Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Right to privacy has been the aspect of discussion since time immemorial
and it is considered as one of the comprehensive right of the individual or a
society. It is considered as a preliminary right in many of the Jurisdiction. In
India right to privacy is considered as a part of Right to life under the
Constitution of India which is a fundamental right of the Individual. The
Supreme court of India and other courts through its decision starting from
late 70s have interpreted right to privacy as a fundamental right under right
to life under article 21 of the Constitution Same is the case in USA and UK
where in USA all though privacy is not defined any where all though in the
earlier stage the courts have interpreted the right to privacy in aspect of
right to property only, at later stage the right to privacy has widen its
interpretation by not only including property, but also, other aspects. In UK
all though Common law at the earlier stage did not give much recognition to
Privacy, the passing of the Human Rights Act and the European Convention
on Human Rights gave a new interpretation to privacy which provides for
respect for a private Life.
notably the right to life and liberty apply all persons in India, whether they
are citizens or not). Article 13 prevents the State from making any law
which takes away or abridges the fundamental rights.
Article 19(1)(a) specifies that All citizens shall have the right to freedom
of speech and expression . However this is made competent by Article 19(2)
which provides that this will not affect the operation of any existing law, or
prevent the State from making any law, in so far as such law imposes
reasonable restrictions on the exercise of the right in the interests of the
sovereignty and integrity of India, the security of the State, friendly relations
with foreign States, public order, decency or morality, or in relation to
contempt of court, defamation or incitement to an offence.
Thus the Freedom of Expression guaranteed by Article 19(1)(a) is not
absolute, but a privileged right that is vulnerable, under the Constitutional
scheme, to being curtailed under specified conditions.
The other important Fundamental Right from the perspective of privacy
jurisprudence is Article 21 which reads 21. No person shall be deprived of
his life or personal liberty except according to procedure established by law.
Where Article 19 contains a detailed list of conditions under which
Freedom of Expression may be curtailed, differentially Article 21 is thinlyworded and only requires a procedure established by law as a precondition for the deprivation of life and liberty. However, the Supreme Court
has held in the famous case of Maneka Gandhi vs. Union of India1 that
any procedure which deals with the modalities of regulating, restricting or
even rejection of a fundamental right falling within Article 21 has to be fair,
not foolish, carefully designed to effectuate, not to subvert, the substantive
right itself. Thus, understood, "procedure" must rule out anything arbitrary,
freakish or bizarre.
1(1978) 2 SCR 621
Page | 2
Page | 3
in his defense that his right to privacy under Article 21 had been
violated. The Supreme Court rejected his plea holding that The telephonic
conversation of an innocent citizen will be protected by Courts against
wrongful or high handed' interference by tapping the conversation. The
protection is not for the guilty citizen against the efforts of the police to
vindicate the law and prevent corruption of public servants.5
In another case, Govind vs. State of Madhya Pradesh 6, decided by a
three- Judge Bench of the Supreme Court, is regarded as being a setback to
4 AIR 1973 SC 157, 1973 SCR (2) 417
5 Ibid
6 (1975) 2 SCC 148
Page | 4
the
intended
to
protect
or
protected
mere
personal
sensitiveness
This case is important since it marks the beginning of a trend in the
higher judiciary to consider the right to privacy as not being absolute. From
Govind onwards, non-absoluteness becomes the defining feature and the
destiny of this right.
Page | 5
Page | 6
(1) 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 a right to safeguard the privacy of his own, his family, marriage,
procreation, motherhood, childbearing 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. Position may, however, be
different, if a person voluntarily thrusts himself into controversy or
voluntarily invites or raises a controversy.
(2) The rule aforesaid is subject to the exception, that any publication
concerning
the
aforesaid
aspects
becomes
unobjectionable
if
such
publication is based upon public records including court records. This is for
the reason that once a matter becomes a matter of public record, the right to
privacy no longer subsists and it becomes a legitimate subject for comment
by press and media among others. We are, however, of the opinion that in
the interests of decency (Article 19(2)) an exception must be carved out to
this rule, viz., a female who is the victim of a sexual assault, kidnap,
abduction or a like offence should not further be subjected to the indignity of
her name and the incident being publicized in press/media.
On this reasoning, the court upheld that the newspapers right to
publish Shankars autobiography, even without his consent or authorization,
to the extent that this story was able to be kept together from public records.
