International Journal of Reviews and Research in Social Sciences.

6(3): July- September, 2018

ISSN 2347-5145 (Print) Available online at

2454-2687 (Online) www.anvpublication.org
DOI: 10.5958/2454-2687.2018.00029.1
International Journal of
Vol. 06| Issue-03|
July- September 2018 Reviews and Research in Social Sciences

RESEARCH ARTICLE

Surveillance and Privacy: A Ramification of Article 21.

Rupinder Kaur
Research Scholar, Department of Law, Punjabi University, Patiala.
*Corresponding Author E-mail: [email protected]

ABSTRACT:
Privacy is an issue of profound importance around the world. In nearly every nation, various statutes,
constitutional rights and judicial decisions seek to protect privacy. In the constitutional law of countries around
the globe, privacy is enshrined as a fundamental right. India is a signatory to the Universal Declaration on
Human Rights 1948 (Article 12) and the International Convention on Civil and Political Rights (Article 17)
which recognize privacy as a fundamental right. Though a member and signatory of these conventions, India
does not have laws which guarantee a right to privacy to its citizens.

There is no express mention of ‘privacy’ in the provisions of the Constitution of India. In M.P Sharma, the
question of law was related to right to property. The court has not rejected privacy but it rejected in the context
of search and seizure of documents. Kharak Singh is related to surveillance powers of the police under UP Police
Regulations under Article 19(1) (d) and Article 21.Article 21 is a constitutional right against state and not
between individuals. The differences lie in the standard for justifying an infringement. The court insisted upon
the far higher standard of compelling State interest. The state has the power to intrude to maintain a free and
democratic society. It is submitted that the Supreme Court ought not to allow state or central government’s
actions on assertion a national security interest and compelling state interest. The privacy is now recognised as
part of Article 21 of the Constitution the case of Justice Puttaswamy (Retd.) and Ors. v. Union of India. If there
is infringement while there is surveillance, the individual may seek constitutional remedies for violation of its
right.

KEYWORDS: Surveillance, Privacy, Ramification

INTRODUCTION:
Privacy is an issue of profound importance around the
world. In nearly every nation, various statutes,
constitutional rights and judicial decisions seek to
protect privacy. 1 In the constitutional law of countries
around the globe, privacy is enshrined as a fundamental
right. India is a signatory to the Universal Declaration on
Human Rights 1948 (Article 12) 2 and the International
Received on 09.06.2018 Modified on 11.07.2018 Convention on Civil and Political Rights (Article 17) 3,
Accepted on 21.08.2018 © A&V Publications All right reserved which recognize privacy as a fundamental right. Though
Int. J. Rev. and Res. Social Sci. 2018; 6(3):284-290. a member and signatory of these conventions, India does
DOI: 10.5958/2454-2687.2018.00029.1 not have laws which guarantee a right to privacy to its
citizens.
284
 International Journal of Reviews and Research in Social Sciences. 6(3): July- September, 2018

