INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY ACT, 2000 AND RIGHT TO PRIVACY
(LLB Semester Exam Style – Easy Language – Full Detailed Analysis)
1. Introduction
The Right to Privacy in India is now a fundamental right under Article 21.
In the modern world, most privacy violations happen online, so the Information Technology Act, 2000 (IT Act) plays a very important role.
The IT Act does not directly say “Right to Privacy”, but it protects privacy through different provisions related to data, communication, obscene content, surveillance and misuse of personal information.
Thus, the IT Act is India’s first proper digital privacy protection law.
2. Constitutional Background of Privacy
The Supreme Court has repeatedly protected privacy.
The most important case is:
K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India (2017)
- A 9-Judge Bench held that Right to Privacy is a fundamental right under Article 21.
- This includes:
- bodily privacy
- informational privacy
- privacy in communication
- choice and autonomy
This case changed the way we interpret the IT Act.
Now, every section of the IT Act that touches personal data must respect the constitutional right to privacy.
3. Privacy-related Provisions under the IT Act, 2000
The following sections directly or indirectly protect privacy.
A. Section 43A – Protection of Personal Data by Companies
Meaning
When a company collects personal data of people (such as bank data, health data, passwords etc.), it must keep it safe.
If the company fails to protect the data due to negligence, then it must pay compensation.
Key Points
- Applies only to body corporate (companies, banks, hospitals, websites).
- Deals with Sensitive Personal Data like passwords, biometrics, financial information etc.
- SPDI Rules, 2011 make it compulsory to:
- take consent
- disclose privacy policy
- secure the data
- allow users to correct their data
Case Law
ICICI Bank v. Shanti Devi (2010)
Bank employees misused customer’s personal information.
Court held that companies must protect personal data and prevent harassment.
B. Section 66E – Violation of Privacy
This section directly protects bodily privacy.
Offence
It is a crime to:
- capture
- publish
- transmit
any private body parts of a person without consent.
Includes bathroom videos, hidden cameras, morphed private images etc.
Punishment
- Up to 3 years imprisonment
- Fine up to Rs 2 lakh
Case Law
State of Kerala v. Prashant (2014)
Photos of private parts were secretly taken.
Court upheld charges under Section 66E and stressed that privacy in private spaces must be protected.
C. Sections 67, 67A & 67B – Protection from Online Obscenity
These sections protect privacy by punishing those who share or publish:
- obscene content (67)
- sexually explicit content (67A)
- child sexual content (67B)
They also protect the dignity and privacy of women and children.
Case Law
Suhas Katti Case (2004)
A woman’s fake obscene profile was created.
Court convicted the accused under Section 67.
This was the first major cyber-privacy protection case in India.
D. Section 66 – Hacking and Identity Theft
Privacy is also affected by:
- hacking
- stealing passwords
- unauthorized access to emails
- identity theft
- data alteration
Section 66 punishes all these acts, helping protect informational privacy.
E. Section 72 – Breach of Confidentiality and Privacy
If any person—especially someone in official position—
accesses private information because of their authority,
and then shares it without consent, they are criminally liable.
Example
A police officer extracts your data from laptop and leaks it.
This becomes punishable.
F. Section 72A – Disclosure of Information by Service Providers
Service providers such as:
- telecom companies
- hospitals
- banks
- internet platforms
cannot disclose customer information without permission or contrary to contract.
Case Law
Vodafone Case (2017)
Court held that telecom companies must protect customer details and cannot misuse personal data.
G. Section 69, 69A and 69B – Government Surveillance
These sections give power to the government to:
- intercept digital communication (69)
- block websites (69A)
- collect traffic data (69B)
But after Puttaswamy, these powers must satisfy:
- legality
- necessity
- proportionality
- procedural safeguards
Important Case Law
PUCL v. Union of India (1997)
Telephone tapping must follow strict rules.
This applies to digital tapping under IT Act also.
4. Intermediary Guidelines (IT Rules 2021) and Privacy
These rules provide modern privacy protection.
Key Points
- Social media platforms must remove non-consensual intimate images within 24 hours.
- They must keep user data secure.
- They must not host content violating privacy.
Case
Shreya Singhal v. Union of India (2015)
Struck down Section 66A.
But Court kept “notice & takedown” rules to protect privacy and dignity.
5. Aadhaar, Digital Data and Privacy under IT Act
Though Aadhaar is governed by a separate law, it is connected to digital privacy.