However, if they went beyond that, the court held, they may be invading his
right to privacy and will be liable for the consequences in accordance with
law. Importantly, the court held that the remedy of the affected public
officials/public figures, if any, is after the publication9
9Ibid
Page | 7
The final case that makes up the privacy quintet in India was the case
of PUCL v. Union of India10, a public interest litigation, in which the court
was called upon to consider whether wiretapping was an infringement of a
citizens right to privacy, violating the constitutional safe guards. The case
was filed in light of a report brought out by the Central Bureau of
Investigation on the Tapping of politicians phones which disclosed several
irregularities in the tapping of telephones. The Court made the following
observations on the aspect of the right to privacy in India:
The right privacy by itself has not been identified under the Constitution. As
a concept it may be too broad and moralistic to define it judicially. Whether
right to privacy can be claimed or has been infringed in a given case would
depend on the facts of the said case.
However, the Court went on to hold that the right to hold a telephone
conversation in the privacy of ones home or office without interference can
certainly be claimed as right to privacy. This was because conversations on
the telephone are often of an intimate and confidential characterTelephone
conversation is an important facet of a man's private life. Right to privacy
would certainly include telephone-conversation in the privacy of one's home
or office. Telephone-tapping would, thus, infract Article 21 of the Constitution
of India unless it is permitted under the procedure established by law.
The court also read the right to privacy as deriving from Article 19.
When a person is talking on telephone, he is exercising his right to freedom
of speech and expression., the court observed, and therefore telephonetapping unless it comes within the grounds of restrictions under Article 19(2)
would infract Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution.
Page | 8
11 Rule 419A of the Telegraph Rules stipulates the authorities from whom permission must be obtained
for tapping, the manner in which such permission is to be granted and the safeguards to be observed while
tapping communication. The Rule stipulates that any order permitting tapping of communication would
lapse (un less renewed) in two months. In no case would tapping be permissible beyond 180 days. The
Rule further requires all records of tapping to be destroyed after a period of two months from the lapse of
the period of interception.
Page | 9
Would this rule hold true for information on relatives/ friends of public
persons? The rule is that, unless, private information on relatives/friends of
public persons impacts public interest and accountability, the information
should not be revealed.
In 2010, the media reported that Sunanda Pushkar, a close friend of the
Minister of State for External Affairs, Shashi Tharoor, holds a significant
holding in the IPL Kochi team. The media exposure led to the exit of Shashi
Tharoor from the government. While the medias questioning of Pushkars
holdings was legitimate, the medias reporting on her past relationships and
how she dressed had no bearing on public interest or accountability.13 The
media accused Pushkar of playing proxy for Tharoor in the Rs. 70 crore sweat
equity deal. Much of the media attention focused on her personal life, as
opposed to, how she attained such a large stake in the IPL Kochi team. It
minutely analyzed her successes and failures, questioned her ability and
accused her of having unbridled ambition and greed for money and power.
If one was to consider the rules of privacy set by the court in the judges
assets case much of the personal information published by the media on
Tharoor and Pushkar, failed to shed light on the IPL holdings or the
establishment of the nexus between the IPL holdings and the government
involvement.
The tests delineated by the court in considering what personal information
regarding a public authority may be shared under the RTI Act, can be
adopted by the media when reporting on public officials. If personal
information divulged by the media does not shed light on the performance of
a public official, which would be of public interest, then the information
revealed violates the standards of privacy. Personal details which have no
bearing on public resources or interests should not be published.
The media coverage of the Bombay terror attacks displayed the same lack of
restraint, where the minutest details of a persons last communication with
13 PTI, Media just turned me into a 'slut' in IPL row: Sunanda Pushkar, 23/04/2010 Available at
http://articles.timesofindia.indiatimes.com/2010-04-23/india/28149154_1_sunanda-pushkar-shashitharoor-ipl-kochi.
Page | 11
his/her family were repeatedly printed in the media. None of the information
presented by the media revealed anything new about the terror attack or
emphasized the gravity of the attack.
A senior journalist, who talked off the record and reported on the Mumbai
terror attacks, agreed that the media overstepped their limits in the Mumbai
terror attacks. As per her, violation of privacy takes place at two stages: the
first time, when you overstep your boundaries and ask a question you should
not have, and the second, when you publish that information. Reflecting on
her ten years of reporting experience, she said, Often when you are
covering a tragedy, there is little time to reflect on your reporting. Besides, if
you, on account of violating someones privacy, choose not to report a story,
some competing paper would surely carry that story. You would have to
defend your decision to not report the story to your boss. The
competitiveness of reporting and getting a story before your competitor, she
agreed makes even the most seasoned journalists ruthless sometimes.
