Human Rights and Right of Privacy Essay Example

one should face arbitrary or unlawful interference with their privacy, family, home, or correspondence. It also emphasized protection against attacks on honor and reputation. The European Convention of Human Rights (Article 8) further acknowledges and safeguards the right to privacy. Legal experts at the Nordic Conference have emphasized the significant role of privacy for human well-being.

The concept of privacy, as defined by The Oxford Dictionary, encompasses seclusion or solitude. It involves being private and undisturbed, as well as experiencing freedom from intrusion or public attention. In Latin, privacy is translated as 'Privatus', which signifies a withdrawal from public life. Additionally, it can include confidentiality wherein information is not revealed to others or hidden from the general public. The right to privacy grants individuals the freedom to partake in activities within their own homes without being observed by others.

The concept of privacy refers to an individual's rightful control over the personal information they choose to share, as well as their authority in determining when, where, and how they communicate. This includes the right to decide whether or not to engage in certain activities and governs the sharing of one's own information. According to Warren and Brandies, protecting individuals' person and property is a crucial aspect of both common law and societal norms. However, there has been a need to precisely define the nature and extent of this protection. Warren and Brandies anticipated that establishing privacy rights would require flexibility due to advancements in commerce and invention that may infringe upon individuals' privacy, potentially causing psychological distress.

At the end of the century, the revolution in information technology has made it even more true that individuals' private lives

are at risk of being exposed. This revolution includes satellite communication, computer internet, and cyber space.

Right to Privacy in India

The concept of privacy was well-known in ancient India. The Vedas and Dharmashastras codified and expanded the concept of privacy. Kautilya, in his Arthashastra, provided guidelines for ensuring privacy through consultation with ministers. While there are legislative provisions in India for protecting privacy interests (such as Section 509 of the Indian Penal Code, Section 18 of the Indian Easement Act, and Section 26, 164 (3), and 165 of the Criminal Procedure Code), the term "Privacy" is not defined in legislation or judicial pronouncements.

While the right to privacy is not specifically mentioned in the chapter on Fundamental Rights in the Indian Constitution, its importance has been acknowledged and highlighted by Justice Subha Rao in the case of Kharak Sigh vs. U. P. and Justice Mathew in the case of Govind vs.

M. P. Right to privacy has been referred to as a fundamental right under Article 21 of the Constitution, along with other provisions relating to Fundamental Rights and Directive Principles of State Policy. The court held this in the case of Kharak Sing vs. State of U.

Justice Mathew's landmark ruling in the Govind vs. M.P. case concluded that police surveillance of a person within their residence would infringe upon Article 21 of the Constitution, while also delving into the historical roots of the right to privacy.

In both the State of Maharashtra vs. Madhukar Narayan and the case of R. R. Gopal vs., the Supreme Court has emphasized that a woman's right to privacy should be respected, even when her reputation is at risk.

The State of Tamil

Nadu has determined that the right to privacy is an essential component of the right to life and liberty, as outlined in Article 21 of the Indian Constitution. This entitlement, often referred to as the "right to be left alone," empowers individuals to safeguard their privacy across various domains such as personal life, family, marriage, procreation, motherhood, childbearing, and education. It is crucial to bear in mind that disclosing information related to these matters necessitates obtaining consent from the concerned individual. This requirement remains unchanged regardless of whether the shared information is true or false or includes accolades or criticisms. Failure to respect this right may lead to legal repercussions and potential compensation.

2. Publications that are based on public records, such as Court records, can freely discuss the mentioned aspects. This is because once something becomes part of the public record, privacy rights no longer apply and the press and media have the right to talk about it.
3. Public officials have different rules applied to them - they do not have a right to privacy or the ability to seek compensation for their official duties. This rule remains in effect even if false information is published, unless it can be proven that the defendant acted with reckless disregard for the truth.

The defendant, who is a member of the press and media, only needs to provide reasonable verification of the facts in such situations. They are not required to prove the truthfulness of their written statements. However, if it can be proven that the publication was false and motivated by malice or personal animosity, the defendant would be held responsible for compensatory payments. It should be

noted that this rule does not apply to judiciary, parliament, legislature as they have constitutional privileges and can punish for contempt.

Government entities, local authorities, and other institutions with governmental power cannot file lawsuits seeking damages on their own behalf. Nevertheless, Rules 3 and 4 do not exempt the press or media from being bound by laws like the Official Secrets Act of 1923 or similar legal provisions.