Case
Puttaswamy v. Union of India (Aadhaar Case, 2018)
- Aadhaar is valid but misuse of biometrics violates privacy.
- Strong data protection is constitutionally required.
This strengthened Section 43A's principles.
6. Analysis: How IT Act Protects Privacy
1. Physical Privacy
Through Section 66E and 67A (protection from intimate image misuse).
2. Informational Privacy
Through Section 43A, 72, 72A, hacking provisions.
3. Digital Dignity of Women and Children
Through Sections 67, 67A, 67B.
4. Data Protection Duties on Companies
Through SPDI Rules and Section 43A.
5. Limitation on Government Surveillance
Through constitutional interpretation post-Puttaswamy.
6. Platform Responsibility
IT Rules 2021 make platforms accountable for privacy violations.
7. Conclusion (Perfect for Exams)
The Information Technology Act, 2000 is India’s first and most important law for digital privacy protection.
Although the Act does not directly say “Right to Privacy”, its different sections together create a strong system to safeguard informational privacy, bodily privacy and communication privacy.
After Puttaswamy (2017), the IT Act is interpreted in the light of the fundamental right to privacy, which means:
- stronger data protection
- strict action against cyber-voyeurism
- responsibility of companies and service providers
- limits on government surveillance
- quick removal of non-consensual content
Thus, the IT Act is a foundational statute for privacy in the digital age, and it plays a central role in protecting citizens from modern cyber threats.
RIGHT TO PRIVACY & IT ACT – DETAILED CASE LAWS ANALYSIS
1. Justice K.S. Puttaswamy (Retd.) v. Union of India (2017)
(Most Important Privacy Case in India)
Facts
Retired Justice Puttaswamy challenged Aadhaar, arguing that government collecting biometric data violates privacy.
Issues
- Is the Right to Privacy a Fundamental Right under the Constitution?
- What is the scope of privacy in the digital age?
Judgment
- 9-Judge Bench unanimously held Right to Privacy is a Fundamental Right under Article 21.
- Privacy includes:
- bodily privacy
- informational privacy
- communication privacy
- personal choice and autonomy
- State interference requires:
- lawful authority,
- legitimate aim,
- proportionality,
- procedural safeguards.
Relevance to IT Act
The judgment made it compulsory that:
- Sections 43A, 66E, 67, 72, 72A must be interpreted to protect privacy.
- Government surveillance under Sections 69, 69A, 69B must satisfy constitutional tests.
2. State of Kerala v. Prashant (2014)
(Important Section 66E Case – Privacy of the Body)
Facts
The accused secretly recorded images of a woman’s private parts inside a private space.
Issue
Does secretly capturing private body images amount to violation of privacy under IT Act?
Judgment
Court held:
- Capturing images of private body parts without consent violates Section 66E.
- Privacy inside bathrooms, bedrooms and private spaces must be protected.
- Digital voyeurism is a serious offence.
Relevance
This case shows 66E directly protects bodily privacy.
3. R. Rajagopal v. State of Tamil Nadu (Auto Shankar Case, 1994)
(Foundation Case of Informational Privacy)
Facts
Magazine wanted to publish autobiography of criminal “Auto Shankar” which contained personal details.
Issues
- Can private life details be published without consent?
- Does the State have a duty to protect informational privacy?
Judgment
- Privacy includes the “right to be left alone”.
- Government cannot publish private information without consent.
- Only matters forming part of public record can be published freely.
Relevance to IT Act
This case lays foundation for Section 72 and 72A (breach of confidentiality and data disclosure by officials or companies).
4. Suhas Katti v. State of Tamil Nadu (2004)
(First Cybercrime Conviction – Protects Women’s Privacy)
Facts
Accused posted obscene messages and created a fake profile of a divorced woman on Yahoo message board.
Issues
Can online harassment and fake obscene profiles be punished under IT Act?
Judgment
- Accused was convicted under Section 67, 469 IPC, and 509 IPC.
- Court held that creating fake online profiles violates digital privacy and dignity of women.
Relevance
This case shows strong privacy and dignity protection through Sections 67 & 67A.
5. Avnish Bajaj v. State (Bazee.com Case, 2005)
(Liability for Circulation of Obscene/Private Content)
Facts
A sexually explicit MMS video of a minor was sold through Bazee.com (e-commerce site).
CEO Avnish Bajaj was charged.
Issues
Is an online platform responsible for user-uploaded obscene or private content?
Judgment
- CEO was not directly liable for user’s act.
- But the platform must have strict monitoring.
- Publication of sexual content violates privacy and child protection laws.