Besides, although PCI norms exist, not many read the PCI norms or recall the
journalistic ethics when they are reporting on the field.14
The PCI Norms reiterate that the media should not intrude "the privacy of an
individual, unless outweighed by genuine overriding public interest, not
being a prurient or morbid curiosity."15 The well accepted rule, however, is
that once a matter or information comes in the public domain, it no longer
falls within the sphere of the private. The media has failed to make the
distinction between what is warranted invasion of privacy and what
constitutes as an unwarranted invasion of privacy. For instance, identity of a
rape or kidnap victim that would further cause discrimination is often
revealed by the media.
Identity of Children
The Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act lays down that the
media should not disclose the names, addresses or schools of juveniles in
conflict with the law or that of a child in need of care and protection, which
would lead to their identification. The exception, to identification of a juvenile
or child in need of care and protection, is when it is in the interest of the
child. The media is prohibited from disclosing the identity of the child in such
situations.
Similarly, the Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC) stipulates that:
Article 16
14 Interview with Senior Assistant Editor, Hindustan Times,
15 Guideline 6 (i) Right to Privacy, Norm if Journalistic Conduct, PCI.
Page | 12
1.
2.
The child has the right to the protection of the law against such
interference or attacks.
the facts by an independent source. The result is that most crime reporting is
one-sided, because the information received from the police is rarely
questioned."
As per her, to a certain degree the publication of TataRadia conversations
did violate Tatas privacy. "Media needs to question itself prior to printing on
how the information is of public interest. Of course, as a journalist you do not
want to lose out on a good story, but there needs to be gate keeping, which
is mostly absent in most of the media today."
In the Bofors pay-off case18the High Court of Delhi, observed that, The
fairness of trial is of paramount importance as without such protection there
would be trial by media which no civilized society can and should tolerate.
The functions of the court in the civilized society cannot be usurped by any
other authority.19 It further criticized the trend of police or the CBI holding a
press conference for the media when investigation of a crime is still ongoing.
The court agreed that media awareness creates awareness of the crime, but
the right to fair trial is as valuable as the right to information and freedom of
communication.
Section 3(1) of the Act exempts any publication and distribution of
publication, "if the publisher had no reasonable grounds for believing that
the proceeding was pending. In the event, the person is unaware of the
pendency, any publication (whether by words spoken or written or signs or
visible representations) interferes or tends to interfere with or obstructs the
course of justice in connection with any civil or criminal proceeding pending
at the time of publication, if at that time he had no reasonable grounds for
believing that the proceeding was pending." The report emphasizes that
publications during the pre-trial stage by the media could affect the rights of
the accused. An evaluation of the accuseds character is likely to affect or
prejudice a fair trial.
If the suspects pictures are shown in the media, identification parades of the
accused conducted under Code of Civil Procedure would be prejudiced. Under
Contempt of Court Act, publications that interfere with the administration of
justice amount to contempt. Further, the principles of natural justice
emphasize fair trial and the presumption of innocence until proven guilty.
The rights of an accused are protected under Article 21 of the Constitution,
which guarantees the right to fair trial. This protects the accused from the
over-zealous media glare which can prejudice the case. Although, in recent
times the media has failed to observe restraint in covering high-profile
murder cases, much of which has been hailed as medias success in ensuring
justice to the common man.
18 Crl.Misc.(Main) 3938/2003
19 Ibid.
Page | 16
For instance, in the Jessica Lal murder case, the media took great pride in
acting as a facilitator of justice. The media in the case whipped up public
opinion against the accused and held him guilty even when the trial court
had acquitted the accused. The media took on the responsibility of
administering justice and ensuring the guilty are punished, candle light vigils
and opinion polls on the case were organized by the media. Past history of
the accused was raked up by the media, including photographs of the
accused in affluent bars and pubs in the city were published after he was
acquitted. The photographs of Manu Sharma in pubs insinuated how he was
celebrating after his acquittal.
The Apex Court observed that the freedom of speech has to be carefully and
cautiously used to avoid interference in the administration of justice. If trial
by media hampers fair investigation and prejudices the right of defence of
the accused it would amount to travesty of justice. The Court remarked that
the media should not act as an agency of the court.20
The Court, commented, "Presumption of innocence of an accused is a legal
presumption and should not be destroyed at the very threshold through the
process of media trial and that too when the investigation is pending."
