“RIGHT TO PRIVACY IN THE DAWN OF INFORMATION AND COMMUNICATION
TECHNOLOGY- A Critical Review ”
By- HarchandChoudhary@
Abstract-
Right
to privacy is basic right of a human kind and it is recognised universally. In
Indian perspective even though it is came in existence through case by case
because of Indian vigilant judiciary and made it sine qua non for human being
and provided power against any encroachment. But revolution in Information and
Communication Technology (ICT) diluted this right to privacy. ICT affected man
badly and his right to be alone. Crime of hacking are continuously increasing
because laws existed in present scenario is not adequate to handle the breach
of data privacy. Even sometimes government agencies also encroaches other people’s
right to their own benefit on the name of national security. On the other hand
ICT also became part and partial in modern time and it cannot be banned. The
only solutions are evolved a framework and enact effective rules and
regulations against unwanted interference in right to privacy.
1. Introduction-
Every civilized nation ensures privacy of its
citizen. The concept of privacy differs from society to society. The Universal
Declaration of Human Right provides for the right of privacy similarly other
International Instruments also endow for right of privacy.
Article
12, No one shall be subjected to arbitrary interference with his privacy, family,
home or correspondence,nor to attacks upon his honor and reputation. Everyone
has the right to the protection of the law against such interference or attacks.
The
constitution of India does not expressly provide the right to privacy,however,
the Supreme Court of India had interpreted it under the right to life. The
Right of privacy has not been defined statutorily in India. The analysis of the
Supreme Court’s decision on various cases brings forward certain areas that cover
protection of information as a part of right of privacy. The concept of privacy
in modern times is not restricted to mere physical movement or domiciliary
surveillance, but also encompasses protection of a wide range of information,
whether its medical, financial, bio metric or personal etc. The Supreme Court
has explained the facet of privacy meritoriously as,
“The most serious advocate of privacy must confess that there are
serious problems
of defining the essence and scope of the right. The privacy interest in
autonomy must also be
placed in the context of other rights and values. Any right to privacy
must encompass and protect the personal intimacies of the home, the family,
marriage, motherhood, procreation and childbearing.”1
2.
Evolution of right to privacy-
Though it is true that the Indian Constitution does not
explicitly guarantee this right as a fundamental right certainly the right to privacy
or, the right to be left alone, should be accepted as an individual right. The
courts' treatment of this right is a matter of paramount importance because of
growing invasions of this right in areas that remained away from the purview of
courts. It also assumes importance because of frequent violation of this right
by the State on grounds which are not bona fide.
The
Supreme Court of India (hereinafter referred to as the "Supreme Court") had the
opportunity to first decide and lay down the contours of the right to privacy
in India in the case of Kharak Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh[1].
This case did not witness the recognition of the right to privacy as a
fundamental right under the ‘personal liberty’ clause of Article 21 of the
Constitution. Majority of the judges in this case refused to interpret Article
21 in a manner to include within its ambit the right to privacy, however two of
the seven judges asserted that the right to privacy does form an essential
ingredient of personal liberty. Subsequently, the Supreme Court while deciding
the case of Govind v. State of Madhya Pradesh3 laid down that
a number of fundamental rights of citizens can be described as contributing to
the right to privacy. Although the Supreme Court also stated that the right to
privacy will have to go through a process of case by case
development.The Supreme Court in the case of R. Rajagopa v. State of Tamil Nadu4, for
the first time directly linked the right to privacy to Article 21 of the
Constitution and laid down:
"The right to privacy is implicit in the right to life and liberty guaranteed to the citizens of this country by Article 21. It is a "right to be let alone". A citizen has aright to safeguard the privacy of his own, his family, marriage, procreation, motherhood, child bearing and education among other matters. None can publish anything concerning the above matters without his consent whether truthful or otherwise and whether laudatory or critical. If he does so,he would be violating the right to privacy of the person concerned and would be liable in an action for damages."
Further, while deciding on the issue of telephone-tapping in the case of PUCL v. Union of India5, the Supreme Court observed that telephone-tapping would be a serious invasion of an individual’sprivacy.Thus, telephone-tapping would infract Article 21 of the Constitution, unless it is permitted under the procedure established by law.
