WITH CASE LAWS – ARTICLE 21
- Marriage
Marriage may be a bond of affection and trust. This institution has given some inherent rights to every partner but there are situations when this social and legal entity encroaches the privacy of the partners then courts have a requirement to seem into the interest check how far this encroachment is valid.
Case: State interference in decision to marry is Violative of Privacy (Shafin Jehan case[1]
2. Privacy on financial/monetary records (Canara bank case[2])
Financial records of people must even be shielded from potential misuse. because the instances of fraud are on the increase , hence there’s an urgent got to pass special guidelines to the present effect. Financial records of people must not be shared with banks and financial companies without the knowledge also because the consent of the parties, except in accordance with the procedure established by law. The misuse of monetary data of people can have a disastrous impact on the speed of increase in other crimes, as an example , kidnapping, extortion, etc.
3.Privacy over medical records (X vs. Hospital Z case[3])
Medical records of people must be protected, as this data can potentially be misused. it’s imperative that such data isn’t collected and thereafter sold to researchers within the field of life science , without the consent of the parties involved.
4.Sexual privacy–
The problem of proving a marital rape in court would be very critical yet the law of the land must make marital rape a criminal offence to guard the sexual sovereignty of girls . The state is under an obligation to guard the rights accorded on every citizen and if any sort of violence meted on woman is that the failure of State duty. sexual assault does infringe women’s fundamental rights and mere fact of the known identity of the offender cannot make the abuse as no offence.
i. privacy is violated when offence of rape is committed (Krishnappa case[4])
ii. State interference in sexual partners for Homosexuals violates privacy (Naz Foundation & Navtej Singh Johar case[5])
iii. Virginity test is a violative of Privacy given in (Surjit singh case[6])
5. Forceful medical procedure
Consent is probably the sole principle that runs through all aspects of health care provisions today. It also represents the legal and ethical expression of the essential right to possess one’s autonomy and self-determination. If a medical man attempts to treat an individual without valid consent, then he are going to be liable under both tort and legal code . Tort may be a tort that the aggrieved party may seek compensation from the incorrect doer[7].
Privacy is violated if forced to undergo medical procedures (Sharda case and ND Tiwari case[8])
6. Telephone tapping
This constitutes a grave invasion to the proper to privacy. Telephonic conversation amounts to the exercise of the proper to freedom of speech and expression of an individual , which is protected by Article 19(2). In india telephone tapping is allowedgiven under section 5(2) of Telegraph Act, 1885 but only in certain special circumstances.
Tapping of telephonic conversation violates Privacy (PUCL and RM Malkani case[9])
7. Police surveillance
Expansion transforms the character of interception and surveillance in India from an emergency protocol within the hands of one functionary to a widely-used tool of enforcement . Consequently, it’s concerning that an antiquated surveillance framework is being deployed by the govt at this scale. It violates the core principles of Indian privacy jurisprudence.
Surveillance violates Privacy if done for innocent man (Kharak Singh and Gobind case[10])
8. Incriminating Disclosure
Article 20 (3) provides protection against self-incrimination and provides the accused the proper to stay silent over any matter which tends to incriminate him. this text extends to the persons who are compelled to be a witness and also covers searches and seizures wherein, an accused or the person being searched is under no obligation to be a neighborhood of the search.
Disclosure of information forcefully of incrimination violates privacy (Selvi case[11])
9. Biometric data
UIDAI[12] may be a body of the govt which works as an issuing authority of UID to each person. A UID (Unique Identity Card) is an identity issued by the UIDAI to supply a singular identity to each person after obtaining his personal information. This includes a person’s biometric information, hence it are often considered because the most private information of a person . A Bill was introduced in 2010 to lift the confidentiality of the biometrics information, allowing it to be shared within the interest of national security. In the UIDAI and Anr. Central Bureau of Investigation, the C.B.I sought access to the large database that was compiled by the Unique Identification Authority of India, so as to research a criminal offense. it had been held by the Supreme Court that UIDAI wasn’t alleged to transfer any bio-metrics without the consent of the person so involved[13].
Mandatory requirement of Adhar card linkage violates Privacy (Puttaswamy case[14])
10. Notice U/Special Marriage Act
The Special Marriages Act of 1954 is being challenged over privacy concerns by a writ petition Marriage as defined in sociological theorem is as a socially supported and sanctified union involving to individual as partners during a personal relation.
The special marriages act may be a special provision which lays down the provisions for the wedding of people belonging to 2 different religion.
Responding to a PIL, the Ministry of Law and Justice told the Delhi Supreme Court that the conditions and procedures, including the 30-day notice for solemnisation of a wedding under the Act, are “reasonable and fair”.
Mandatory notice requirement u/SMA violates Privacy (Safiya Sultana case of Allahabad H.C [15])
While considering the evolution of Constitutional jurisprudence on the right to privacy, in the challenge laid to Sec.377 of Indian Penal Code, one of the grounds of challenge was that the given provision amounts to the infringement of Right to privacy and dignity.
[1] (2018) 16 SCC 368, AIR 2018 SC 1933
[2] Appeal (civil) 6350-6374 of 1997
[3] Appeal (civil) 4641 of 1998
[4] Equivalent citations: 2000 CriLJ 1793, JT 2000 (3) SC 516, 2000 (2) SCALE 610, (2000) 4 SCC 75, 2000 2 SCR 761, 2000 (2) UJ 919 SC.
[5] WP(Crl.)No.76/2016 .[6] Surjit Singh Thind vs Kanwaljit Kaur on 25 April, 2003 Equivalent citations: AIR 2003 P H 353.
[7] https://www.leclife.com/index.php?alec=search
[8] Case citation (2012) 12 SCC 554.
[9] Equivalent citations: 1973 AIR 157, 1973 SCR (2) 417.
[10] Equivalent citations: 1963 AIR 1295, 1964 SCR (1) 332.
[11] Criminal Appeal No. 1267 of 2004.
[12] Unique Identification Authority of India .
[13] https://ctconline.org/wp-content/uploads/pdf/2019/seminar-presentation/essay/R-11.pdf
[14] citation: (2017) 10 SCC 1.
[15] Case- HABEAS CORPUS No. - 16907 of 2020.
Aishwarya Says:
I have always been against Glorifying Over Work and therefore, in the year 2021, I have decided to launch this campaign “Balancing Life”and talk about this wrong practice, that we have been following since last few years. I will be talking to and interviewing around 1 lakh people in the coming 2021 and publish their interview regarding their opinion on glamourising Over Work.
IF YOU ARE INTERESTED IN PARTICIPATING IN THE SAME, DO LET ME KNOW.
Do follow me on Facebook, Twitter Youtube and Instagram.
The copyright of this Article belongs exclusively to Ms. Aishwarya Sandeep. Reproduction of the same, without permission will amount to Copyright Infringement. Appropriate Legal Action under the Indian Laws will be taken.
If you would also like to contribute to my website, then do share your articles or poems at secondinnings.hr@gmail.com
In the year 2021, we wrote about 1000 Inspirational Women In India, in the year 2022, we would be featuring 5000 Start Up Stories.