Sting Operations
On 30 August, 2007 Live India, a news channel conducted a sting operation
on a Delhi government school teacher forcing a girl student into prostitution.
Subsequent to the media expos, the teacher Uma Khurana21was attacked
by a mob and was suspended by the Directorate of Education, Government
of Delhi. Later investigation and reports by the media exposed that there
was no truth to the sting operation. The girl student who was allegedly being
forced into prostitution was a journalist. The sting operation was a stage
managed operation. The police found no evidence against the teacher to
support allegations made by the sting operation of child prostitution. In this
case, the High Court of Delhi charged the journalist with impersonation,
criminal conspiracy and creating false evidence. The Ministry of Information
and Broadcasting sent a show cause notice to TV-Live India, alleging the
telecast of the sting operation by channel was defamatory, deliberate,
containing false and suggestive innuendos and half truths."
Section 5 of the Cable Television Networks (Regulation) Act, 1995 and the
Cable Television Network Rules (hereafter the Cable Television Networks Act),
stipulates that no programme can be transmitted or retransmitted on any
20 Sidhartha Vashisht @ Manu Sharma vs State (Nct Of Delhi), Available at
http://www.indiankanoon.org/doc/1515299/.
21 WP(Crl.) No.1175/2007
Page | 17
Page | 18
The PCI norms also lay down similar guidelines which require a newspaper
reporting a sting operation to obtain a certificate from the person involved in
the sting to certify that the operation is genuine and record in writing the
various stages of the sting. The decision to report the sting vests with the
editor who merely needs to satisfy himself that the sting operation is of
public interest.
In addition, to the Cable Television Networks Act and the PCI norms, the
News Broadcasting Standard Authority (NBSA) was set up in 2008 as a selfregulatory body by News Broadcasters Association.[25] The primary
objective of the NBSA is to receive complaints on broadcasts. The NBSA has
drafted a Code of Ethics and Broadcasting Standards governing broadcasters
and television journalists. The Code of Ethics provides guiding principles
relating to privacy and sting operations that broadcasters should follow.
With respect to privacy, the Code directs channels not to intrude into the
private lives of individuals unless there is a clearly established larger and
identifiable public interest for such a broadcast. Any information on private
lives of persons should be warranted in public interest. Similarly, for sting
operations, the Code directs that they should be used as a last resort by
news channels and should be guided by larger public interest. They should
be used to gather conclusive evidence of criminality and should not edit/alter
visuals to misrepresent truth.
In a recent judgment on a supposed sting operation conducted by M/s.
Associated Broadcasting Company Pvt. Limited22on TV9 on Gay culture
rampant in Hyderabad, the NBA took suo motu notice of the violation of
privacy of individuals with alternate sexual orientation and misuse of the tool
of sting operation. NBA in its judgment held that the Broadcaster had
violated clauses on privacy, sting operations and sex and nudity of the Code
of Ethics. It further, observed, that the Broadcaster and the story did not
reveal any justifiable public interest in using the sting operation and violating
the privacy of individuals. In this particular case, the Broadcaster had
revealed the personal information and faces of supposedly gay men in
Hyderabad to report on the underbelly of gay culture and life. However, the
news report, as NBSA observed, did not prove any criminality and was
merely a sensational report of gay culture allegedly prevalent in Hyderabad.
The PCI norms provide that the press should not tape-record conversations
without the persons express consent or knowledge, except where it is
necessary to protect a journalist in a legal action or for other compelling
reason. What constitutes a compelling reason is left to the discretion of the
journalist.
It was in the 1980s, that the first sting operation on how women were being
trafficked was carried out by the Indian Express reporter Ashwin Sarin. As
part of the sting, the Express purchased a tribal girl called Kamla.
Subsequently, in 2001, the sting operation conducted by Tehelka exposed
corruption in defence contracts using spy cams and journalists posing as
arms dealers. The expos on defence contracts led to the resignation of the
then defence minister George Fernandes. Sting operations gained legitimacy
in India, especially in the aftermath of the Tehelka operation, exposing
corruption within the government. The original purpose of a sting operation
or an undercover operation was to expose corruption. Stings were justifiable
only when it served a public interest. Subsequent to the Tehelka expos,
stings have assumed the status of investigative journalism, much of which
has been questioned in recent times, especially, with respect to ethics
involved in conducting sting operations and the methods of entrapment used
by the media. Further, stings by Tehelka, where the newspaper used sex
workers to entrap politicians have brought to question the manner in which
stings are operated. Although, the overriding concern surrounding sting
operations has been its authenticity, as opposed to, the issue of personal
privacy.