In the case of People's Union for Civil Liberties vs. Union of India, the Supreme Court has established that there is no law permitting the State or its officials to prohibit or restrain the press/media. The court has also determined that the right to privacy, which is encompassed within the right to life and personal liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution, cannot be restricted unless there is a legally established procedure. Whether privacy rights have been violated in a particular case depends on the specific facts surrounding that case. According to the Supreme Court, privacy is defined as being free from intrusion or disturbance in one's private life or affairs.

The right to privacy regarding police methods for crime control is subject to surveillance methods employed by law enforcement agencies. To ensure effective crime control, it is necessary to eliminate provisions mentioned in Govinda's case according to the Supreme Court's ruling.

The Supreme Court, in the case of M. P. Sharma vs. Satish Chandra, expressed disapproval of granting the right to privacy the status of a fundamental right. The Court stated that since the constitution makers did not include the right to privacy as a fundamental right with constitutional limitations, they cannot justify introducing a completely different fundamental right through

strained construction.

In the case of Pooran Mal vs. Director of Inspection, the Supreme Court expressed disapproval of the interpretation that excludes evidence obtained through an illegal search by invoking the spirit of the constitution or a strained construction of fundamental rights. This case also limited the right to privacy in relation to search and seizure. Similarly, in the case of Deena vs. Union of India, the Supreme Court emphasized that judges should not assume they have divine insight into society's needs. Instead, they should be cautious about misconceiving the public good by confusing personal beliefs with constitutional requirements.

The Right of Privacy in the Constitution: Not Inherently Linked to a Specific Fundamental Right

In India, the right to privacy is not explicitly identified as a fundamental right in Article 19 (2), which imposes restrictions on freedom of speech and expression. Nevertheless, it has been interpreted by the Courts through reference to Article 21's protection of the right to life and Article 19 (1) (d)'s guarantee of freedom of movement. As a result, India recognizes a constitutional right to privacy that derives from both common law for tort and constitutional law.

Under common law, individuals have the right to seek compensation if their privacy is unlawfully violated. This includes situations where personal information, such as details about family, marriage, procreation, parenthood, child-bearing, or education, is disclosed without consent by a Journal, Magazine, or book publisher. The publisher can be held accountable for any resulting harm. However, there are two exceptions to this rule: firstly, if the publication becomes part of public records; in this case, the right to privacy no longer applies. Secondly, legal action cannot be taken

against a publication involving a public servant's official duties unless it can be proven that the published information was false or malicious.

The right to privacy is protected as a fundamental right under constitutional law. Article 21 explicitly guarantees this safeguard, which encompasses the right to life and liberty. This includes individuals being allowed to be left alone. However, it is important to find a balance between this constitutional right and the media's fundamental right to freely publish matters that are of public interest. In the case of Maneka Gandhi vs. Union of India, the Supreme Court acknowledged a minority opinion from Khara Singh's case, confirming that the right to privacy is indeed a fundamental right. Nonetheless, it emphasized that any law restricting this basic entitlement must meet specific requirements outlined in Article 21, particularly with regard to personal liberty as defined in Article 19 (1).

The Supreme Court, ruling on the Menaka Gandhi cases, established that a fundamental right must be an essential component of a specific fundamental right. Hence, not all overseas travel can be deemed an integral aspect of the right to speech and expression. Not every activity required for the exercise of a fundamental right can be elevated to the status of a fundamental right itself; doing so would lead to "every activity becoming a part of some fundamental right" and undermine the purpose behind designating certain rights as fundamental. This principle was also upheld in A.I.B.E.A., where it was concluded that other associated and peripheral rights that enable or give substance to a named fundamental right cannot be considered guaranteed rights within said named fundamental right.

According to Menaka Gandhi, asserting rights could

lead to absurd outcomes through a series of expanding consenting circles. The question arises whether forcible sexual cohabitation violates an individual's right to privacy, as considered by the Andhra Pradesh High Court.

The Court in the case of Sereetha vs. T. Venkata Subhaih affirmed that the right to privacy is an essential right.

Justice Choudhury extended the protection of privacy to cover situations involving forced sexual cohabitation, which could be considered inhuman and degrading treatment. The Court based its decision on the views of western sexologists and ruled against Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act. This section permitted the restoration of conjugal rights, but the Court argued that enforcing it could result in a person's entire way of life being changed or destroyed without their consent, thus violating their dignity and right to privacy. Once again, this right to privacy was deemed a part of Article 21. However, this ruling was later overturned in the case Saroj Rani vs.

