Supreme Court Judges Welcome Recall of Order on Data Sharing, Reaffirming Privacy
Judges involved in the landmark 2017 privacy verdict commend the Supreme Court's recall of an order allowing government data sharing, emphasizing the need for robust privacy safeguards.
Photo by Samyak Bothra
In a significant development for privacy rights in India, several Supreme Court judges, including those who were part of the landmark 2017 Right to Privacy (Puttaswamy) judgment, have welcomed the recall of an earlier order that permitted the government to share citizens' data with investigative agencies. The recalled order, issued by a two-judge bench, had raised concerns about its potential to undermine the fundamental right to privacy.
The judges highlighted the importance of adhering to the "proportionality test" and "legitimate state interest" principles, which require that any state intrusion into privacy must be necessary, proportionate, and backed by a legitimate aim. This episode underscores the judiciary's commitment to safeguarding individual privacy and the ongoing need for a robust data protection framework in the country.
Key Facts
Supreme Court recalled an order allowing government to share citizens' data with investigative agencies
Judges from the 2017 Right to Privacy (Puttaswamy) verdict welcomed the recall
Concerns raised about 'proportionality test' and 'legitimate state interest' in data sharing
The recalled order was issued by a two-judge bench
UPSC Exam Angles
Constitutional provisions related to fundamental rights (Article 21)
Landmark Supreme Court judgments (Puttaswamy case)
Principles of constitutional law (proportionality test, legitimate state interest)
Data protection laws and frameworks (DPDP Act, 2023)
Role of the judiciary in upholding fundamental rights
Balancing individual rights with state security and governance needs
Visual Insights
Evolution of Right to Privacy & Data Protection in India
This timeline illustrates key judicial pronouncements and legislative efforts that have shaped the Right to Privacy and data protection framework in India, leading up to the recent Supreme Court development.
The journey of privacy in India has evolved from being a non-fundamental right to an intrinsic part of Article 21. Landmark judgments like Puttaswamy (2017) laid the foundation for a robust data protection framework, culminating in the DPDPA 2023. The judiciary continues to play a crucial role in upholding these rights against potential state overreach.
- 1954M.P. Sharma v. Satish Chandra: SC held privacy not a fundamental right.
- 1962Kharak Singh v. State of UP: SC reiterated privacy not a fundamental right, but recognized 'personal liberty'.
- 1994R. Rajagopal v. State of Tamil Nadu: SC recognized right to privacy as implicit in Article 21.
- 1997PUCL v. Union of India: SC held telephone tapping violates privacy under Article 21.
- 2009Aadhaar Project launched, raising significant privacy concerns.
- 2017K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India: 9-judge bench unanimously declared Right to Privacy a fundamental right under Article 21.
- 2018Justice B.N. Srikrishna Committee submitted report, proposing a data protection law.
- 2019Personal Data Protection Bill, 2019 introduced in Parliament.
- 2022Personal Data Protection Bill, 2019 withdrawn by the government.
- 2023Digital Personal Data Protection Act (DPDPA) passed by Parliament.
- 2024Supreme Court judges welcome recall of order allowing data sharing with investigative agencies, reaffirming privacy principles.
More Information
Background
Latest Developments
Practice Questions (MCQs)
1. Consider the following statements regarding the Right to Privacy in India: 1. The Supreme Court in *K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India* (2017) declared the Right to Privacy as an intrinsic part of Article 21 of the Constitution. 2. The 'proportionality test' requires any state intrusion into privacy to be necessary, proportionate, and backed by a legitimate state aim. 3. The recently recalled order allowing data sharing with investigative agencies was initially issued by a nine-judge bench of the Supreme Court. Which of the statements given above is/are correct?
- A.1 only
- B.1 and 2 only
- C.2 and 3 only
- D.1, 2 and 3
Show Answer
Answer: B
Statement 1 is correct. The K.S. Puttaswamy judgment (2017) unanimously affirmed the Right to Privacy as a fundamental right under Article 21. Statement 2 is correct. The proportionality test, as laid down in the Puttaswamy judgment, mandates that any state action infringing on privacy must be necessary, proportionate, and serve a legitimate state aim. Statement 3 is incorrect. As per the news, the recalled order was issued by a two-judge bench, not a nine-judge bench.
2. In the context of data protection in India, which of the following statements is correct regarding the Digital Personal Data Protection Act, 2023?
- A.It applies only to the processing of digital personal data within the territory of India and explicitly excludes manual data processing.
- B.It mandates that data fiduciaries must obtain explicit consent for all types of personal data processing, without any exceptions.
- C.It establishes the Data Protection Board of India as an independent body to adjudicate disputes and impose penalties.
- D.It completely prohibits the cross-border transfer of personal data to any country outside India, irrespective of their data protection standards.
Show Answer
Answer: C
Option C is correct. The DPDP Act, 2023 establishes the Data Protection Board of India to enforce the provisions of the Act, adjudicate disputes, and impose penalties. Option A is incorrect because the Act has extraterritorial application, covering processing of personal data outside India if it relates to offering goods or services to Data Principals in India. It also covers digitized personal data. Option B is incorrect because while consent is a primary basis, the Act also allows for 'legitimate uses' where consent is not required in certain specified circumstances (e.g., for state functions, medical emergencies). Option D is incorrect. The Act allows for cross-border transfer of personal data to certain notified countries, subject to conditions, rather than a complete prohibition.
3. Which of the following principles are generally considered essential for a state action to be a 'reasonable restriction' on a fundamental right under the Indian Constitution, particularly in the context of privacy? 1. The restriction must be backed by a law. 2. The restriction must serve a legitimate state aim. 3. There must be a rational nexus between the restriction and the aim. 4. The restriction must be proportionate to the aim sought to be achieved. Select the correct answer using the code given below:
- A.1 and 2 only
- B.1, 2 and 3 only
- C.2, 3 and 4 only
- D.1, 2, 3 and 4
Show Answer
Answer: D
All four statements represent the essential components of the 'proportionality test' and the general requirements for a 'reasonable restriction' on fundamental rights, as articulated by the Supreme Court in various judgments, including *Puttaswamy*. The restriction must be prescribed by law, serve a legitimate state aim, have a rational connection to that aim, and be proportionate, meaning it should be the least restrictive means to achieve the aim.