INTRODUCTION
Privacy is a natural component of human dignity, autonomy, and freedom. Over the last two
decades, privacy has moved beyond spatial seclusion to cover informational privacy, bodily
privacy, decisional autonomy, and freedom of thought and expression. The right to privacy,
although long acknowledged in moral and philosophical debates, has gained definite legal
recognition through constitutional law provisions and international human rights treaties. In
India, the right to privacy was enunciated as a fundamental right under Article 21 in the case
of Justice K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India (2017). Internationally, privacy has been
incorporated in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) and International
Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR). Nevertheless, the digital age has presented
unprecedented challenges to protecting privacy, particularly with the emergence of data-driven
governance, mass surveillance, profiling through social media, and artificial intelligence. This
article reviews the historical development of privacy as an integral human right, its legal
provisions, landmark judicial interpretations, and the current challenges it faces in the digital
era.
Legal Provisions Recognizing Privacy as a Human Right
The Universal Declaration of Human Rights, 1948, in Article 12 provides that no one shall be
subjected to arbitrary interference with their privacy, family, home, or correspondence, nor
attacks on their honor and reputation, and everyone has the right to the protection of the law
against such interference or attacks. Parallelly, Article 17 of the International Covenant on Civil
and Political Rights, 1966, also has nearly the same provision and makes protection of privacy
a binding duty on state parties.
In India, prior to 2017, there was no express mention of the right to privacy in the Constitution.
But in Justice K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India, the Supreme Court held unanimously that
the right to privacy is a component of the right to life and personal liberty under Article 21 and
also overlaps with freedoms enshrined under Part III of the Constitution. According to the
Court, privacy includes the right to bodily integrity, personal autonomy, informational self-
determination, and protection from surveillance.Dimensions of Privacy as a Human Right
Privacy as a human right is multi-dimensional. It encompasses physical privacy, for example,
immunity from non-consensual medical interventions or intrusive searching. Informational
privacy is concerned with management of personal information, immunity from unauthorised
collection, storage, processing, or release. Decisional privacy covers independence in close
personal decisions like marriage, family, sexuality, and reproductive freedom. The Supreme
Court in Puttaswamy held that privacy allows for autonomy and moral decision-making in the
absence of fear of social opprobrium or state intervention.
The digital age has amplified informational privacy issues because of large-scale data gathering
by the state and private organisations. Personal information is filtered through algorithms to
profile, predict, and shape behaviour, provoking ethical and legal issues related to consent,
surveillance, discrimination, and abuse. The General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) of
the European Union offers a strong data privacy framework for information, highlighting
consent, purpose limitation, data minimisation, and users’ rights including access, correction,
and erasure. India’s draft Digital Personal Data Protection Bill, 2023, aims to include similar
protections but has been faulted for having too many exemptions to government bodies.
Privacy in the Context of Technology and Social Media
Social media websites have transformed human interaction but also introduced new privacy
risks. The Cambridge Analytica incident illustrated how private data collected from Facebook
users was leveraged for political profiling and microtargeting contrary to privacy conventions.
Informational asymmetry arises due to the fact that users tend to agree to sophisticated terms
without actual knowledge of data applications. The right to be forgotten, acknowledged under
the GDPR and reaffirmed in Google Spain v. AEPD (2014), enables persons to request erasure
of personal data that is no longer needed or is no longer accurate. India’s Supreme Court in
Puttaswamy also acknowledged the right to be forgotten as a component of informational
privacy but its application is still awaited.
Artificial intelligence further complicates privacy by enabling automated decision-making,
facial recognition, and behavioural predictions. In Puttaswamy, Justice Chandrachud warned
that data mining enables intrusive knowledge of personal habits, choices, and identity, creating
risks of manipulation and chilling effects on free expression.Judicial Attitude Towards Privacy in International Jurisdictions
The European Court of Human Rights has consistently upheld privacy as central to human
dignity. In Peck v. United Kingdom (2003), the Court ruled that broadcasting CCTV footage
of an attempted suicide was against Article 8 rights. In S. and Marper v. United Kingdom
(2008), indefinite retention of the fingerprints and DNA profiles of acquitted individuals was
ruled disproportionate. The Inter-American Court of Human Rights in Escher v. Brazil (2009)
ruled that interception of communications without a warrant was an infringement of privacy
under the American Convention on Human Rights.
Privacy and the Indian Personal Data Protection Bill
Following Puttaswamy, the Indian government set up the Justice B.N. Srikrishna Committee
which came out with the Personal Data Protection Bill, 2019. The most recent version, the
Digital Personal Data Protection Bill, 2023, aims to create rights of access, correction, erasure,
and grievance redressal and impose obligations on data fiduciaries for purpose limitation and
security measures. But broad exceptions for state agencies under “public order” and national
security have been faulted as contrary to the proportionality doctrine established in
Puttaswamy. The critics aver that with no independent regulatory mechanism, effective
remedies, and restriction on state surveillance, the right to privacy is not safe.
Privacy and Freedom of Expression
Privacy and freedom of expression tend to be mutually reinforcing but sometimes conflicting.
Press freedom is in need of protection from surveillance for keeping sources’ confidentiality.
The Supreme Court in Rajagopal ruled that the press may publish true facts regarding a public
official without permission, as long as it does not encroach upon personal life outside of the
public role. The European Court in Von Hannover v. Germany (2004) drew a distinction
between reporting on matters of public interest and publishing pictures of private life merely
for commercial gain.
Conclusion
The right to privacy is a core human right based on dignity, autonomy, and liberty. This
recognition as a basic right under the Indian Constitution and universal human rights treaties
enshrines its growing significance in shielding individuals from unjustified interference and
upholding democratic principles. The digital age has increased the scope and challenges toprivacy, particularly with bulk collection of data, profiling, AI-powered surveillance, and poor
data protection legislation. Courts have been instrumental in construing privacy to encompass
bodily, informational, decisional, and spatial aspects. Nevertheless, the challenge is still that of
balancing state security interests with individual rights in a manner that ensures surveillance is
lawful, necessary, and proportionate. India’s draft data protection law needs to tighten
protections against state and corporate incursion, create an independent regulator, and endow
citizens with meaningful remedies. Privacy is not so much about secrecy but about dignity,
autonomy, and the freedom to make uninhibited choices without the risk of being watched or
manipulated. As technology evolves, constitutional and international human rights systems
need to evolve to ensure that privacy continues to be safeguarded as the pillar of human
freedom and dignity.
REFRENCES –
1. European Convention on Human Rights, 1950. Retrieved from
https://www.echr.coe.int/
2. General Data Protection Regulation, European Union, 2016. Retrieved from
3. Gobind v. State of Madhya Pradesh, (1975) 2 SCC 148.
4. Google Spain SL v. Agencia Española de Protección de Datos (AEPD), C-131/12,
EU:C:2014:317.
5. Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U.S. 479 (1965).
6. International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, 1966. Retrieved from
https://www.ohchr.org/en/professionalinterest/pages/ccpr.aspx
7. Justice K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India, (2017) 10 SCC 1.8. Personal Data Protection Bill, 2019 (India). Retrieved from
https://prsindia.org/billtrack/the-personal-data-protection-bill-2019
9. Universal Declaration of Human Rights, 1948. Retrieved from
https://www.un.org/en/about-us/universal-declaration-of-human-rights
