Over the last few years, there has been a considerable increase within the amount of knowledge that’s generated through the usage of varied electronic devices and applications. Today’s businesses derive considerable value by analyzing the ‘big data’ and sometimes determine their business strategies supported such analysis. While there’s no denying the business efficiency involved, the burning question is ‘do individuals have an impact over the way during which information concerning them is accessed and processed by others. The right of privacy is that the right to be free from unwarranted publicity, to measure a lifetime of seclusion, and to measure without unwarranted interference by the general public in matters with which the general people aren’t necessarily concerned. It’s been a standard law concept, and an invasion of privacy gives a right to the individual to say tort-based damage. One of first cases on the this topic was Semayne’s Case in 1604 The Information Technology Act, 2000 has defined ‘Data’ under Section 2 (1) (o):

“Data means a representation of information, knowledge, facts, concepts or instructions which are being prepared or have been prepared in a formalised manner, and is intended to be processed, is being processed or has been processed in a computer system or computer network, and may be in any form (including computer printouts magnetic or optical storage media, punched cards, punched tapes) or stored internally in the memory of the computer.”

Right to Privacy

Article 21 of the Constitution of India provides that “No person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty except according to procedure established by law”.However, the Constitution doesn’t specifically recognize ‘right to privacy’ as a fundamental right. The matter of whether the ‘right to privacy’ is a fundamental right was first considered in the case of M. P. Sharma and Ors. vs. Satish Chandra, District Magistrate, Delhi and Ors.( 1954 SCR 1077), by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, wherein the warrant issued for search & seizure under Section(s) 94 and 96 (1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure was challenged. The Hon’ble Supreme Court held that the power of search & seizure was not in contravention of any constitutional provision. The Court avoided giving recognition to the right to privacy as a fundamental right guaranteed by the Constitution of India.

Thereafter, in the case of Kharak Singh vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Ors. (1964) 1 SCR 334, the matter was, whether the surveillance by domiciliary visits at night against an accused would be an abuse of the right guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution, thus raising the question on whether Article 21 was inclusive of right to privacy. The Hon’ble Supreme Court held that such surveillance was, in fact, in contravention of Article 21 of Constitution. The majority judges further held that Article 21 doesn’t expressly provide for a privacy provision, and thus the proper to privacy couldn’t be construed as a fundamental right. This issue was once again raised in the case of K. S. Puttaswamy (Retd.) v Union of India, (2015) 8 SCC 735 before the Hon’ble Supreme Court, the ‘Aadhaar Card Scheme’ was challenged on the ground that collecting and compiling the demographic and biometric data of the residents of the country that are to be used for various purposes is in breach of the fundamental right to privacy embodied in Article 21 of the Constitution of India.

The Hon’ble Supreme Court referred the matter to a constitutional bench consisting of nine judges. The Hon’ble Supreme Court held that “The reference is disposed of in the following terms:

  • The decision in M P Sharma which holds that the right to privacy is not protected by the Constitution stands over-ruled;
  • The decision in Kharak Singh to the extent that it holds that the right to privacy is not protected by the Constitution stands over-ruled;
  • The right to privacy is protected as an intrinsic part of the right to life and personal liberty under Article 21 and as a part of the freedoms guaranteed by Part III of the Constitution.
  • Decisions subsequent to Kharak Singh which have enunciated the position in (iii) above lay down the correct position in law.”

Aishwarya Says:

I have always been against Glorifying Over Work and therefore, in the year 2021, I have decided to launch this campaign “Balancing Life”and talk about this wrong practice, that we have been following since last few years. I will be talking to and interviewing around 1 lakh people in the coming 2021 and publish their interview regarding their opinion on glamourising Over Work.

If you are interested in participating in the same, do let me know.

Do follow me on FacebookTwitter  Youtube and Instagram.

The copyright of this Article belongs exclusively to Ms. Aishwarya Sandeep. Reproduction of the same, without permission will amount to Copyright Infringement. Appropriate Legal Action under the Indian Laws will be taken.

If you would also like to contribute to my website, then do share your articles or poems at

We also have a Facebook Group Restarter Moms for Mothers or Women who would like to rejoin their careers post a career break or women who are enterpreneurs.

You may also like to read:

Men Rape Victims in India

Beti Bachao Beti Padhao

Live in Relationship is not an offence

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.