Cyber Surveillance And Privacy Violations
1. Introduction: Cyber Surveillance and Privacy Violations
Cyber surveillance refers to monitoring, intercepting, or collecting data from individuals or groups over digital platforms, including emails, internet activity, phone calls, social media, and other digital communications.
With increasing use of technology and internet, governments and private entities engage in surveillance for purposes such as:
National security.
Crime investigation.
Preventing cybercrime and terrorism.
Commercial interests.
However, such surveillance often raises serious privacy concerns and potential violations of fundamental rights.
2. Legal Framework in India
Article 21 of the Indian Constitution: Protects the right to life and personal liberty, which includes the right to privacy.
Information Technology Act, 2000 (IT Act): Contains provisions related to unauthorized access, interception, and privacy.
Indian Telegraph Act, 1885 & Telegraph Rules: Authorizes lawful interception under specific conditions.
Section 69 of IT Act: Empowers government to intercept, monitor, or decrypt information for sovereignty, integrity, or public order.
Personal Data Protection Bill (pending): Aims to regulate data privacy and protection.
3. Key Issues in Cyber Surveillance
Legality and procedural safeguards.
Scope and limits of state surveillance.
Consent and awareness of the surveilled.
Protection against unauthorized or mass surveillance.
Balancing national security and individual privacy.
Use of surveillance evidence in courts.
4. Important Case Laws on Cyber Surveillance and Privacy Violations
Case 1: Justice K.S. Puttaswamy (Retd.) vs. Union of India, (2017) 10 SCC 1
Facts: The Supreme Court considered the fundamental right to privacy in the context of Aadhaar (biometric ID) and surveillance concerns.
Issue: Is privacy a fundamental right under the Constitution?
Judgment: The Court unanimously held that the right to privacy is a fundamental right under Article 21.
Significance: Landmark ruling that forms the basis for privacy rights against surveillance; any state surveillance must meet strict legal and constitutional standards.
Case 2: Shreya Singhal v. Union of India, (2015) 5 SCC 1
Facts: Challenge to Section 66A of IT Act for arbitrary internet censorship.
Issue: Whether vague provisions allow excessive surveillance or censorship violating free speech and privacy.
Judgment: Supreme Court struck down Section 66A for being vague and unconstitutional.
Significance: Reinforced protection against arbitrary digital surveillance and censorship.
Case 3: Anvar P.V. v. P.K. Basheer & Others, (2014) 10 SCC 473
Facts: Regarding admissibility of electronic evidence.
Issue: Reliability of digital evidence gathered through surveillance or cyber investigations.
Judgment: The Supreme Court held strict compliance with Section 65B of the Evidence Act is mandatory for electronic evidence.
Significance: Set legal standards for digital surveillance evidence admissibility, protecting against unlawful surveillance.
Case 4: K.S. Puttaswamy (Retd.) v. Union of India (Aadhaar Case II), (2018) 1 SCC 645
Facts: Challenge to government’s use of Aadhaar data for surveillance.
Issue: Legality of data collection and possible misuse.
Judgment: The Court upheld the Aadhaar scheme but struck down certain provisions that allowed unauthorized surveillance.
Significance: Emphasized data protection and limits on surveillance, affirming that privacy includes control over personal data.
Case 5: People’s Union for Civil Liberties (PUCL) v. Union of India, AIR 1997 SC 568
Facts: Concern over unlawful telephone tapping.
Issue: Scope and legality of government interception.
Judgment: The Court laid down safeguards for telephone tapping, emphasizing the need for authorization by competent authority.
Significance: Early and important ruling ensuring lawful surveillance and protecting privacy.
Case 6: Kharak Singh v. State of UP, AIR 1963 SC 1295
Facts: Case concerning police surveillance of a citizen’s residence.
Issue: Does state surveillance violate personal privacy and liberty?
Judgment: The Court held that certain forms of surveillance violated Article 21.
Significance: Foundational case on privacy and state intrusion before the explicit right to privacy was recognized.
Case 7: T.S. Rangarajan v. Union of India, AIR 1989 SC 1288
Facts: Censorship and surveillance related to free speech.
Issue: Balancing state surveillance and constitutional freedoms.
Judgment: Surveillance or censorship must be reasonable, necessary, and proportionate.
Significance: Affirmed constitutional limits on state surveillance.
5. Emerging Issues and Challenges
Mass surveillance programs without transparency.
Use of spyware (e.g., Pegasus scandal).
Inadequate legal safeguards for personal data.
Jurisdictional issues in cyber surveillance.
Role of private entities and intermediaries.
6. Conclusion
Indian courts have progressively recognized the right to privacy as fundamental and have emphasized that any cyber surveillance must adhere to the principles of legality, necessity, and proportionality. Judicial scrutiny ensures that state power is not abused and that surveillance is conducted within a framework protecting individual privacy rights.
RELATED Blog
0 comments