In order to fill this lacuna in the law, the Courts in India device in one location to transmit conversation to nearby
have tried to enforce a right to privacy in favour of its receiver. Video surveillance is done through hidden
citizens through a recognition of a constitutional right to cameras, record visual images and through closed circuit
privacy which has been read as part of the rights to life television. 10
and personal liberty as well as the freedom of expression
and movement guaranteed under the Constitution and a Data Surveillance: The census is the basic mode of
common law right to privacy is available under tort law government for gathering information. It provides
and has been borrowed primarily from American information to policy makers. With passage of time,
jurisprudence. Although the U.S. Constitution does not government collects and maintains number of records
explicitly mention the word “privacy,” it safeguards the such as name, place, voting record, telephone number,
sanctity of the home and the confidentiality of police records, property details and address. Earlier, the
communications from government intrusion. The government used to collect personal information of
Supreme Court has concluded that the Fourth social and economic importance. During 1990, with
Amendment protects against government searches emergence of private sector various services started
whenever a person has a “reasonable expectation of collecting data. Sophisticated strategists in the industries
privacy” 4. like credit card, direct marketing, insurance and
publishing, enhanced profit by tailoring the consumer’s
Definition of Surveillance personal data. 11 Law enforcement agencies can seek
The Cambridge Dictionary defined surveillance as “The personal information about individuals from various
careful watching of a person or place especially by the companies, financial institutions, social networking sites
police or army, because of a crime that had happened or and any private body or individual to investigate fraud,
is expected.” 5The word surveillance comes from a white-collar crime, drug trafficking, computer crime,
French phrase for “watching over” (sur means “from child pornography, and any other type of criminal
above” and veiller means “to watch”) and is in contrast activity. 12
to more recent development. 6 Surveillance is the
monitoring of behavior activities, or other changing The Indian government has increased the collection of
information for the purpose of influencing, managing, personal data from various sources. To protect law and
directing or protecting people. It includes an observation order, sovereignty, security and integrity of India
from a distance by electronic equipments such as closed balance between privacy and state interest has been
circuit television or interception of electronically disturbed.
transmitted information such as Internet traffic or Phone
calls. Human intelligence agents and postal interception Surveillance in India
comes under the ambit of low technology methods. 7 In India, surveillance by police (the law enforcement
Surveillance is used by governments for intelligence authority) is used for keeping peace and law in order.
gathering, prevention of crime, the protection of a The two landmark decisions on the right to privacy were
person, group or object and for the investigation of pronounced by the Supreme Court. In Kharak Singh v.
crime. It is also used by criminal organizations to plan Union of India13, one upheld the surveillance activities of
and commit crimes, such as robbery and kidnapping and the police and in Govind v. State of M.P 14struck them
by businesses to gather intelligence for corporate down mainly on a technical ground that they were being
governance and policy. carried on without the proper authorizations. In the
modern age, however, most surveillance activities are
Types of Surveillance carried on through tapping or interception of
Physical Surveillance Technology: This technology is telecommunication messages.
used by the public as well as private agencies. It includes
global positioning system (GPS), Bullet resistant video In 2009, the Central Monitoring System (CMS) 15started
cameras. As per American Bar Association’s standards off as a project run by the Centre for Communication
for Technology Assisted Physical surveillance, there are Security Research and Monitoring, along with the
cameras for video surveillance, tracking devices, Telecom Testing and Security Certification project. The
telescopic devices, illumination devices and detective Central Monitoring System (CMS) was approved by the
devices. 8 Cabinet Committee on Security on 16th June 2011 and
the pilot project was completed by 30th September 2011.
Electronic Devices: The most prevalent types of 16 Ever since, the CMS has been operated by India's
electronic devices are wire tapping, bugging and Telecom Enforcement Resource and Monitoring cells,
videotaping. 9 Wiretapping physically intercepts and has been implemented by the Centre for
telephone calls and messages. One must actually tap to Development of Telemetric ,which is an Indian
accomplish this of surveillance. Bugging is done without Government owned tele-communications technology
the aid of wire by placing microphone or other listening development centre. The CMS has been implemented in
285
 International Journal of Reviews and Research in Social Sciences. 6(3): July- September, 2018

