Virginia Fernandes,042,Media laws and ethics project,group 4,right to privacy case study

1. RIGHT TO PRIVACY
RIGHT TO PRIVACY
Mahima Bhingardive 022
Sujal Changra 035
Anna Mathias 036
Prachi Danmodekar 041
Virginia Fernanades 042
Disha Pawar 072
Khushi Johri 501
Group 4
Media Laws and Ethics

2. Right to Privacy
The Supreme Court ruled in 2017 that the right to privacy is
"intrinsic to life and personal liberty" and is inherently protected
under Article 21. Article 21 states that every person has the right to
live and the right to have personal liberty.

3. The need for privacy extends beyond personal comfort. It protects:
Freedom of expression: Openly questioning or challenging the
status quo requires a safe space for dissent.
Journalistic investigation: Uncovering truths relies on the ability to
gather information confidentially.
Innovation and entrepreneurship: Taking risks and exploring
unconventional ideas thrives in an environment where
experimentation is protected.
Balancing individual privacy with other important values is
complex, but it's crucial. As we navigate this evolving landscape,
understanding and advocating for our right to privacy is vital.
Right to Privacy
Introduction

4. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ORS.
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ORS.
VS. MADHUKAR NARAYAN
VS. MADHUKAR NARAYAN
MARDIKAR
MARDIKAR
By Mahima Bhingardive (022)
Right to Privacy

5. State of Maharashtra & Ors. vs.
Madhukar Narayan Mardikar
Case: State of Maharashtra & Ors. vs. Madhukar Narayan Mardikar (1990)
- Special leave petition against High Court of Bombay, Nagpur Bench order.
- High Court set aside removal of Mardikar, accused of attempted rape.
- Central issue: Supreme Court determining whether to uphold or reinstate the removal
order.

6. 1
2
Background and Facts
Madhukar Narayan Mardikar allegedly
attempted forceful intercourse with Banubi and
Banubi resisted and filed a written complaint
against Mardikar.
Mardikar claimed he was conducting a prohibition
raid at Banubi's residence, finding liquor near her
hut and departmental inquiry was initiated, focusing
on the alleged assault and document fabrication by
Mardikar.

7. 3
4
Background and Facts
Banubi admitted to being in a relationship with
another man while being married during the
investigation and Mardikar was found guilty of
"perverse conduct" and removed from service.
Mardikar appealed to the High Court of Bombay,
Nagpur Bench, The High Court set aside the removal
order, expressing doubts about Banubi's moral
character and insufficient documents for Mardikar's
defense.

8. Issues at
Hand
1. Whether the High Court
was justified in disbelieving
Banubi's testimony in
assessing Mardikar's guilt.
2. Whether Mardikar was
provided with sufficient
material to meet the charges
against him.

9. The Supreme Court found strong evidence supporting the removal order against Mardikar.
- It highlighted the credibility of Banubi's testimony, considering her unfavorable reputation and the
potential consequences of accusing a police officer.
The Court criticized the shifting testimony of police constables and disagreed with the High Court's
reconsideration of evidence, stating it was beyond its jurisdiction.
- Emphasizing privacy rights, the Supreme Court stated that even a woman with an "easy virtue" is entitled
to privacy, reinstating the removal order to protect individuals from unjust privacy invasions.
Judicial Statement

10. The case sets a precedent for universal privacy rights, including
individuals with moral judgments.
- It emphasizes the legal system's duty to protect against unjust privacy
invasions and calls for fair assessments in assault and privacy violation
cases.
- The Supreme Court's decision underscores the sanctity of individual
privacy rights, irrespective of societal perceptions, setting a crucial
precedent for similar future cases.
Conclusion

11. MR. X VS.
MR. X VS.
HOSPITAL Z 1998
HOSPITAL Z 1998
By Anna Kimberley Mathias (036)
Right to Privacy

12. Mr. X vs. Hospital Z 1998
Case Summary and Facts
The Appellant and one other person were asked to donate blood.
The Appellants blood was to be transfused to another and thereof was taken the respondents
Hospital.
The Appellant was found to be H.I.V.(+).On account of disclosure of the fact that the Appellant
was H.I.V. (+) by the hospital authorities without the express consent of the Appellant, the
Appellants proposed marriage to Ms ‘A’ which had earlier been accepted was called off.
The Appellant thus appeared before the supreme Court contending that for violating the above
duty as well as the Appellants right to privacy, the respondents were liable to pay damages.

