TECHNOLOGY VS. PRIVACY: BALANCING INNOVATION AND INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS

AUTHOR: JISS ANTHONY, JSS LAW COLLEGE.

This paper explores the evolving relationship between technology and the right to sequestration in India. While technology offers multitudinous benefits, it also poses significant falls to individual sequestration. The Indian Constitution, while not explicitly mentioning sequestration, recognises it as an integral part of the right to life and liberty under Composition Article 21. Landmark judgments like Justice K.S. Puttaswamy( Retd.) v. Union of India have affirmed the right to sequestration as an abecedarian right. Still, the rapid-fire advancement of technology, including social media, artificial intelligence, and data collection, presents new challenges to sequestration.  The paper examines the legal frame, including the Information Technology Act, of 2000, and the recently legislated Digital Personal Data Protection Act, of 2023, designed to guard against individual sequestration. It analyses the part of the bar in balancing the need for technological advancement with the protection of individual rights. The paper concludes by emphasizing the need for ongoing dialogue and a robust legal frame to ensure that technological invention doesn't come at the cost of individual sequestration and that the right to sequestration remains the foundation of a just and indifferent society.

Right to Privacy, Article 21, Privacy, Data Privacy, Digital Privacy, Artificial Intelligence (AI), Cybersecurity.

The study employs a doctrinal approach and uses both primary and secondary data sources. The information used in this study was gathered from a range of publications, including books, journals, research papers, and websites. Secondary data was used to build the ideas and substance of this work. The information gathered led to my report and ideas for this issue.

Article 21, which protects the right to life and personal liberty, interprets the right to privacy in India as a basic right even if it is not specifically stated in the Constitution. In the seminal decision of Justice Puttaswamy v. Union of India, the Supreme Court construed the right to privacy, acknowledging that privacy is a fundamental aspect of existence and necessary for leading a respectable life in society. Technology has an impact on many facets of human existence in this day and age, and its influence on privacy has grown significantly. Even though it is a fundamental right, constraints are nevertheless in place to protect national order and public safety. The state must fill in these gaps through legislation since people's privacy may be threatened by developing technologies. Analyzing and implementing these laws for the public while striking a balance between people's privacy and emerging technologies is another crucial function of the court. This essay seeks to comprehend the role that technology plays, the right to privacy, and the need to strike a balance between the two. 

Privacy was defined by the Supreme Court of India in the Sharda v. Dharmpal case as "The state of being free from intrusion or disturbance in one's private life or affair." One English maxim under English common law that supports the right to privacy is "Every man's house is his castle." The idea that a trend house is a protected private company was established by the court in the Semayne case, which is where this maxim first appeared. Every human being needs privacy in order to live a respected and comfortable existence. Privacy is linked to personal choice, dignity, and reputation of domain. "No one shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty except in accordance with the procedure established by law," reads Article 21 of the Indian Constitution.

In this context, "life" refers to both the fundamental human need and all the components that give a person's existence purpose and value. Although the Indian Constitution does not specifically define or reference the right to privacy, the Supreme Court has interpreted Article 21 more broadly to encompass the right to privacy as an essential component of the right to life and liberty. According to Article 21 of the Indian Constitution, the Supreme Court recognized the right to privacy as a fundamental human right in the case of Govind v. State of Madhya Pradesh. In addition to becoming a hot topic in the nation, the right to privacy is increasingly seen as an essential part of individual liberty. Concerns have been expressed about the government's collection of residents' personal information. Justice Puttaswamy questioned the legitimacy of the Aadhar plan, which required people to supply biometric data to access different government and private services in India, in a case similar to this one, Justice Puttaswamy v. Union of India. The right to privacy is subject to reasonable limitations; it is not an unqualified right. 

Despite being a fundamental right, the right to privacy is not unqualified. The Supreme Court held in the Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India case that the legislation must be "just, fair, and reasonable." The government may violate people's privacy by (1) legislative provisions, (2) administrative or executive bodies, or (3) judicial orders. As mandated by the Constitution, the legislature must consider whether any interference with an individual's privacy is acceptable. The court can assess whether the degree of interference is suitable and balanced for the goals it seeks to accomplish to determine its reasonableness. (2) The executive and administrative actions must be reasonable and appropriate given the case's circumstances, and 3) the court orders must have enough justification to acknowledge that the search or seizure is required to protect the public interest. Additionally, only individuals acting in good faith and to preserve the evidence may conduct warrant less searches. According to Article 21 of the Constitution, everyone has the implicit fundamental right to privacy. This is known as the "right to be let alone." The right to protect one's family, procreation, motherhood, education, and other rights is a fundamental human right. Nobody has the right to post anything about another person anyplace since doing so would be against that person's fundamental rights. 

An important factor in raising India's global efficiency is the information technology sector. This industry has affected numerous other areas in addition to the nation's economy. This sector has improved the effectiveness of government in addition to fostering economic growth. During the economic reforms, such as the LPG in 1991–1992, the use of technology in economic development increased significantly. Social media platforms have grown over the last 20 years to become effective instruments for communication, entertainment, information, research, business, and other purposes; millions of people now utilize these platforms to make a living. 

