INDIA Law and Practice Contributed by: Suvarna Mandal and Rishikaa, Saikrishna & Associates
to an anonymous entity that threatened to leak sensitive personal data of the customers of the insurance company. Doxing While addressing a case where the plaintiff claimed that her private information was mali - ciously disclosed online after she posted a tweet about a political figure, the Delhi High Court emphasised the significant privacy risks and potential harms associated with such acts. The Court noted that since the tweet was not anony - mous it did not qualify as doxing, but directed the social media platform to remove defamatory tweets and disclose the Basic Subscriber Infor - mation of the accounts involved. Deepfakes and AI Various Indian courts have deliberated upon the misuse of AI tools and applications, particularly in respect of celebrities. While most of these cases have addressed the issue of violation of personality rights by using deepfakes, these cases have also commented upon the celebri - ties’ right to privacy. Big Tech and Antitrust The Competition Commission of India (CCI) imposed a penalty on Meta under the Competi - tion Act, 2002 for abusing its dominant position in relevant markets for “online display advertis - ing” and “OTT messaging apps through smart - phones”. The CCI observed that WhatsApp’s privacy policy, which required users to accept expanded data collection and share terms with other Meta companies, was being implemented on a “take-it-or-leave-it” basis, thereby limiting user choice and transparency. 2.2 Recent Case Law Recent litigation in India has addressed the fol - lowing topics.
• Courts have declared that the right to privacy includes the right to be forgotten and accord - ingly the right to gain access to information must be balanced against the right to privacy of an individual, especially if no public interest is being served by keeping the information public. • While the term “doxing” has not been defined in Indian law, such acts can result in violation of the right to privacy. Accordingly, a balance needs to be maintained between access to open information and the safeguarding of privacy. In the absence of a legal framework addressing the issue of doxing, the courts can resort to the law of tort to uphold the right to privacy. • The right to privacy also includes spousal privacy, which is accordingly protected under the Constitution of India. • The victims of violence cannot be divested of their fundamental right to privacy. • Celebrities enjoy a right to privacy, and unau - thorised or malicious use of their name, voice, dialogues and images illegally, including for commercial purposes, cannot be permitted due to their personality rights. 2.3 Collective Redress Mechanisms Indian laws provide for class action suits to be filed before civil courts, where one or more persons can institute a class action lawsuit on behalf of other persons with the same interests, with the permission of the court. However, there are no provisions in the IT Act, the SPDI Rules or the DPDP Act that provide for collective redress in India; in fact, the DPDP Act specifically restricts the jurisdiction of civil courts to entertain suits or proceedings in respect of any matter that is within the jurisdiction of the DPB. The DPDP Act also states that courts and regulatory authorities are prohibited from grant -
195 CHAMBERS.COM
Powered by FlippingBook