INDIA Law and Practice Contributed by: Suvarna Mandal and Rishikaa, Saikrishna & Associates
ing to the Court, invasion of the right to privacy must meet the following three-fold requirement: • legality in terms of the existence of law to justify the encroachment; • necessity in terms of a legitimate state aim, such that the law meets the test of reason - ability identified in the Indian Constitution, which provides a guarantee against arbitrary state action; and • proportionality of means adopted for meeting the object of the law. Since the Puttaswamy judgment, privacy litiga - tion in India has gained momentum, with vari - ous facets of privacy being recognised through cases filed before the High Courts of states in India. Recent cases upholding the right to pri - vacy include the following. Right to Be Forgotten There is no formal recognition of this right under Indian data protection laws. The DPDP Act pro - vides the right to the erasure of information but does not include the right to be forgotten within its ambit. However, various courts in India have upheld this right in judicial pronouncements. In ABC v State & Anr, the Delhi High Court recently directed the Court Registry to remove the name of the petitioner and one of the respondents from court records and its search results from public search engines in light of the fundamen - tal right to privacy and the right to be forgotten when the criminal proceedings in the case had been quashed by the Court. However, in Ikanoon Software Development Pvt Ltd v Karthick Theodore & Ors., the Supreme Court of India recently stayed an order passed by the Madras High Court that had directed the legal search engine Indian Kanoon to remove a judgment from its website (instead of just the
personal details), citing the right to be forgot - ten. According to news reports, while hearing the matter, the Supreme Court orally remarked that redacting personal details in sensitive cases could be justified but removing the entire judg - ment would be excessive. The matter is pending before the Supreme Court as of January 2025. Spousal Privacy Spousal privacy has been upheld in various cases before the High Courts in India. In R v B, the Madras High recently ruled that the collec - tion of call data records of a spouse without her consent cannot be admitted as evidence in court The Supreme Court recently directed that all references to the name of the victim in a mur - der and alleged rape case promptly be removed from all social media platforms and electronic media, along with any photographs and video clips depicting the deceased. After this order and given the sensitive nature of the case, the MeitY issued a press release urging all social media companies to ensure that such sensitive information is not further disseminated. Data Breaches due to her right to privacy. Privacy of Rape Victims In the matter of Star Health and Allied Insur - ance v Telegram Messenger & Ors, wherein Star Health alleged that its customer database was hacked and that personal information includ - ing sensitive personal information was being leaked through Telegram, the Madras High Court granted an interim injunction directing Telegram to take down and block all posts or chatbots identified by Star Health. Similarly, in Niva Bupa Health Insurance Company Limited v Telegram, the Delhi High Court recently granted an ad- interim injunction directing platforms, including Telegram, to block and disable accounts linked
194 CHAMBERS.COM
Powered by FlippingBook