People have been using social media sites like Facebook, Instagram, YouTube, Tinder, LinkedIn, and others in extraordinary ways in their daily lives. Nevertheless, this exceptional use of social media has provided exceptional access to other users' information. Social networking sites typically gather sensitive information on their users to understand their traits, political beliefs, interests, and purchasing patterns. Although it frequently has distorted effects, this is done to get the algorithm to interact with the users. Social networking sites' databases of personal information are susceptible to hackers and data breaches. These types of privacy violations happen when user private information is not adequately secured. Location, sexual orientation, political and religious beliefs, private chats, personal images, and other information could be among the data dangers.

One of the most important components of privacy is digital privacy. Privacy has two components. Both positive and negative implications might be used to characterize it. The negative element safeguards a person's inherent identity, including their gender, sexual orientation, political or religious beliefs, etc. Positive privacy, on the other hand, compels the government to enact legislation that safeguards citizens' private information and eliminates any obstacles that can jeopardize it. The state must enact legislation to preserve citizens' privacy because it is well recognized that as the nation's technological capabilities advance, privacy protection will likewise be hindered. More biometric data is being collected and stored as a result of new government programs like e-governance. Data leaking from these databases is a constant concern. If these databases' security is inadequate, these data breaches could occur.

The process of developing computer systems that are capable of doing tasks that call for human intelligence known as artificial intelligence, or A.I. AI is becoming more powerful in the modern era. Voice phishing and numerous additional threats to users' sensitive information may result from this. In this emerging era, artificial intelligence (AI) threatens people's personal information. With increasing sophistication, A.I can make decisions based on user data patterns that compromise privacy. Lastly, Al presents still another serious problem by producing phone audio and video content that can access people's private information and disseminate false information. 

There isn't any explicit law protecting people's privacy at the moment. The Indian Constitution's Article 21 makes reference to it. The several other Jaws relating to the IT Act of 2000, the DPDP Act of 2023, etc., can be used to protect data and privacy. 

INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY ACT, 2000 (I.T. ACT):

The purpose of this act is to protect individuals against specific data breaches. The right to privacy has recently made government programs that demand public information a hot topic. Unless it is relevant to public security or national interest, no one, not even the government, has the right to access an individual's private information. The I.T. Act's Section 69 is an exemption to the right to privacy. In specific situations, such as when it is required for the state's interest or when there is a possible threat to national security, it grants the government the power to provide specific information. Organizations that handle people's sensitive data are required by Section 43 A to uphold reasonable security standards and procedures. They shall be responsible for compensating the impacted party if these security procedures are not followed. The Supreme Court emphasized the value of electronic evidence in the Anvar P. V. v. P. K. Basheer case. It also brought attention to privacy concerns. Regarding privacy issues under the Information Technology Act of 2000, this ruling is pertinent.

DIGITAL PERSONAL DATA PROTECTION ACT,2023 (DPDP):

India now has over 760 million active internet users, making it the world's second-largest internet market. The Digital Privacy Data Protection Act, a data privacy law, was passed by the Indian Parliament in 2023. It seeks to strike a balance between people's right to privacy and the government's need to process such data for legitimate purposes. There are certain parts that give people the right to privacy. The right to request a summary of personal data, including how it is handled and investigated, is granted by Section 11 of the DPDP Act. The DPDP Act's Section 12 (1) grants individuals the right to have their personal information deleted. 

The DPDP Act gives the government the power to access citizens' private information for purposes including public order, national security, and sovereignty. The act does not specify what constitutes "sensitive data," and the discretion granted to the government could result in abuse of authority. The public order becomes inconsistent as a result. Although the DPDP Act has created regulations for privacy and data protection, there are still gaps in it, particularly in this day and age when technology is developing quickly. Biometric data like facial and fingerprint recognition are not protected under this act, leaving room for data breaches. Last but not least, Indian legislation does not adequately secure data transported to other nations, which is dangerous in the current technological climate.

Numerous significant rulings regarding the right to privacy have been rendered by the Indian judiciary. In the momentous ruling in Justice Puttaswamy v. UOI, the court upheld the legitimacy of the Aadhar scheme while imposing reasonable constraints on it. According to the court's ruling, Aadhar can only be used for government perks and subsidies. Recognizing a possible threat to people's privacy under Article 21 of the Indian Constitution, it prohibited private firms from requiring the use of Aadhar. Similar to the Aadhar case, where the court upheld the necessity of Aadhar in certain government subsidies but also imposed strict limitations on Aadhar to safeguard the people's privacy rights as interpreted under Article 21 of the Indian Constitution, the judiciary has attempted to strike a balance between public security and privacy rights in cases involving national security in the People’s Union for Civil Liberties v.UOI. According to the government's unapproved phone tapping, privacy is an essential aspect of a person's life, but the state may still get involved for a legitimate reason.

