Abstract:
The right to privacy has faced several legal ramifications and difficulties in the digital age. This research attempts to offer insights into the complexities of privacy in the digital era by an extensive assessment of the literature and analysis of pertinent approaches. This study examines whether or not people’s right to privacy is preserved in the digital era and what obstacles they must overcome to exercise that right. This study aims to determine people’s awareness of the current legal framework and its implications, as well as to provide a concise explanation of the necessity of strict regulations protecting people’s right to privacy. The study’s findings make it abundantly evident that most of the participants are well aware of the right to privacy and how it affects an individual’s right to privacy; however, the government must nonetheless enact laws that raise public awareness and protect citizens’ rights in the digital age.
Keywords:
Privacy rights, Digital age, Legal implications, Privacy Protection, Data protection, Surveillance.
Introduction:
The digital revolution has completely changed how we engage, communicate, and do business. Technology presents previously unheard-of chances for creativity and connectedness, but it also poses serious issues with respect to private rights. Digital communications technology has permeated daily life, including the Internet, smartphones, and gadgets with Wi-Fi capabilities. Innovations in communications technology have increased freedom of expression, enabled international discussion, and promoted democratic involvement by significantly enhancing access to information and real-time communication. These potent tools promise better enjoyment of human rights by magnifying the voices of human rights activists and giving them new means of documenting and exposing abuses. This introduction provides an overview of the key issues surrounding the right to privacy in the digital age, outlining the objective and scope of the research.
Indian Jurisprudence on Right to Privacy
Article 21 of the Indian Constitution offers that “No person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty except according to procedure established by law”. The Supreme Court ruled on 24 August 2017 that the right to privacy is a fundamental right guaranteed by Part III of the Indian Constitution. This decision on the legislation and regulations will have far-reaching ramifications. New regulations will now be tested on the same parameters on which the laws that violate personal freedom are tested in accordance with Article 21 of the Indian Constitution. The right to privacy is now unambiguously accessible–its contours and boundaries are the issue that remains exceptional.
India has no extensive data protection and privacy legislation. The current laws and policies are of a sectoral nature in essence. As of now, in addition to other sectoral legislation, the appropriate regulations of the Information Technology Act, 2000 and its regulations govern the collection, processing and use of’ private information’ and’ delicate private data or information by a corporate body in India.
The Supreme Court first regarded whether the ‘right to privacy’ is a basic right in the case of M. P. Sharma and Ors. v Satish Chandra, District Magistrate, Delhi and Ors. where the warrant granted for search and seizure was questioned pursuant to Sections 94 and 96(1) of the Criminal Code of Procedure. The Supreme Court ruled that the search and seizure authority was not contrary to any constitutional provision. The Court also refused to recognize the right to privacy as a basic right guaranteed by India’s Constitution.
Thereafter, in the case of Kharak Singh v State of Uttar Pradesh and Ors. the Court regarded whether it would be an abuse of the right guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India to monitor an accused’s home visits at night, thus raising the question of whether Article 21 included the right to privacy. The Supreme Court ruled that, in reality, such monitoring was contrary to Article 21. Moreover, the majority judges held that Article 21 did not expressly provide for a provision of privacy, and therefore the right to privacy could not be interpreted as a fundamental right.
Subsequently, in the case of Gobind v State of M.P. Police’s right to housekeeping was questioned to be incompatible with the right to privacy enshrined in Article 21 of the Indian Constitution. The Supreme Court ruled that the laws of the police did not comply with the principle of private liberty and also acknowledged the right to privacy as a basic right guaranteed by the Indian Constitution, but supported the development of the right to privacy on a case-by-case basis and denied it as an absolute right.
This issue was once again raised before the Supreme Court in the case of K. S. Puttaswamy (Retd.) v Union of India, in that case, the Aadhaar Card Scheme was questioned on the ground that the collection and compilation of population and biometric information of citizens of the nation to be used for different reasons infringed the basic right to privacy enshrined in Article 21 of the Indian Constitution. Given the ambiguity surrounding the constitutional status of the right to privacy from previous judicial precedents, the Court referred the matter to a constitutional panel composed of nine (nine) judges.
The Supreme Court ruled that the right to privacy is inherent to the human element and the core of human dignity and is inseparable from it. Accordingly, privacy was kept to have both beneficial and negative content. The adverse content functions as an embargo on the State by intruding into a citizen’s life and private freedom, and its beneficial content imposes a duty on the State to take all needed steps to safeguard the individual’s privacy.
Therefore, the constitutional protection of privacy may give rise to two inter-related protection:
(i) Against the world at large, to be respected by all including the State: the right to choose what personal information is to be released into the public space.
(ii) Against the State: as necessary concomitant of democratic values, limited government and limitation on power of State.
As a consequence of this judgement, the right to privacy has become more than just common law and more solid and sacrosanct than any statutory right. Thus, an invasion of privacy must now be justified in the context of Article 21 of the Constitution on the grounds of a law stipulating a fair, just and sensible procedure.