Therefore, the concept of privacy of an individual has evolved over the years and has been held to be a fundamental right by the Supreme Court. In the case of Selvi v. State of Karnataka6the Supreme Court held that an involuntary subjection of a person to narcoanalysis, polygraph examination and BEAP tests violates the right to privacy.
[2]
"The right to privacy is implicit in the right to life and liberty guaranteed to the citizens of this country by Article 21. It is a "right to be let alone". A citizen has aright to safeguard the privacy of his own, his family, marriage, procreation, motherhood, child bearing and education among other matters. None can publish anything concerning the above matters without his consent whether truthful or otherwise and whether laudatory or critical. If he does so,he would be violating the right to privacy of the person concerned and would be liable in an action for damages."
Further, while deciding on the issue of telephone-tapping in the case of PUCL v. Union of India5, the Supreme Court observed that telephone-tapping would be a serious invasion of an individual’sprivacy.Thus, telephone-tapping would infract Article 21 of the Constitution, unless it is permitted under the procedure established by law.
Therefore, the concept of privacy of an individual has evolved over the years and has been held to be a fundamental right by the Supreme Court. In the case of Selvi v. State of Karnataka6the Supreme Court held that an involuntary subjection of a person to narcoanalysis, polygraph examination and BEAP tests violates the right to privacy.
[2]
The
Supreme Court has articulated an implicit right to privacy derived from the
language set out in Article 21 of the Constitution. However, India does not
have a separate and specific legislation that explicitly recognizes therightto
privacyand sets out the contours of its applicability
Indian government proposed a bill for
separate Right to Privacy Bill 2011 but it did not clear by parliament yet.
3. Effect of ICT on privacy-
Although
Information and Communications Technologies (ICTs) have greatly enhanced
ours
capacities to collect, store, process and communicate information, it is
ironically
thesecapacities
of technology which make us vulnerable to intrusions of our privacy
on
a previously impossible scale. Firstly, Data on our own personal
computers can
compromise
us in unpleasant ways – with consequences ranging from personal
embarrassment
to financial loss. Secondly, transmission of data over the internet and
mobile
networks is equally fraught with the risk of interception – both lawful and
unlawful
– which could compromise our privacy. Thirdly, in this age of cloud
computing
when
much of “our” data – our emails, chat logs, personal profiles, bank statements
etc.
resides
on the distant servers of the companies whose services we use, our privacy
become
only as strong as these companies’ internal electronic security systems.
Fourthly, the privacy of children, women and sexuality minorities tend to be
especially
fragile
in this digital age and they have become frequent targets of exploitation. Fifthly,
the
internet has spawned new kinds of annoyances from electronic voyeurism to spam
or
offensive
email to ‘phishing’ – impersonating someone else’s identity for financial gain
-
which
each have the effect of impinging on one’s privacy.
In India right to privacy was breached many times by
government agencies through phone tappings. in this there was famous case was
Nira Radia Case.The Radia tapes controversy relates to the telephonic
conversations between NiraRadia, a lobbyist and an acquaintance of the (then) Indian telecom minister A. Raja, and with senior
journalists, politicians, and corporate houses,[1] taped by the Indian Income Tax
Department in 2008–09. The tapes led to accusations of misconduct by many of these
people.
Latter on Tata has challenged the unauthorized
publication of the recordings. His argument is that the authorities have failed
in their duty to protect his privacy by allowing the tapes to be leaked and
then proving unable to prevent dissemination of the information. He has thus
asked for directives by the court for a probe into the leak, for the
authorities to attempt to retrieve all leaked recordings, and for the media to
be prohibited from publishing the tapes in any form. It is the second and third
requests that have become points of controversy
Another
most famous incident of phone tapping in India was during the Ramakrishna Hegde
regime in Karnataka in the year 1988. The opposition had alleged that
Hegde had ordered the tapping of phones of opposition leaders and was invading
their privacy.
In 2014 Edward Snowden revealed
thousands of documents of spying program run by USA intelligence agencies CIA
and FBI. These document shows that thousands of people, politicians,
celebrities, businessmen and departments were spied by US agencies and breached
right to privacy of many people. like
Ø “US 'hacks China networks'
Ø Merkel phone
calls 'intercepted'
Ø
A total of 38 embassies and
missions have been the "targets" of US spying operations, accordingto
a secret file
leaked to the Guardian.