For instance, in March 2005 a television news channel carried out a sting
operation involving Bollywood actor Shakti Kapoor to expose the casting
couch phenomenon in the movie industry. The video showing Shakti Kapoor
asking for sexual favours from an aspiring actress, who was an undercover
reporter, was received with public outrage. Nonetheless, prominent members
of the media questioned the manner in which the sting was conducted. The
sting was set up as an entrapment. The court has taken a strong view
against the use of entrapment in sting operations. In the case of the Shakti
Kapoor sting, privacy of the actor was clearly violated. The manner in which
the sting was conducted casts serious doubt on who was the victim.23
Additionally, the sting violated the PCI norms. It failed to provide a record of
the various stages of how the sting operation was conducted. In United
Kingdom, the media when violating privacy of a person has to demonstrate
that it is in the interest of the public.
structure that the UID Scheme adopts, the actual task of enrolment lies
entirely in the hands of third party Registrars who include a mass of Central
and State social security and welfare departments (including the Ministry of
Rural Development which administers the Rural employment guarantee
scheme), banks and insurance companies. There is nothing in the Aadhar
Scheme that prohibits these Registrars from getting access to their services
provided, ones consent is obtained to UID registration. In practice, many of
them have and will continue to make UID registration a preliminary formality
before access is granted to their services. So the citizens freedom to resist
UID registration depends on their ability to give up, say, minimum guarantee
of the right to employment, cooking gas, banking and insurance services,
food rations etc.
In addition, the Registrar General of India, the authority responsible for
compilation of the National Population Register of India under the Citizenship
Act, also happens to be a Registrar for the purposes of the UID. This means
that ones registration in the NPR will entail automatic enrolment in the UID.
The Citizenship (Registration of Citizens and Issue of National Identity Cards)
Rules, 2003 makes it mandatory for everyone to be enrolled in the National
Population Register. So, paradoxically, although the Aadhar number does not
confer citizenship, one cannot be a citizen anymore without owning an
Aadhar number.
and integrity of India, the security of the State, friendly relations with foreign
States or public order or for preventing incitement to the commission of an
offence, for reasons to be, recorded in writing, by order, direct that any
message' or class of messages to or from any person or., class of persons, or
relating to any particular subject, brought for transmission by or transmitted
or received by any telegraph, shall not be transmitted, or shall be
intercepted or detained, or shall be disclosed to the Government making the
order or an officer thereof mentioned in the order. Section 7(2)(b) of the act
permits central government to make rules regarding precautions to prevent
the improper interception or disclosure of messages. These provisions were
challenged before the supreme court of India as violation of right to privacy
under article 21 of the constitution in PUCL v. Union of India24, in which
the honble court held, telephone conversation is an important facet of mans
private life. Right to privacy would certainly include telephone-conversation
in the privacy of one's home or office. Telephone-tapping would, thus, infract
Article 21 of the Constitution of India unless it is permitted under the
procedure established by law.25 When a person is talking on phone, he is
exercising his right to freedom of speech and expression. Telephone-tapping
unless it comes within the grounds of restrictions under Article 19(2) would
infract Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution 26. India is a signatory to the
International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, 1966, which required that
a persons privacy should not be subject to arbitrary interference 27. Unless a
public emergency occurred or public safety required the government cannot
24 Supra note 10
25 Id, para 19
26 Id, para 20
Page | 22
Section 5(2) of the Act must have procedural backing so that the exercise of
power is fair and reasonable28.
28Id para 30
keep their fingers firmly upon the pulse of the accepted morality of the
day30.
Voicing concern over vexatious use of RTI Act, Prime Minister Manmohan
Singh said the citizens to know should definitely be circumscribed if it
encroaches on an individuals privacy. He said there is a fine balance
required to be maintained between right to information and the right to
privacy, which stems out of the fundamental right of life and liberty. The
citizens right to know should definitely be circumscribed if disclosure of
information encroaches upon someones personal privacy. But where to draw
a line is a complicated question.