three phases, each one taking about 13-14 months. Until The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: Section 91 of the
June 2013, government funding of the CMS has reached Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 regulates targeted
at least Rs. 450 crore (around $72 million). surveillance. Section 91 states that a Court in India or
any officer in charge of a police station may summon a
Legislative Landscape in India person to produce any document or any other thing that
The important legislations, in the context of surveillance is necessary for the purposes of any investigation,
today, are the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885 and the inquiry, trial or other proceeding under the Code of
Information Technology Act, 2000. There are other Criminal Procedure. Under section 91, law enforcement
relevant central statutes for surveillance. agencies in India can access stored data. The Code also
allows District Magistrates and Courts to issue directions
The Indian Telegraph Act, 1885: The provision of the requiring document, parcel or “things” within the
Indian Telegraph Act, 1885, (“Telegraph Act”) which is custody of any postal or telegraph authority to be
relevant for the purpose of surveillance. Section 5 produced before it if needed for the purpose of any
empowers the Central Government and State investigation, inquiry, trial or other proceeding under the
Governments of India to order the interception of Code. 19
messages in two circumstances: (1) In the occurrence of
any “public emergency” or in the interest of “public The Information Technology Act, 2000: The Information
safety” (2) If it is considered necessary or expedient to Technology Act, 2000 (“IT Act”) widely regulates the
do so. interception, monitoring, decryption and collection of
information of digital communications in India. Section
In addition to the following instances: 6920 of the IT Act empowers the Central Government
(i) The interests of the sovereignty and integrity of and the State Governments to issue directions for the
India monitoring, interception or decryption of any
(ii) The security of the State information transmitted, received or stored through a
(iii) Friendly relations with foreign states computer resource.
(iv) Public order
(v) For preventing incitement to the commission of an The Information Technology (Procedure and Safeguards
offense for Interception, Monitoring and Decryption of
Information) Rules, 2009:The Information Technology
In 2007, Rule 419A17 was added to the Indian Telegraph (Procedure and Safeguards for Interception, Monitoring
Rules, 1951 framed under the Indian Telegraph Act and Decryption of Information) Rules, 2009 (“IT
which provided that orders on the interception of Interception Rules”) framed under Section 69 and 69B
communications should only be issued by the Secretary stipulate as to who may issue directions of interception
in the Ministry of Home Affairs. However, it provided and monitoring, how such directions are to be executed,
that in unavoidable circumstances an order could also be the duration they remain in operation, to whom data may
issued by an officer, not below the rank of a Joint be disclosed, confidentiality obligations of
Secretary to the Government of India, who has been intermediaries, periodic oversight of interception
authorized by the Union Home Secretary or the State directions by a Review Committee under the Telegraph
Home Secretary. Act, the retention of records of interception by
intermediaries and to the mandatory destruction of
The Indian Post Office Act, 1898: Section 26 of the information in appropriate cases.
Indian Post Office Act, 189818, empowers the Central
Government and the State Governments of India to According to the IT Interception Rules, the secretary of
intercept postal articles. It states that on the occurrence the Ministry of Home Affairs has been designated as the
of any public emergency or in the interest of public "competent authority" to issue directions permitting the
safety or tranquility, the Central Government, State interception, monitoring, and decryption of
Government or any officer specially authorized by the communications. At the State and Union Territory level,
Central or State Government may direct the interception, the State Secretaries respectively in charge of the Home
detention or disposal of any postal article, class or Departments are designated as "competent authorities" to
description of postal articles in the course of issue interception directions. 21 The Central Motor
transmission by post. Furthermore, section 26 states that Vehicle Act 1989 and 2012 Rules: Rule 138A of the
if any doubt arises regarding the existence of public Central Motor Vehicle Rules, 1989, concerning radio
emergency, public safety or tranquility then a certificate frequency identification tags was proposed. This
to that effect by the Central Government or a State proposed Rule mandates the installation of radio
Government would be considered as conclusive proof of frequency identification (“RFID”) tags on all light and
such condition being satisfied. heavy motor vehicles to enable their instant
identification and monitoring by electronic collection toll
286
 International Journal of Reviews and Research in Social Sciences. 6(3): July- September, 2018