Ø
Latin America 'monitored'
Ø SMS messages
'collected and stored' In January 2014, the
Guardian newspaper and Channel Four News reported that the US had collected and stored
almost 200 million text messages per day across the globe.
A National Security Agency (NSA)
programme is said to have extracted and stored data from the SMS messages to
gather location information, contacts and financial data.
The documents also revealed
that GCHQ had used the NSA database to search for information on people in the
UK.”
·
“In July 2015, adult
website Ashley Madison
suffered a data breach when a hacker group stole information on its 37 million
users. The hackers threatened to reveal user names and specifics if Ashley
Madison and a fellow site, EstablishedMen.com, did not shut down permanently.
·
In November 2014 and for weeks after, Sony
Pictures Entertainment suffered a data breach
involving personal information about Sony Pictures employees and their
families, e-mails between employees, information about executive salaries at
the company, copies of (previously) unreleased Sony films, and other
information. The hackers involved claim to have taken over 100 terabytes of
data from Sony.
·
In August 2014, nearly 200 photographs of celebrities
were posted to the image board website 4chan. An investigation by Apple
found that the images were obtained "by a targeted attack on user names,
passwords and security questions".
These are the purely side effects of ICT on
right to privacy if ICT would not have existed then privacy had breached at
vast level.
4.
Laws for protection of privacy-
Although
there are a number of technological measures through which these risks can be
reduced, it is equally important to have a robust legal regime in place which
lays emphasis on the maintenance of privacy. We have some laws as under mention
-
(A)
Under Section 43A of the (Indian) Information Technology Act, 2000, a
body corporate who is possessing, dealing or handling any sensitive personal
data or information, and is negligent in implementing and maintaining
reasonable security practices resulting in wrongful loss or wrongful gain to
any person, then such body corporate may be held liable to pay damages to the
person so affected. It is important to note that there is no upper limit
specified for the compensation that can be claimed by the affected party in
such circumstances.
(B) Under Section 72A of the (Indian) Information
Technology Act, 2000, disclosure of information, knowingly and intentionally,
without the consent of the person concerned and in breach of the lawful
contract has been also made punishable with imprisonment for a term extending
to three years and fine extending to INR 5,00,000 (Approx. US$ 10750).
The
current lot of legislations that try to address privacy concerns are piecemeal
in nature. Bulk of these provisions is found in the Information Technology Act 2000 and its subsequent amendments. Section 72 of
the Information Technology Act 2000 in its original form penalized the breaches
of confidentiality and privacy of data. Essentially, the scope of the provision
covered those empowered by the Act to gain “access to any electronic record,
book, register, correspondence, information document or other material” seized
for investigation. It was aimed at preventing accidental leaks of such
information during the course of investigation. It was later amendedto include Section 72A to penalize “any person”
(including an intermediary) who has obtained personal information while
providing services under a lawful contract and discloses the personal
information without consent of the person, with the intent to cause, or knowing
it is likely to cause wrongful gain or wrongful loss.
When
this clause is read together with Section 69B of the Act, it squarely puts the
responsibility of securing personal data on the intermediary, which in this
case could be a wide spectrum of actors from cyber cafes to telecom companies
and ISPs. This also makes Government agencies like the Unique Identification
Authority of India (UIDAI) which is tasked with collection of biometric data,
accountable for maintaining privacy of such data collected by it.
Another
set of amendments came into force by the addition of Section 43A which obliges
corporate bodies which possess, deal or handle any sensitive personal data to
implement and maintain “reasonable security practices,” failing which they
would be liable to pay damages. The Act defines “corporate bodies” as those
involved in “commercial or professional activities” only. The definitions of
“sensitive personal data” and “reasonable security practices” are narrow and
hence prevent courts from interpreting a contextual definition. Most
importantly, government agencies and non-profit organizations are entirely
excluded from the ambit of this section.
(C) Resolution adopted by the General
Assembly for Right to Privacy -
Reaffirming the human right to privacy, according to which no one shall be subjected
to arbitrary or unlawful interference with his or her privacy, family, home or correspondence,
and the right to the protection of the law against such interference, and
recognizing that the exercise of the right to privacy is important for the
realization of the right to freedom of expression and to hold opinions without interference,
and is one of the foundations of a democratic society, Stressing the
importance of the full respect for the freedom
“No one shall be subjected to arbitrary interference with his privacy, family, home or correspondence, nor to attacks upon his honor and reputation. Everyone has the right to the protection of the law against such interference or attacks.”
