The CCG Privacy High Court Tracker is a resource consisting of decisions on the constitutional right to privacy passed by all High Courts in India. The Privacy High Court Tracker captures cases post the pronouncement of the Justice (Retd.) K.S. Puttaswamy vs. Union of India (Puttaswamy) judgment. In Puttaswamy, the Supreme Court of India reaffirmed the existence of the right to privacy in India’s Constitution as a fundamental right.
The Privacy High Court Tracker is a tool to enable lawyers, judges, policymakers, legislators, civil society organisations, academic and policy researchers and other relevant stakeholders, to engage with, understand and analyse the evolving privacy law and jurisprudence across India. The cases deal with the following aspects of privacy (1) autonomy, (2) bodily integrity, (3) data protection, (4) dignity, (5) informational privacy, (6) phone tapping, (7) press freedom, (8) right to know and access information, and (9) surveillance, search and seizure.
The tracker currently only consists of cases reported on Manupatra, and those reported upto 15 March 2024 (CCG will continue to update the tracker periodically). Only final judgements are included in the tracker, and not interim orders of the High Courts.
Show methodologyAutonomy, Bodily Integrity || Calcutta High Court (Circuit bench at Port Blair)
1 Judge
Decision Date - 09.02.2024
Citation - CRR No. 28 of 2023
Case Type - Criminal Revision
Case Status - Petition allowed.
Legal Provisions - Sec. 6, 32 of the Protection of Children Against Sexual Offences Act, 2012, ("POCSO") Sec. 53-A, 311 of the Cr. P.C.
View Case
"The order directing further investigation by the learned court under section 53-A of the Cr. P.C. in the form of collecting DNA evidence to be submitted by a supplementary chargesheet is contrary to the procedure established under the Cr.P.C. The above facts constitute the lacunae of the investigation. Ignoring the gaps in the investigation in the form of collecting material contemplated under Section 53-A gives rise to a presumption that the prosecution sought to fill up the gaps by invoking section 53-A after the stage of investigation was over. In this regard, it is important to hold that although the concept of privacy is considerably diluted in respect of an accused in a criminal proceeding, Article 21 of the Constitution will rear its protective head once when there is an infraction of the procedure established by law. It is clear from the facts of the present case that the prosecution sought to fill in the gaps in its case by applying for DNA profiling and the learned Court allowed the application on the collateral consideration of the issue of paternity. Diversion of the procedure established under the Cr. P.C. or creating a procedure unknown to law raises the presumption of arbitrariness which is violative of rights of the accused. Article 21 of the Constitution embodies a fair trial and presumes that every person will have the benefit of a trial which follows the procedure established by law. The principles of criminal jurisprudence cannot be diluted or bent to justify civil or social considerations which are collateral in nature."
Read moreThe presumption of paternity of a child is based on civil considerations and cannot be used to fill investigation lapses in criminal investigations under the CrPC. The future interest of the child cannot be used to justify invoking a provision in contravention of the Cr.PC. which would be invasive of the privacy and physical autonomy of the accused.
Read moreMethodology
The Privacy High Court Tracker has been developed using judgements pulled from the Manupatra case law database. Through its search function, CCG identified cases that relied upon the Puttaswamy judgment and were pertaining to the right to privacy, and filtered them by each of the 25 High Courts in India. These were then further examined to identify those cases whose decisions concerned a core aspect of privacy. CCG identified the following aspects of privacy (1) autonomy, (2) bodily integrity, (3) data protection, (4) dignity, (5) informational privacy, (6) phone tapping, (7) press freedom, (8) right to know and access information, and (9) surveillance, search and seizure. Cases where only incidental or passing observations or references were made to Puttaswamy and the right to privacy were not included in the tracker. The selected cases were then compiled into the database per High Court, with several details highlighted for ease of reference. These details consist of case name, decision date, case citation and number, case status, legal provisions involved, and bench strength. The tracker also includes select quotes concerning the right to privacy from each case, to assist users to more easily and quickly grasp the crux of the case.
For ease of access to the text of the judgments, each case on our tracker is linked to the Indian Kanoon version of the judgment (wherever available) or an alternative open-access version of the judgment text.
We welcome your feedback. In addition, you may write to us at - ccg@nludelhi.ac.in with the details of any privacy case we may not have included from any High Court in India.