1. Give "sensitive personal data" a better meaning. Clearly define how much access governments have to our personal information, and make strong protections against misuse. Clarify the notion of "legitimate interest" in data processing. Strengthen an independent body for data protection with comprehensive powers to enforce it. Hike the punishment under the DPDP Act. Designate a procedure to make complaining and redressing simpler for the citizens. Include provisions dealing with privacy aspects of cutting-edge technology such as blockchain, AI, and the Internet of Things. Consider banning or restricting the use of biometric surveillance technologies, such as facial recognition software.

2. Start public awareness efforts to teach people of their rights regarding data privacy, the dangers of disclosing personal information online, and the best ways to be safe when using the internet. Include instruction on data privacy in school curricula to give the next generation the know-how to use the internet properly.

3. To create and implement effective data protection policies, encourage constant communication and collaboration between the public sector, private sector, academic institutions, and civil society. Encourage innovation while reducing privacy concerns by supporting the research and development of privacy-enhancing technologies, such as federated learning and differential privacy.

4. Collaborate with other countries to address cross-border data flows and develop common data protection standards. Study and adapt successful data protection models from other jurisdictions, including the European Union's General Data Protection Regulation.

5. Promote transparency in the collection and use of government data: Ensure that government agencies comply with data privacy requirements and be transparent about how they collect data. Increase accountability regarding data breaches: Make companies liable in case of a data breach. Implement strict punishments for violating regulations related to the protection of information.

6. The judiciary system must be checked and changed occasionally to keep in pace with technological advancement, which is happening in a very speedy manner. Scrutinize how well the mechanism of data protection is working constantly and change things accordingly.

One must acknowledge that in the current era, privacy rights and technological advancement must be balanced. This balance is reflected in the DPDP Act's provisions, which acknowledge privacy as a fundamental component of a just society. To enable users to make knowledgeable decisions about their private data, data fiduciaries must make information easily comprehensible. An individual's right to privacy is guaranteed under the Indian constitution, albeit there are limitations. These limitations have to be appropriate and reasonable. 

In conclusion, even if it isn't stated in the Constitution specifically, Article 21 links the right to privacy. In the historic ruling in Puttaswamy v. UOI, the Supreme Court ruled that privacy is essential to leading a respectable life. This freedom is not unqualified, though; appropriate limitations are in place to protect national security. The efficiency of digital information and connectivity has been substantially increased by technological advancements, but there are also several risks to people's privacy. Existing legislation, such as the Information Technology Act of 2000 and the Digital Personal Data Protection Act of 2023, offers a foundation for protecting people's right to privacy.

These laws do still have certain gaps, though. The state must make sure that rules are in place to strike a balance between people's privacy and technological growth. To maintain public order, judicial interpretation is also necessary to appropriately interpret the laws about people's right to privacy. Lastly, the goal of using the technology needs to be balanced. It must not be used for illegal purposes, and the government must guarantee that everyone lives a respectable life and that no one's right to privacy is violated.

1. Anna Jonsson Cornell, 2015. Right to Privacy. Max Planck Encyclopedia of Comparative Constitutional Law.

2. Anvar P.V. v. P.K. Basheer. (2014) 10 SCC 473. 

3. Constitution of India. (1950). Article 21.

4. D. Elliott & E. Soifer, 2022. AI Technologies, Privacy, and Security. Frontiers in Artificial Intelligence,  

5. Digital Personal Data Protection Act, 2023, No. 22 of 2023 (India).

6. Digital Personal Data Protection Act, 2023,§12(1), No. 22 of 2023 (India).

7. Digital Personal Data Protection Act, No. 22 of 2023, India Code (2023).  

8. Dr. Anant D. Chinchure , 2022. Information Technology Vis-À-Vis Right to Privacy: Legal And Judicial View. International Journal of Research Publication & Review, 3, pp. 2221.

9. Electronic Privacy Information Center (EPIC), 'Social Media Privacy', EPIC, available at: https://epic.org/issues/consumer-privacy/social-media-privacy [Accessed 21 January 2025]. 

10. Govind v. State of Madhya Pradesh (1975) 2 SCC 148.

11. Information Technology Act, 2000, No. 21 of 2000. India. (Enacted Oct. 17, 2000). § 69. 

12. Information Technology Act, 2000, No. 21 of 2000. India. (Enacted Oct. 17, 2000). § 43A. 

13. Justice K.S. Puttaswamy (Retd.) v. Union of India (2017) 10 SCC 1.

14. Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India, AIR 1978 SC 597. 

15. Manish Singh (2023). Data Protection Act No. 22 of 2023: India’s Digital Personal Data Protection Bill.  

16. NASSCOM Community, Information Technology and Its Role in India's Economic Development, NASSCOM, 27 November 2018.

17. People's Union for Civil Liberties v. Union of India, (1997) 1 SCC 301. 

18. Ravan, S.V., 'Impact of LPG on Indian Economy', Prime International Research Journal, 1, 2014, pp. 21.

19. Semayne's Case (1640) 5 Co Rep 91a, 77 ER 194 (KB 1604)

20. Sharda v Dharmpal (2003) 4 SCC 493