ruled on the case. The case of Puttaswamy remains an excellent precedent on balancing the individual privacy right.

CONCLUSION 

The course of Indian privacy law development can change with a thriving and developing model, which was redefined by the K.S. Puttaswamy case. This judgement surpassed all the confusion that existed earlier, entrenching the right to privacy as a fundamental right component in its own right in the Indian Constitution, mainly in Article 21, and that its relationship with Articles 14 and 19 is deep-rooted. Rather than viewing privacy as an independent right, this comprehensive meaning of privacy recognises it as a precursor to human dignity, individual autonomy, and meaningful exercise of other constitutional freedoms. A considerable transformation towards a patterned order of the law by abandoning the fragmented method of law has been observed in the post-Puttaswamy era. A direct legislative aftermath is the passing of the Digital Personal Data Protection Act, 2023, which translates the constitutional requirement into specific actionable stopping points that are enshrined in the statute. Putting more focus on the data principal rights, data fiduciary duties, and a system of proportionality, this Act indicates a pledge of India in the protection of personal data in the digital era. The difficulty of implementation and maintaining the balance between personal privacy and the interest of the state has yet to be resolved, but the jurisprudential clarity established by Puttaswamy and the consequent developments of legislation have created a solid base. With the current emerging privacy context in India, individual freedom is being better guarded as privacy is a legal concept in which the doctrines of be let alone and right to control the use of personal information are becoming better defined and enhanced.

---

By Karan Kumar

Karan Kumar is a 3rd year student pursuing B.Sc.;LL.B(Hons) from National Forensic Sciences University, Gandhinagar, Gujarat under School of Law, Forensic Justice and Policy Studies. He has a background in tech and law with a major area of study in data Science, Cyber Crime and Laws. He is a columnist and writes for newspaper columns.