13. The Supreme Court ruled in favor of the Hospital, holding that the fiancée's right to be informed
about a health risk overrode Mr. X's privacy.
The court here has equated the appellant’s silence to him being negligent by not fulfilling his
duty of disclosing the information that would vitiate his spouse’s consent to marriage.
The judgment holds good as far as the disclosure by the doctor and the right of fianceé to know
are concerned.
Court Judgement

14. The Court concluded that “where there is a clash of two Fundamental Rights, as in the instant
case, namely, the appellant's right to privacy as part of right to life and Ms. Akali's right to lead a
healthy life which is her Fundamental Right under Article 21, the [right] which would advance the
public morality or public interest, would alone be enforced through the process of Court”.
Since the "Right to Life" includes right to lead a healthy life so as to enjoy all faculties of
the human body in their prime condition, the respondents, by their disclosure that the
appellant was HIV(+), cannot be said to have, in any way, either violated the rule of
confidentiality or the right of privacy.”
Conclusion

15. CASE OF GOBIND VS STATE OF
CASE OF GOBIND VS STATE OF
MADHYA PRADESH
MADHYA PRADESH
B y D i s h a P a w a r ( 0 7 2 )
Right to Privacy

16. Landmark Case in Indian Privacy Law.
Originated in mid-1970s in Madhya Pradesh, India
Challenge against police surveillance practices.
Case of Gobind vs State of
Madhya Pradesh

17. This case is also known as the Govind case, originated in the mid-1970s in the state of Madhya Pradesh,
India.
The case revolved around a challenge to certain police surveillance practices, particularly the
maintenance of surveillance registers and domiciliary visits, which were seen as violating the petitioner's
right to privacy.
The petitioner, Govind, argued that these practices amounted to unwarranted intrusion into his private
affairs and infringed upon his fundamental rights guaranteed under the Indian Constitution.The case
raised fundamental questions about the scope and protection of the right to privacy in India, leading to
a landmark judgment by the Supreme Court that would shape privacy jurisprudence in the country for
years to come.
Case of Gobind vs State of
Madhya Pradesh

18. Legal Issues and
Arguments
Primary issue: Violation of right to
privacy under Article 21
Importance of privacy rights in
Indian Constitution
Petitioner: Unwarranted intrusion
into private affairs
Violation of fundamental rights to
privacy and personal liberty

19. Impact and Significance
Establishment of right to privacy as
fundamental right in India
Influence on subsequent legal developments
and privacy jurisprudence
Importance of Govind case in shaping Indian
privacy law
Protection of privacy rights against state
interference

20. Impact and Significance
The Govind vs. State of Madhya Pradesh case had a
profound impact on Indian jurisprudence, particularly in
shaping the discourse around privacy rights and state
surveillance practices.
The recognition of the right to privacy as a fundamental
right by the Supreme Court established a strong legal
precedent for the protection of privacy rights against
state interference.
The judgment influenced subsequent legal developments,
including the formulation of privacy laws and
regulations, and provided guidance for interpreting and
applying privacy principles in various contexts.

21. Recognition of right to privacy as implicit in Article 21
Importance of privacy as necessary for personal liberty and dignity
Emphasis on need for regulation of surveillance practices
Guidelines for lawful surveillance: legality, necessity, proportionality
Court Ruling

22. In its landmark judgment delivered in 1975, the Supreme Court of India recognized the right to privacy as a
fundamental right implicit in Article 21 of the Indian Constitution.
The Court held that while privacy is not explicitly mentioned in the Constitution, it is a necessary component
of personal liberty and dignity, essential for the meaningful exercise of other fundamental rights.
The judgment affirmed that individuals have a legitimate expectation of privacy in their personal affairs, and
any encroachment upon this right by the state must be justified by law and conform to the principles of
reasonableness and proportionality.
Court Ruling

23. The Govind vs. State of Madhya Pradesh case marks a pivotal moment in Indian jurisprudence,
particularly concerning the recognition and protection of the right to privacy.
Through this case, the Supreme Court of India established that the right to privacy is an implicit
fundamental right under Article 21 of the Indian Constitution, essential for personal liberty and
dignity.
The judgment emphasizes the importance of regulating state surveillance practices to ensure
they comply with principles of legality, necessity, and proportionality, thereby safeguarding
individual privacy rights.
The Govind case has had a profound impact on subsequent legal developments, shaping privacy
jurisprudence in India and providing a strong foundation for the protection of privacy rights
against state interference.
In conclusion, the Govind vs. State of Madhya Pradesh case reaffirms the significance of
privacy as a fundamental aspect of democracy and individual freedom, setting a precedent for
the protection of privacy rights in the digital age.
Conclusion

