The Right to Privacy in the Era of Mass Surveillance in India: A Constitutional Perspective
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.22161/jhed.6.4.7Abstract
The expansion of digital technologies has significantly transformed state surveillance practices in India, raising complex constitutional questions concerning privacy, liberty, and democratic governance. This paper examines the right to privacy in the context of mass surveillance from a constitutional perspective. It analyses the evolution of privacy jurisprudence in India, culminating in its recognition as a fundamental right by the Supreme Court in Justice K.S. Puttaswamy (Retd.) v. Union of India. The study explores the nature and scope of mass surveillance, its impact on fundamental rights beyond privacy, and the limitations of the existing legal framework. It argues that unchecked surveillance poses risks to dignity, autonomy, and democratic participation. The paper concludes by emphasising the need for a rights-based surveillance framework grounded in constitutional principles, robust oversight, and accountability to ensure that security objectives do not erode fundamental freedoms.
Downloads
References
Bhatia, G. L. (2019). The transformative constitution: A radical biography in nine acts.
Lyon, D. (2018). The culture of surveillance: Watching as a way of life. John Wiley & Sons.
Richards, N. M. (1934). The Dangers of Surveillance” (2013) 126. Harvard Law Review, 7, 1934-at.
Ramanathan, U. (2010). A unique identity bill. Economic and Political Weekly, 10-14.
Bhandari, V., & Lahiri, K. (2020). The Surveillance State, Privacy, and Criminal Investigation in India: Possible Futures in a Post-PUTASWAMY World. U. Oxford Hum. Rts. Hub J., 15.
Penney, J. W. (2016). Chilling effects: Online surveillance and Wikipedia use. Berkeley Tech. LJ, 31, 117.
Solove, D. J. (2010). Understanding privacy. Harvard University Press.
Sathe, S. P. (2002). Judicial activism in India. Oxford University Press.
Eubanks, V. (2018). Automating inequality: How high-tech tools profile, police, and punish the poor. Macmillan+ ORM.
Joined Cases, C. (2014). 293/12 and C-594/12 Digital Rights Ireland Ltd v Minister for Communications. Marine and Natural Resources and Others and Kärntner Landesregierung and Others [2014] para 47.
European Court of Human Rights. (2019). Big Brother Watch and Others v. United Kingdom.
Supreme Court of India. (2017). Justice K.S. Puttaswamy (Retd.) v. Union of India, (2017) 10 SCC 1.
Supreme Court of India. (2015). Shreya Singhal v. Union of India, (2015) 5 SCC 1.
Supreme Court of India. (2017). Justice K.S. Puttaswamy (Retd.) v. Union of India, (2017) 10 SCC 1. https://indiankanoon.org/doc/91938676/
Information Technology Act, 2000. Government of India.
https://www.meity.gov.in/content/information-technology-act-2000
People’s Union for Civil Liberties v. Union of India, (1997) 1 SCC 301.
https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1033166/
United Nations Human Rights Committee. (2018). General Comment No. 16 on Article 17 (Right to Privacy).
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.