booths, the police and any other authority or person that certain false cases against him and the facts were as
is able to query and read RFID. 22 follows: The petitioner’s grievance was that the police
were making domiciliary visits both day and night, at
The Information Technology (Reasonable Security frequent intervals, that they were secretly picketing his
Practices and Procedures and Sensitive Personal Data or house to his house; movements were being watched by
Information) Rules, 2011: Rule 3 of these Rules the head of the village. The petitioner prayed for a
designates the following types of information as declaration that regulation 855 and 856 are void as
‘sensitive personal information’ contravening his fundamental rights under the above
➢ Password article 19(1)(c) and article 21. The court observed that, it
➢ Financial information such as Bank account / cannot be said surveillance by domiciliary visits would
credit card / debit card / other payment always be unreasonable restriction upon the right of
➢ Instrument details of the users; physiological and privacy. It was held that the procedure under the
mental health condition regulations is reasonable having regard to the provisions
➢ Sexual orientation of regulations 853(c) and 857. While declaring that
➢ Medical records and history surveillance does not tantamount to an unreasonable
➢ Biometric information restriction on the right of privacy, the court has pointed
put the following three limitations on the manner of
Judicial Trends in India exercise of the function:
In M.P Sharma v. Satish Chandra23, the challenge (i) was
whether search violated the fundamental rights (ii) of the ‘Surveillance’ can be made in respect of such person
petitioners under Article 19(1)(f) and Article 20(3) of the who are intent upon committing crimes which have the
Constitution. The court relied upon the US Supreme effect of endangering public peace or security in the
court judgment 24holding that obtaining incriminating society.
evidence by an illegal search and seizure violates (iii)the
Fourth and Fifth Amendments of the American (iv) Before embarking upon such surveillance, there must be
Constitution. It was held that guarantee against self- in existence enough and reasonable material, indication
incrimination is not affected by a search and seizure. The an intention to commit such crimes.
provisions for search and seizure were contained (v) in
successive enactments of the Criminal Procedure (vi) ‘Surveillance’ cannot be resorted to, as a matter of
Code.The Hon’ble Supreme Court upheld search and course, and as a measure of harassment.
seizure in the following terms: “A power of search and
seizure is in any system of jurisprudence an overriding In Malak Singh v. State of Punjab27 dealt with the
power of the state for the protection of social security provisions of Section 23 of the Punjab Police Rules
and that power is necessarily regulated by law. When the under which a surveillance register was to be maintained
constitution makers have thought fit not to subject such among other persons, of all convicts of a particular
regulation to constitutional limitations by recognition of description and persons who were reasonably believed to
a fundamental right to privacy, analogous to the America be habitual offenders whether or not they were
fourth amendment, we have no justification to import it, convicted. The Hon’ble Justice O Chinnappa Reddy
into a totally different fundamental right by some views: “Organized crime cannot be successful fought
process of strained construction.” without close watch of suspects. But surveillance may be
intrusive and it may so seriously encroach on the privacy
In Kharak Singh v. State of U.P25, the constitutional of a citizen as to infringe his fundamental right to
validity of Ch.XX of the U.P. Police regulation and the personal liberty guaranteed by Art. 21 of the constitution
powers conferred upon the police officials there under and the freedom of movement guaranteed by Art. 19(1)
was questioned, it violate the citizens fundamental (d). That cannot be permitted”.
rights under Article 19(c) (d) and Article 21 of the
constitution. The court observed: “As already pointed The Supreme Court of India in PUCL v. Union of India28
out, the right of privacy is not a guaranteed right under dealt with telephone tapping. The petitioner challenged
our constitution and therefore the attempt to ascertain the the constitutional validity of Section 5(2) of the Indian
movement of an individual which is merely a manner in Telegraph Act, 1885 and urged in the alternative of
which privacy is invaded is not an infringement of a adopting procedural safeguards to curb arbitrary acts of
fundamental right guaranteed by Part III.” telephone tapping. The Hon’ble Justice Kuldip Singh
held as follows:“We have; therefore, no hesitation in
In Govind v. State of Madhya Pradesh26, the petitioner holding that right to privacy is a part of the right to “life”
challenged the validity of regulations 855 and 856 of and “personal liberty” enshrined under Article 21 of the
Madhya Pradesh police regulation made under section Constitution. Once the facts in a given case constitute a
46(2)(c) of the police act, 1861. He complained of right to privacy, Article 21 is attracted. The said right
287
 International Journal of Reviews and Research in Social Sciences. 6(3): July- September, 2018