The Court ruled against the claim for the right to privacy in family law, stating that Indian courts, like American ones, cannot impose restrictions on fundamental rights due to explicit limitations specified in our constitution. The cases of Kharak Singh and Govind established privacy as a constitutional liberty right. However, aside from those cases, there are no reported instances of privacy being acknowledged as part of tort law. Although English common law is considered the governing tort law in India, notable alterations have been made such as the Supreme Court's ruling in M.

C. Meheta vs. Union of India discussed the application of the famous English decision in Rylands vs. Fletcher to Indian conditions in order to develop the

law of strict liability. The court stated that the rule of strict liability, as established in the 19th Century when there were no scientific and technological advancements, cannot be considered a reliable guide for determining liability standards that align with current economic and social norms.

According to the court, the law must evolve and adapt to new situations. It cannot remain static, and the judicial thinking should not be limited by foreign laws. As a result, the court applied the principles of strict liability from Rylands vs. Fletcher without any exceptions. This case illustrates the Indian approach to the Law of Torts.

The Indian Law of Torts is essentially the same as the law in England, with some modifications or adjustments to accommodate Indian conditions and ensure fairness between parties. In the case of Melvin vs. Reid, a movie producer depicted the events from the earlier life of a reformed prostitute. The prostitute claimed that her privacy rights were violated and sued the producer for damages, which were awarded to her. The court emphasized that the fundamental law of our State guarantees the right to pursue and achieve happiness for everyone. This right inherently encompasses freedom from unjustified assaults on one's liberty, property, and reputation.

Any individual who lives a moral life has the entitlement to happiness, which encompasses being free from unwarranted assaults on their character, social status, or reputation. In the case of Foster Milbarn Co vs. Chinn, a manufacturer of Kidney pills published a booklet advertising their products, which included a photograph of a well-known citizen, along with a biography and a fabricated letter falsely claiming that the person endorsed and used the pills. The

manufacturer was found responsible for compensating the victim for the harm caused.

The court concluded that individuals have the right to privacy regarding their image and publishing a person's picture without their consent as part of an advertisement to exploit the publisher's business is a violation of privacy rights. The plaintiff is entitled to compensation without needing to prove specific damages. Another aspect related to an individual's right to privacy is telephone tapping, which was discussed in the case of R.M. Malkani vs.

In the State of Maharashtra, the Supreme Court has outlined that telephone conversations are safeguarded by the Courts, preventing any unauthorized or forceful interference through wiretapping by the police. However, this protection does not apply to individuals who are guilty and are being pursued by the police to uphold the law. In a recent case of Dr. Harsh Pathak vs. Union of India, multiple mobile operators and banks were brought into the legal proceedings.

The telepluse companies and other banking institutions were making unsolicited calls for commercial purposes, which was reported by the petitioner. It was mentioned that the number of mobile phone users had surpassed fixed line customers for the first time. The reliance was placed on the 1997 P.U.C.L. case. In conclusion, although the Apex Court has protected the right to privacy under Article 21 of the Indian Constitution, it is not an absolute right and can be lawfully limited for the prevention of crime, disorder, protection of health or morals, and protection of rights and freedom of others. Therefore, if a patient is found to be HIV positive, it is not a violation of their right to privacy for the doctor to

disclose it.

India enacted the Protection of Human Rights Act in 1993, which established the National Human Rights Commission and mandated the establishment of Human Rights Courts. It is expected that the Indian Courts will uphold the protection of human rights and privacy, with certain limitations as previously discussed. The right to privacy is essential for preserving one's individuality, encompassing their feelings and emotions. Violating this right can deeply harm a person's inner self and undermine their confidence.

The celebration of the right to life and personal liberty, elevated to the level of a constitutional right, is now being granted independent status. Although recent laws provide some limited safeguards for individual privacy, these measures are insufficient. For example, the Information Technology Act of 2000 makes it a punishable offense to disclose information from an electronic record, book, or registrar without the consent of the person involved. However, oddly enough, there is no protection against illegally and unauthorized accessing such information. Additionally, the recent Right to Information Act of 2005 exempts the disclosure of personal information unrelated to any public activity or interest that would unreasonably invade an individual's privacy.