Read Time: 07 minutes

The Supreme Court has stated there is a need to recognise that “while technology is a useful tool for improving the lives of the people, it can also be used to breach that sacred private space of an individual.”

In its 46-page judgment the court in which Court has reasoned the need for appointment of an independent experts committee to probe into the Pegasus spyware snooping allegations, the court has also discussed certain nuances of the right to privacy in India­- its facets and importance.

A CJI NV Ramana led bench noted that unlike the ‘property centric’ origin of privacy rights in England and under the Fourth   Amendment in the Constitution of the United States of America, in India, privacy rights are traced to the right to life enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution.

"When this Court expounded on the meaning of “life” under Article 21, it did not restrict the same in a pedantic manner. An expanded meaning as been given to the right to life in India, which accepts that “life” does not refer to mere animal existence but encapsulates a   certain assured quality.", said a bench comprising of CJI Ramana and Justices Surya Kant and Hima Kohli.

With this view in mind, the Court remarked that we live in the era of information technology, where the entire lives of individuals are stored in the cloud or in a digital dossier and thus we must recognize that technology can also be used to breach that private space of an individual. 

"Members of a civilized democratic society have a reasonable expectation of privacy. Privacy is not the singular concern of journalists or social activists. Every citizen of India ought to be protected against violations of privacy. It is this expectation which enables us to exercise our choices, liberties, and freedom."

The court also referred to its dictum in K.S. Puttaswamy (Privacy­9J.) v. Union of India, (2017) 10 SCC 1, where it recognized that the right to privacy is as sacrosanct as human existence and is inalienable to human dignity and autonomy.

It has further held that although the right to privacy is not absolute, any restrictions imposed on such a fundamental right must necessarily pass constitutional scrutiny.

Since privacy is directly infringed when there is surveillance or spying done on an individual, either by the State or by any external agency, the Court has held that if such surveillance is carried on by the State, the same must be justified on constitutional grounds. It further remarked,

"This Court is cognizant of the State’s interest to ensure that life and liberty is preserved and must balance the same. For instance, in today’s world, information gathered   by   intelligence   agencies   through   surveillance   is essential for the fight against violence and terror. To access this information, a need may arise to interfere with the right to privacy of an individual, provided it is carried out only when it is absolutely necessary for protecting national security/interest and is proportional. The considerations for usage of such   alleged technology, ought to be evidence based. In a democratic country governed by the rule of law, indiscriminate spying on individuals cannot be allowed except with sufficient statutory safeguards, by following   the   procedure   established   by   law   under the Constitution."

Cause Title: ML Sharma v. PM | N. Ram v. UOI | Editors Guild of India v. UOI