cannot be curtained “except according to procedure of the Criminal Procedure Code were not considered as
established by law.” voliative of section Article 20(3) of the Constitution of
India. However, the court has not considered a
The judgment relied on the protection of privacy under fundamental right to privacy as constitutional limitation
Article 17 of the International Covenant on Civil and on the power of search and seizure. The court concluded
Political Rights (and a similar guarantee under Article 12 that the Constitution makers themselves thought not to
of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights) which, in include fundamental right to privacy as analogous to the
its view, must be an interpretive tool for construing the Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution.
provisions of the Constitution. The Court ruled that it
would be necessary to lay down procedural safeguards In Directorate of Revenue v. Mohd. Nisar Holia 32 case,
for the protection of the right to privacy of a person until the question was the interpretation of the search and
Parliament intervened by framing rules under Section 7 seizure provisions of Sections 42 and 43 of the NDPS
of the Telegraph Act. The Court framed guidelines to be Act. The court held while keeping Canara Bank33 and
adopted in all cases envisaging telephone tapping. Govind34 in view that right to privacy was crucial and
imposed a strict requirement of written recording of
In Collector v. Canara Bank29, The Supreme Court reasons (nature of search) before an NDPS search and
examined the development of American Law as well as seizure could be carried out.
Indian Law on search and seizure and the associated
right to privacy. The challenge was confidential The decision in the State of Maharashtra v. Bharat
relationship between bank and customer under Section Shanti Lal35 dealt with the constitutional validity of
73 of the Stamp Act. Under the section, collector can sections 13 to 16 of the Maharashtra control of organized
access private records. The court observed responding to crime act (MCOCA) which inter alia contains provisions
the contention that one had voluntarily given over one’s for intercepting telephone and wireless communication
bank records to a third party, there was no privacy upholding the provision, the court observed that “the
interest remaining in them. The Court holds: object of MCOCA is to prevent the organised crime and
a perusal of the provisions of the act under challenge
“…the right to privacy deals with ‘persons and not would indicate that the said law authorises the
places’, the documents or copies of documents of the intercepting of wire, electronic or oral communication
customer which are in (sic) Bank, must continue to only if it is intended to prevent the commission of an
remain confidential vis-à-vis the person, even if they are organised crime or if it is intended to collect evidence to
no longer at the customer’s house and have been the commission of such an organised crime. The
voluntarily sent to a Bank…. Once that is so, then unless procedures authorizing such intercepting are also
there is some probable or reasonable cause or reasonable provided therein with enough procedural safeguards,
basis or material before the Collector for reaching an some of which are indicated and discussed
opinion that the documents in the possession of the Bank hereinbefore.”
tend to secure any duty or to prove or to lead tot eh
discovery of any fraud or omission in relation to any The safeguards that the court adverts to in the above
duty, the search or taking notes or extracts therefore, extract include section 14, which requires details of the
cannot be valid. The above safeguards must be organized crime that is being committed or is about to be
necessarily be read into the provision relating to search committed, before surveillance could be authorized. The
and inspection and seizure so as to save it from any requirement also mandate describing the nature and
unconstitutionality.” location of the facilities from which the communication
is to be intercepting, nature of the communication and
In P.R Metrani v. CIT30, The apex court held that a the identity of the person, if it is known.
search and seizure provision in Section 132(5) of the
Income Tax Act was construed strictly as it constituted a In Selvi v. State of Karanataka36, The Court dealt with
“serious invasion into the privacy of a citizen.” The challenge to the validity of three investigative
similar question of surveillance is undertaken namely as techniques: narco-analysis, polygraph test (lie -detector
search and seizure as there is clear indication that test) and Brain Electrical Activation Profile (BEAP) on
anything more than a targeted search is ipso facto the ground these implicate the fundamental rights under
unreasonable. The court read down the provisions to Articles 20(3) and 21 of the Constitution. The court held
save it from unconstitutionality. that the results obtained through an involuntary
administration of these tests are within the scope of
In Bhavesh Jayanti v. State of Maharashtra, 31 the apex testimonial, attracting the protective shield of Article
court held that ‘surveillance’ per se under the provisions 20(3) of the Constitution. The decision relied on
of the Act may not violate individual or private rights previous privacy judgment based on the protection of the
including right to privacy. Section 91 and section 93(1) body and physical actions induced by the state. The court
288
 International Journal of Reviews and Research in Social Sciences. 6(3): July- September, 2018