@ The court also specified in this judgment delivered in the PUCL vs Union of India7 case in 1997 that a telephonic conversation in private without interference would come under the purview of right to privacy as mandated in the Constitution.
The court further observed that unlawful means of phone tapping are invasions in privacy and are uncivilized and undemocratic in nature.
The
Supreme Court, in the same judgment, also went on to lay down various
guidelines regarding phone tapping which are as follows:
Ø If a telephone needs to be tapped, then the home
secretary of the Union government or the respective state government can issue
an order to this effect.
Ø Strong reasons have to be specified in order to
issue such a directive.
Ø Such an order shall be in force only for two months
unless there is another order, which will give the home secretary the right to
extend it by another six months only.
The Supreme Court, however, does not give the home
secretary the ultimate power and states clearly in the same judgment that such
an order shall be subject to review by the Cabinet, law and telecommunication
secretary who will need to review the same in 2 months time of the date the
order has been passed
5.
Possible Remedies-
Recommendations of the Shah Committee
In general, the Shah Committee recommended that the legislation on right to privacy must harmonize all statutory provisions that relate to privacy. As perthe Committee Report submitted in October 2012, the major recommendations of the Shah Committee were as follows:-
1. The regulatory framework will consist of
privacycommissioners at the Central and Regional levels;
2. A system of co-regulation granting the
selfregulating organizations at industry level the choice to develop privacy
standards. These standards should be approved by a privacycommissioner;
3. Individuals would be given the choice
(opt-in/opt-out) with regard to providing their personal information and the
data controller would take individual consent only after providing inputs of
its information practices;
4. The data controller shall only collect that
personal information from data subjects as is necessary for the purposes
identified for such collection as well as process the data relevant to the
purpose for which they are collected;
5. The data collected would be put to use for the
purpose for which it has been collected. Any change in the usage would be done
only with consent of the person concerned;
6. Data collected and processed would be relevant for
the purpose and no additional data elements would be collected from the
individual;[5]
7. Interception orders must be specific and all
interceptions would only be in force for a period of 60 days and may be renewed
for a period of up to 180 days. Records of interception must be destroyed by
security agencies after 6 months or 9 months and service providers must destroy
after 2 months or 6 months; and
8. Infringement of any provision under the Act would
constitute an offence forwhich individuals may seek compensation.
6.
Conclusion-
Right to Privacy is fundamental right and
sine qua non for a human being to live a dignify life. No one can compromise
with his privacy. But on other hand Information and Communication Technology is
also become a part and partial of modern world. ICT made whole world a village
and connected to one another and without ICT life will be very difficult at present time. So both privacy and ICT are important for a person in these days,
the only possible solution is to enact effective laws, rules and regulation to
prevent data breach and create such a framework which can punish those people
who breach the privacy of others.Government should motivate the IT companies to
build a robust internet security and privacy protections in their network.
@ Author is
the student of BA LLB 2nd year of BharatiVidyapeeth Deemed
University New Law College, Pune
Email id.-harchand9928@gmail.com , mo.no. 09689123719
1. Gobindvs State Of Madhya Pradesh, AIR
1975 SC 1378, 1975 CriLJ 1111, (1975) 2 SCC 148, 1975 SCR 946
2.
Kharak Singh v. State of
Uttar Pradesh, cited
at: (1964) SCR (1) 332.
3.
Govind v.
StateofMadhyaPradesh, cited at: AIR 1975 SC 1378.
4. R. Rajagopal v. State of Tamil Nadu, cited
at: 1994 SCC (6) 632.
5. . PUCL v.
Union of India, cited at: (1997) 1 SCC 30.
6.
Selvi v. State of
Karnataka, cited
at: AIR 2010 SC 1974
7..PUCL v. Union of India, cited at:
(1997) 1 SCC 30
BIBLIOGRAPHY
1.
DURGA DAS BASU,THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, 8TH EDDITION 2008,P.
3139
2.
J.N. PANDEY,THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA,51ST EDDITION
2014,P.254.
WEBLIOGRAPHY-