24. B y V i r g i n i a F e r n a n d e s ( 0 4 2 )
KHARAK SINGH VS THE
KHARAK SINGH VS THE
STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH.
STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH.
Right to Privacy

25. 1
2
Background and Facts
The petitioner, Kharak Singh, had been charged with
violent robbery as part of an armed gang in 1941. He
was released due to lack of evidence, But later a
‘history sheet’ was opened by the UP Police.
Based on these provisions, the police would often visit
Singh’s house at odd hours, waking him up when he
was sleeping. The petitioner argued that these
regulations were in violation of his right to life with
dignity under Article 21 of the Indian Constitution.

26. Petition and
Arguments
Kharak Singh challenged the constitutional validity of
Chapter XX and the powers it conferred upon police
officials, as it violated his fundamental rights under
Article 19(1)(d) (right to freedom of movement) and
Article 21 (protection of life and personal liberty)
Kharak Singh's Arguments: Singh contended that the
surveillance measures authorized by the regulations
were invasive and arbitrary, violating his right to
privacy and personal liberty. He argued that such
surveillance infringed upon his freedom of movement,
expression, and association.
State of Uttar Pradesh's Arguments: The state argued
that the surveillance measures were necessary for
maintaining public order, preventing crime, and
ensuring national security. They emphasized the
importance of these regulations in combating criminal
activities and safeguarding the interests of society.

27. In its judgment, the Supreme Court of India acknowledged the absence of an explicit provision
for the right to privacy in the Indian Constitution. However, the court interpreted the right to
privacy as an intrinsic part of the right to personal liberty guaranteed under Article 21.
While striking down certain provisions related to surveillance, the court upheld other
provisions of the Uttar Pradesh Police Regulations that were deemed necessary for
maintaining public order and preventing crime.
Court Judgement

28. The judgment in the Kharak Singh case established a significant
precedent for future cases involving privacy rights in India. It laid
the foundation for the recognition of privacy as a fundamental
right and provided guidance on how courts should interpret and
protect privacy in the absence of explicit constitutional provisions.
Conclusion

29. B y K h u s h i J o h r i ( 5 0 1 )
R RAJAGOPAL VS STATE
R RAJAGOPAL VS STATE
OF TAMIL NADU
OF TAMIL NADU
Right to Privacy

30. .
The 1994 case of R. Rajagopal vs. State of Tamil Nadu stands as a
pivotal moment in the legal tapestry of India, intricately balancing
two fundamental rights - freedom of speech and expression, and the
right to privacy
The state, however, fiercely opposed, citing privacy concerns and
potential harm to Shankar's personal life.
Recognizing privacy as an implicit right, the court ultimately allowed
publication with limitations, upholding public interest but only when
based on verifiable sources and not infringing upon Shankar's
personal life.
R Rajgopal Vs State of Tamil
Nadu

31. 1
2
Background and Facts
At the center of the case stood R. Rajagopal, the editor of
the bold Tamil magazine Nakkheeran, and a potentially
explosive autobiography.
Nakkheeran claimed to have obtained the autobiography
of Auto Shankar, a condemned prisoner on death row.
The manuscript promised shocking revelations about the
prison system and potentially delved into Shankar's
personal life.
This set the stage for a legal showdown pitting two crucial
principles against each other.
Nakkheeran argued that publishing the autobiography fell
within the ambit of freedom of speech and expression, serving
the public interest by exposing potential corruption.
Their judgment would have significant implications for both
individual rights and the role of the media in Indian society.

32. The Supreme Court faced a daunting task: balancing freedom of speech and expression against the right to
privacy, both fundamental pillars of Indian democracy.
The case revolved around Nakkheeran magazine's desire to publish the explosive autobiography of condemned
prisoner Auto Shankar, which potentially held revelations about the prison system and potentially delved into
his personal life.
The court's verdict acknowledged the gravity of the situation. Recognizing the absence of an explicit "right to
privacy" in the Constitution, they took a bold step, declaring it an inherent and fundamental right implicit in
Article 21, which guarantees life and personal liberty.
However, the court understood that absolute protection of either right could stifle the other. Only details
verifiable from public records and confirmed sources could be published.
Court Judgement