emphasized that while the right against self- In United States v. Jones44, the defendant in the case had
incrimination is component of personal liberty under been the target of a drug trafficking investigation
Article 21, privacy under the constitution has the conducted jointly by the Federal Bureau of Investigation
meeting point with Article 20(3) of the Constitution. (FBI) and the District of Columbia Metropolitan Police
Department. In an effort to track Jones’s whereabouts
In Justice K.S. Puttaswamy (Retd.) v. Union of India, 37 and establish a pattern of trafficking, officers applied to
Privacy is an intrinsic element of right to life and the United States District the warrant request sought
personal liberty under Article 21 and as constitutional permission to place a tracking device on a vehicle owned
values38 embodied in Part III of the Constitution. The by Jones’s wife, so that the vehicle’s location could be
limitations operate on the right to life and personal tracked via Global Positioning (Satellite) Systems
liberty would operate on right to privacy, as it is not an (GPS). the sole question the Court considered was
absolute. Any curtailment or deprivation of that right whether the attachment of the GPS device to a vehicle,
would have to take place under a regime of law. The law and its subsequent monitoring of the vehicle’s
which provides for the curtailment of the right must also movements using that device, constituted a search within
be subject to constitutional safeguards. the meaning of the Fourth Amendment. The Court
unanimously answered that precise question in the
Position in USA affirmative. “In the pre-computer age, the greatest
The practice of mass surveillance in the United protections of privacy were neither constitutional nor
States39 dates back to WWI wartime monitoring and statutory, but practical. Traditional surveillance for any
censorship of international communications or which extended period of time was difficult and costly and
passed through the United States. After the First World therefore rarely undertaken. The surveillance at issue in
War and the Second World War, the surveillance this case--constant monitoring of the location of a
continued through various programs such as the Black vehicle for four weeks--would have required a large
Chamber and Project SHAMROCK. The formation and team of agents, multiple vehicles, and perhaps aerial
growth of federal law-enforcement and intelligence assistance. Only an investigation of unusual importance
agencies such as FBI, CIA and NSA institutionalized could have justified such an expenditure of law
surveillance used to also silence political dissent. During enforcement resources. Devices like the one used in the
the Civil Rights Movement era, many individuals put present case, however, make long-term monitoring
under surveillance orders were first labeled as relatively easy and cheap. In circumstances involving
integrationists then deemed subversive. Other targeted dramatic technological change, the best solution to
individuals and groups included Native American privacy concerns may be legislative. A legislative body
activists, African American and Chicano liberation40 is well situated to gauge changing public attitudes, t to
movement activists, and anti-war protesters. 41 According draw detailed lines, and to balance privacy and public
to James Clapper42, “In the future, intelligence services safety in a comprehensive way.
might use the internet of recruitment, to gain access to
networks for user credentials.” The Government obtained a search warrant permitting it
to install a Global-Positioning-System (GPS) tracking
The United States v. Carpenter 43 is the latest rulings by device on a vehicle registered to respondent Jones's wife.
the Supreme Court of United Sates defining the Fourth The warrant authorized installation and then tracked the
Amendment right to privacy in a world of ever-evolving vehicle's movements for 28 days. It subsequently
technology. The case began with the investigation of a secured an indictment of Jones on drug trafficking
series of armed robberies in southeastern Michigan and conspiracy charges. The District Court suppressed the
northwestern Ohio. The police suspected Timothy GPS data obtained while the vehicle was parked at
Carpenter and ordered his cell phone service provider to Jones's residence, but held the remaining data admissible
turn over all data revealing Mr. Carpenter’s movements. because Jones had no reasonable expectation of privacy
There was no warrant; the service provider complied when the vehicle was on public streets. Jones was
with the request, giving the police data showing the convicted. The D. C. Circuit reversed the concluding that
suspect’s movements over the course of 127 days admission of the evidence obtained by warrantless use of
showing geographical location. The question arose the GPS device violated the Fourth Amendment. It was
whether police can collect cell phone location data held that Government’s attachment of the GPS device to
without a warrant? The Court held that the government the vehicle, and its use of that device to monitor the
violates the Fourth Amendment by accessing records vehicle's movements, constitutes a search under the
containing the physical locations of cell phones without Fourth Amendment.
a search warrant.