Recently in one of the most controversial case Ratan Tata went to Supreme
Court against the publication of intercepts of his conversation with Neera
Radia who handles the corporate communication for the group. Tata holds
that as Radias phones were tapped by government agencies especially for
investigating a possible offence the recorded conversations should have
been used for that purpose alone. Ratan Tata has submitted his petition
before Supreme Court asking to protect his right to privacy. But given that
freedom of information laws have at their core the purpose of disclosure,
exemptions are strictly construed, and it has been said that the public right
to know should prevail unless disclosure would publicise intimate details of a
highly personal nature. The Radia tapes so far published public issues, but
not personal life of Tata. These conversations would be available to every
citizen under the RTI Act because the only objection that one could raise
would be on the ground of 8(j) of RTI Act which says-information which
relates to personal information, the disclosure of which has no relationship to
any public activity on interest. It also says or which would cause
unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the individual unless the public
authority is satisfied, unless the information officer is satisfied that the larger
public interest justifies the disclosure of such an information.31
In that case a preliminary question that should be asked is whether Tatas
conversations would be revealed through an RTI, or whether his
conversations would fall under the exemption of personal information found
in section 8(j). It is interesting to note the structure of this exemption. By the
use of word or the legislation suggests that unwarranted invasion of
30 http://books.google.co.in/books?id
31 http://www.thehindu.com/news/national/supreme-court-to-examine
Page | 24
individual privacy may trigger the exemption, even if the information has a
relationship to public activity or interest. But the added caveat says that the
larger public interest could justify the release of even purely private
information.
By the use of the word or the legislation suggests that unwarranted
invasion of individual privacy may trigger the exemption, even if the
information has a relationship to public activity or interest. But the added
caveat says that the larger public interest could justify the release of even
purely private information. In addition, what constitutes personal
information has not been defined in the legislation.
However, according to expert legal opinion, the Supreme Court of India is
well within its rights to allow disclosure of conversation details between
Ratan Tata and Nira Radia.
Today, each person is a press, taking in view the emergence of blog spots
and social networking sites. Many a times, the right to privacy may come in
conflict with the right to press the right to press is a right derived from Article
19 (1) (a) in particular. The right to expression of a person may come in
conflict with the right to privacy of another person. The question, where
there is a conflict, which should prevail over the other, is well explained by
bringing in the concept of public interest and public morality. The
publication of personal information of an individual without his consent or
approval is justified if such information forms part of public records including
Court records. Each case is distinct and each right is special.
Page | 25
Conclusion
So to conclude although Right to privacy is considered as an important
right in India and other countries, it is to be noted that priority is given for
other rights such as National Security and other reasons in record. Right to
Privacy of individuals including citizens is often violated on these grounds
which are unnecessary in many cases. Take the situation of India, all though
Indian Courts especially the Supreme Court has recognized the Right to
Privacy as a Fundamental Right under Article 21 of the constitution though a
number of cases, still the Right to Privacy Remains as an Uncertain right. The
Provisions of Information Technology Act and Telegraph Act and pending of
the Right to Privacy Bill 2011 in Parliament are examples to prove that when
certain other factors such as National Security, Census Population Register
etc comes in to picture Right to Privacy is given Less Importance. The
National Population Register and Unique Identification Number (AADHAR)
schemes although claims to be protecting privacy but it is not so the
documents of NPR and AADHAR proves that it is not so. Same is the case
with USA and UK. The Patriot Act of USA gives the Authorities ultimate power
to intercept ones communication or indulge in to privacy without providing
any specific reason. All though state that it is for National Security, there is a
greater chance of authorities misusing the act and its provisions.
So a question is always put up Although Right to Privacy is a universally
accepted right, is it given proper recognition as it requires to be given?
Bibliography
Books:
1 . Bakshi, P.M., The Constitution of India, 8th Edition, Universal Law
Publishing Co., Delhi, 2008.
Page | 26
2. Basu, Durga Das; Shorter Constitution of India, 14th Ed., Volume 1, Lexis
Nexis Butterworths Wadhwa, Nagpur, 2010.
3. Gauba, OP., An Introduction to Political Theory, 4th Edition, Macmillan India
Ltd., Delhi,2007.
4. Kumar, Narender, Constitutional Law of India, Allahabad Law Agency,
2008.
5. Myneni, SR., Political Science for Law Students, 2nd Ed., Allahabad Law
Agency, Allahabad, 2006.
Websites
1. http://www.nos.org/
2. http://dictionary.reference.com/
3. http://leagalserviceindia.com/
4.http://www.thehindu.com/news/national/bill-on-right-to-privacy-inmonsoon-session-moily/article2082643.ece
Page | 27