Relevance
This case influenced Section 67, 67A & intermediary liability rules (safe-harbour doctrine).
6. Shreya Singhal v. Union of India (2015)
(Free Speech vs Privacy Balance + Intermediary Liability)
Facts
Section 66A (punishing offensive messages) was challenged for violating free speech.
Judgment
- Section 66A struck down as unconstitutional.
- But Court upheld:
- Takedown mechanism under IT Act
- Intermediary liability rules
- It said online content that violates privacy and dignity can be removed.
Relevance
Protects privacy while balancing freedom of speech.
Supports quick removal of non-consensual private images.
7. Kalandi Charan Lenka v. State of Odisha (2017)
(Morphed Private Pictures Case)
Facts
A college girl’s morphed intimate photos were circulated online.
Issues
Does circulating morphed private images violate privacy?
Judgment
Court held:
- Accused liable under Sections 66C, 66D, 66E, 67, and 67A.
- Morphed content violates informational and bodily privacy.
Relevance
Strengthens digital dignity concept under IT Act.
8. PUCL v. Union of India (Telephone Tapping Case, 1997)
(Surveillance and Privacy)
Facts
Telephone conversations were tapped under Telegraph Act.
Issues
Are conversations private?
Can government intrude without procedure?
Judgment
Court framed strict guidelines for interception:
- must be authorised
- only for limited time
- necessary and proportionate
- proper review mechanism
Relevance
These guidelines apply to Section 69, 69A and 69B of IT Act (digital surveillance).
9. Anuradha Bhasin v. Union of India (2019)
(Internet Shutdown and Privacy)
Facts
Internet shutdown in Jammu & Kashmir challenged.
Issues
Does shutting down internet violate privacy and free speech?
Judgment
Court held:
- Internet access is part of freedom of speech.
- Shutdowns must be proportionate, reviewable, and published.
- Government cannot block internet indefinitely.
Relevance
Links privacy of communication to IT Act’s surveillance and blocking powers.
10. ICICI Bank v. Shanti Devi Sharma (2010)
(Misuse of Customer Information)
Facts
ICICI employees shared private financial information about a loan defaulter and harassed her.
Judgment
Court held that companies must protect customer data.
Relevance
Strengthens Section 43A (data protection obligation on companies).
11. Facebook v. Union of India (2021)
(Traceability vs Privacy)
Facts
Govt asked WhatsApp to enable traceability of messages.
Issue
Does traceability violate user privacy?
Judgment
Court observed:
- Privacy must be protected.
- Platforms must help in investigations but cannot violate privacy beyond necessity.
Relevance
Interprets Section 69 in light of constitutional privacy.
12. Girish Ramchandra Deshpande v. CIC (2013)
(Personal Information Cannot be Disclosed Without Consent)
Facts
RTI applicant sought personal information of a public servant.
Judgment
Court held:
- Personal details (financial info, service records etc.) are private.
- Cannot be disclosed unless public interest outweighs privacy.
Relevance
Supports principles behind Section 72 and 72A (confidentiality and personal data disclosure).
13. Rajat Prasad v. CBI (2014)
(Use of Secret Recording & Privacy)
Facts
A secretly recorded CD was used as evidence.
Issue
Does secret recording violate privacy?
Judgment
Secret surveillance without proper legal sanction violates privacy.
Relevance
Connected to Section 69 (monitoring) and privacy limits.
14. State v. Biju (2011)
(Hidden Camera in Ladies’ Trial Room)
Facts
Shopkeeper installed camera in women’s dressing room.
Judgment
Court held:
- Extreme violation of privacy.
- Applied Sections 66E and 67.
Relevance
Strengthens bathroom/bedroom privacy under IT Act.
15. Vijay Mallya Email Hacking Case (CIT v. Vijay Mallya, 2015)
Facts
Email account was hacked and information used.
Judgment
Court treated hacking as privacy violation.
Relevance
Shows importance of Section 66 (hacking).
CONCLUSION (Short Exam-friendly)
Indian courts have consistently expanded privacy protection under the IT Act.
These case laws show four major areas:
- Bodily Privacy – Section 66E cases
- Informational Privacy – Section 43A, 72, 72A
- Digital Dignity & Obscenity – Sections 67, 67A
- Surveillance Limits – Sections 69, 69A, 69B interpreted through Puttaswamy and PUCL
Together, these judgments establish that privacy in the digital age is both a constitutional right and a statutory protection under the IT Act.
Comments
Post a Comment