33. The final chapter of R. Rajagopal vs. State of Tamil Nadu resonated far beyond the courtroom, leaving an
indelible mark on Indian jurisprudence.
By recognizing privacy as an implicit right, the court cemented its importance as a shield against
unwarranted intrusion. The "public interest test" established a framework for navigating potential
conflicts, allowing crucial information to inform public discourse while safeguarding individual dignity.
However, the court's acknowledgment of reduced privacy expectations for public figures ensured
accountability, emphasizing the need for transparency in their official conduct.
The court's acknowledgment of reduced privacy expectations for public figures ensured accountability,
emphasizing the need for transparency in their official conduct.
Conclusion

34. B y P r a c h i D a n g m o d e k a r ( 0 4 1 )
PUCL V. UNION OF INDIA
PUCL V. UNION OF INDIA
(1997)
(1997)
Right to Privacy

35. 1990: Allegations of widespread telephone tapping spark national
scandal in India.
PUCL v. Union of India (1997): Supreme Court rules tapping
violates privacy, sets safeguards.
Impact: Temporary guidelines have lasting effects on Indian
surveillance law.
Need for Review: Internet's rise necessitates re-evaluation of
surveillance laws.
Introduction

36. 1
2
Background and Facts
1990: Chandra Shekhar accuses V.P. Singh
government of illegal phone tapping.
Scandal & Inquiry: CBI reveals widespread illegal
tapping during politically turbulent 1980s-90s.
Exposed Excesses: Rajiv Gandhi regime surveilled
opposition, Cabinet Ministers, and political leaders.
Legal Lapses: Framework allowed abuses like
unauthorized tapping, prolonged surveillance.

37. PUCL Petition
PUCL files petition in Supreme Court
challenging telephone tapping legality.
Seeks safeguards against arbitrary state
surveillance.
Judgement
Justice Kuldip Singh's 1996 judgment:
Telephone tapping violates right to privacy
Guidelines to prevent state's arbitrary
surveillance.

38. Affirmed right to privacy as a fundamental right in Indian law.
Detailed guidelines for executive surveillance powers to prevent misuse:
- Orders by Home Secretary or State Govt.
- Consideration of necessity for interception.
- Order effective for 2 months, max 6 months.
- Detailed record maintenance.
- Limited use of intercepted material.
- Review committees at Central and State levels.
Significance

39. PUCL guidelines →Rule 419-A of Indian Telegraph Rules, 1951, with enhancements.
Rule 419-A → expanded emergency interception powers, limited interception period, mandated
nodal officers, and required regular review meetings.
Influence extended to digital communications under IT Act, 2000, granting similar powers and
safeguards.
PUCL guidelines →shape India's surveillance laws, especially in telecommunications and digital
communications.
Influence

40. 1990s telephone tapping was illegal and isolated compared to state surveillance projects in 2014.
Current Projects:
- Central Monitoring System (CMS): Grants centralised access to
communications data.
- National Intelligence Grid (NATGRID): Integrates intelligence and law enforcement
data sources.
- Network Traffic Analysis (NETRA): Analyses Internet traffic based on predefined filters.
Key Findings

41. Lack of Legal Safeguards: Agencies bypass procedures, and conduct broad searches violating
privacy.
Mass Surveillance Concerns: CMS, NATGRID, NETRA lack statutory backing, undermining
privacy.
Need for Redesigning Laws: New Acts for robust safeguards, including strict data retention limits
and judicial oversight.
Executive Power and Judicial Oversight: Reevaluate power concentration, involve judiciary in
evaluating requests.
Concerns and Recommendation

42. Evolution of surveillance technology requires comprehensive review
of Indian laws.
Upholding right to privacy needs robust legal frameworks and
oversight to prevent abuse.
Reimagining laws can safeguard democratic values and protect
individuals' privacy in digital age.
Conclusion

43. B y S u j a l C h a n g r a ( 0 3 5 )
M.P. SHARMA VS. SATISH
M.P. SHARMA VS. SATISH
CHANDRA CASE
CHANDRA CASE
Right to Privacy

44. Date: 1954
Context : Search and seizure of documents from
Dalmia Jain Airways
Parties: M.P. : Sharma, Satish Chandra
Introduction

45. Right to privacy not a fundamental right under the Indian
Constitution.
Rationale: Framers' intent and omission from fundamental rights list.
Court Judgement

46. Consequences of the judgment.
- Shaping the legal landscape regarding
the right to privacy in India
- Overruling in Kharak Singh Case (1962).
- Recognition of the right to privacy as a
fundamental right under Article 21.
Conclusion

47. Thank You!