289
 International Journal of Reviews and Research in Social Sciences. 6(3): July- September, 2018

CONCLUSION: 10. Leighton Walters & Martin Maximino, The effect of CCTV on
Public Safety: Research Round Up at
There is no express mention of ‘privacy’ in the https://journalistsresource.org/studies/government/criminal-
provisions of the Constitution of India. In M.P Sharma, justice/surveillance-cameras-and-crimeaccessed on July12, 2018
45
the question of law was related to right to property. at 3:15 pm IST.
The court has not rejected privacy but it rejected in the 11. James B. Rule, “Towards Strong Privacy: Values, Markets,
Mechanisms and Institutions”, University of Toronto Law
context of search and seizure of documents. Kharak Journal, 195(2004).
Singh46 is related to surveillance powers of the police 12. Whalen v. Roe 429 U.S. 589 (1977) at 598-60.
under UP Police Regulations under Article 19(1) (d) and 13. AIR 1963 SC 1295.
Article 21.Article 21 is a constitutional right against state 14. AIR 1975 SC 1378.
15. Available at https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/india-
and not between individuals. The differences lie in the central-monitoring-system-something-to-worry-about accessed
standard for justifying an infringement. The court on July 14, 2018 at 12:44 IST.
insisted upon the far higher standard of compelling State 16. Ibid.
interest. The state has the power to intrude to maintain a 17. Rule 419A (1), Indian Telegraph Rules, 1951.
18. Available at
free and democratic society. It is submitted that the https://www.indiapost.gov.in/VAS/DOP_RTI/TheIndianPostOffi
Supreme Court ought not to allow state or central ceAct1898.pdf at p.15accessed on July 14, 2018 at 5:20 pm IST.
government’s actions on assertion a national security 19. The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, S.92.
interest and compelling state interest. The Apex court is 20. Part II, Dated February 5, 2009 Published in The Gazette of
India,2000.
hesitant in its role as the guarantor of civil liberties. 21. Rule 2(d), Information Technology (Procedure and Safeguards
Privacy jurisprudence continues to explode globally. The for Interception, Monitoring and Decryption of Information)
Hon’ble President Mr. Barack Obama47 rejected the Rules, 2009.
contention of bulk surveillance is necessary to 22. Bhairav Acharya, “Comments on the Proposed Rule 138A of the
Central Motor Vehicle Rules, 1989, Concerning Radio Frequency
compromise to make liberty/security balance while Identification Tags”, The Centre for Internet and Society, 03
appearing before Review Panel set up for NSA spying December 2012, http://cis-india.org/internet-
program. The Canadian Supreme Court in R V. governance/blog/comments-on-motor-vehicle-rules accessed on
Spencer48 prohibited the warrantless disclosure of basic July 14,2018 at 5:42 pm IST.
23. (1954) SCR 1077.
subscriber information by internet companies to law 24. Boyd v. United States, 116 US 616(1886).
enforcement agencies. In India, the Supreme Court as an 25. (1964) 1SCR 332.
interpreter of the Constitution has responsibility to 26. (1975) 2 SCC 148.
converge the balance between individual and state 27. (1981) 1 SCC 420.
28. AIR 1997 SC 568.
interest. The legislative intent of the Parliament should 29. (2005) I SCC 496.
be within the ambit of prosperous growth of the nation. 30. (2007) 1 SCC 789.
31. (2009) 9 SCC 551.
REFERENCES: 32. (2008)2 SCC 370.
33. (2005) I SCC 496.
1. Daniel J Solove, Understanding Privacy ,2( Harvard University
34. (1975) 2 SCC 148.
Press, London ,2008).
35. (2008) 13 SCC 5.
2. No one shall be subjected to arbitrary interference with his
36. (2010) 7 SCC 263.
privacy, family, home or correspondence, nor to attacks upon his
37. AIR 2017 SC 1461.
honour and reputation. Everyone has the right to the protection of
38. AIR 2017 SC 4161.
the law against such interference or attacks.
39. Available at
3. No one shall be subjected to arbitrary or unlawful interference
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass_surveillance_in_the_United_
with his privacy, family, home or correspondence, nor to
States accessed on July 12, 2018 at 5pm IST.
unlawful attacks on his honour and reputation.
40. Chicano movement was a civil rights movement extending the
Everyone has the right to the protection of the law against such
Mexican-American civil rights movement of the 1960s with the
interference or attacks.
stated goal of achieving Mexican American empowerment.
4. Daniel J Solove, Understanding Privacy, 2( Harvard University
41. Leighton Walters & Martin Maximino, The effect of CCTV on
Press, London, 2008).
Public Safety: Research Round Up at
5. Available at
https://journalistsresource.org/studies/government/criminal-
https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/surveillance
justice/surveillance-cameras-and-crimeaccessed on July12, 2018
accessed on July 12, 2018 at 2:30pm IST.
at 3:15.
6. Available at
42. Available:https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2016/feb/09/
http://ro.uow.edu.au/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2510&context=i
internet-of-things-smart-home-devices-government-surveillance-
nfopapers accessed on July 12, 2018 AT 3: 00pm IST.
james-clapper accessed on July 12, 2018 at 4:15 pm IST.
7. Leighton Walters & Martin Maximino, The effect of CCTV on
43. 585 US 16-402 (2018).
Public Safety: Research Round Up at
44. 565 US 400(2012).
https://journalistsresource.org/studies/government/criminal-
45. (1954) SCR 1077.
justice/surveillance-cameras-and-crimeaccessed on July12, 2018
46. (1964) 1SCR 332.
at 3:15 pm IST.
47. Klayman v. Obama, 957 F Supp 2d 1 (2013) (Columbia District
8. https://www.americanbar.org/publications/criminal_justice_sectio
Court).
n_archive/crimjust_standards_taps_blk.html accessed on July
48. 2014 SCC 43 (Supreme Court of Canada).
12, 2018 at 7:47 pm IST.
9. Available at https://legal-
dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Electronic+Surveillance
accessed on July 12, 2018 at 8:30 pm IST.
290