Right to privacy and Constitution of India

Right to privacy is need of today's digital era. Here are some judgments discussed in the view of Constitution of India and right to privacy. Though these are overruled by Supreme Court in case of Puttaswami they are still necessary to be known by a law aspirant. 

M.P. Sharma v. Satish Chandra (M.P. Sharma)  

The Supreme Court in M.P. Sharma examined whether the constitutionality of search and seizure of documents pursuant to a FIR would violate the right to privacy. A majority decision by an eight-judge Constitution bench observed that the right to privacy was not a fundamental right under the Constitution.

Kharak Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh (Kharak Singh):

i) In Kharak Singh, the issue at hand was whether regular surveillance by police authorities amounted to an infringement of constitutionally guaranteed fundamental rights. A Constitution bench of six judges analysed this issue in the backdrop of the validity of the regulations governing the Uttar Pradesh police which legalised secret picketing, domiciliary visits at night and regular surveillance. The Supreme Court struck down night-time domiciliary visits by the police as violative of ordered liberty. 

ii) Further, the Supreme Court held that Article 21 of the Constitution of India is the repository of residuary personal rights and it recognised the common law right to privacy. However, the Court observed that privacy is not a guaranteed fundamental right. It must be noted though, dissenting judge, Justice Subba Rao, opined that even though the right to privacy was not expressly recognised as a fundamental right, it was an essential ingredient of personal liberty under Article 21 and thus fundamental. 

iii) The approach of the Supreme Court of putting the freedoms given under Part III of the Constitution of India under distinct compartments was also rejected. Instead, it was held that these rights are overlapping and the restriction of one freedom affects the other, as was also held previously in the Maneka and Cooper judgments. Therefore, a law restricting a freedom under Article 21 of the Constitution of India would also have to meet the reasonableness requirements under Article 19 and Article 14 of the Constitution of India.

A. K. Gopalan v. State of Madras 

i) The approach of the Supreme Court of putting the freedoms given under Part III of the Constitution of India under distinct compartments was also rejected. Instead, it was held in Puttaswami case that these rights are overlapping and the restriction of one freedom affects the other, as was also held previously in the Maneka and Cooper judgments. Therefore, a law restricting a freedom under Article 21 of the Constitution of India would also have to meet the reasonableness requirements under Article 19 and Article 14 of the Constitution of India.

Thanks for reading till the end. Please share and follow this blog for more such law notes.