Click here to download the full paper (PDF)
Authored By: Farheen Khan (LL.B), V.N. Patil Law College, Chh. Sambhajinagar,
Click here for Copyright Policy.
ABSTRACT:
“The judicial recognition of privacy as a fundamental right represents one of the most transformative developments in Indian constitutional law. Although the Constitution does not expressly enumerate the right to privacy, the Supreme Court has progressively interpreted Articles 14, 19 and 21 to include it as an essential component of life, liberty and dignity. This article traces the constitutional evolution of privacy from early judicial resistance to its unanimous affirmation in Justice K.S. Puttaswamy (Retd.) vs. Union of India (2017). It situates privacy within the broader framework of dignity-based constitutionalism and international human rights law, and critically examines contemporary legislative responses, particularly the Digital Personal Data Protection Act, 2023. The article argues that privacy is indispensable for democratic participation and meaningful freedom and concludes by highlighting the challenges and future directions for privacy protection in India”.
Keywords: Privacy, Dignity, Article 21, Constitutional Interpretation, Digital Rights, Proportionality.
I. INTRODUCTION:
Privacy today occupies a central position in constitutional democracies across the world. In an age characterized by rapid technological advancement, digital surveillance, and extensive data collection, the protection of privacy has become both a legal necessity and a social imperative. The Constitution of India promises liberty, equality and dignity to all citizens. Yet, when the Constitution came into force in 1950, privacy was not explicitly articulated as a fundamental right. For several decades, its status remained uncertain. Judicial pronouncements oscillated between narrow textualism and expansive interpretation, reflecting broader tensions within Indian constitutional theory. Over time, however, the Supreme Court adopted a more purposive and dynamic approach. The understanding of “life” and “personal liberty” under Article 21 expanded significantly. The right to privacy, once denied constitutional recognition, eventually emerged as intrinsic to dignity and autonomy. This transformation reflects not only doctrinal evolution but also the changing realities of Indian society marked by technological growth, digitization and increasing State presence in personal lives. Justice Louis Brandeis said, “The right to be let alone is the most comprehensive of rights and right most valued by the civilized men.” Thus, privacy is no longer viewed as a mere personal privilege. It has come to be understood as a foundational condition for freedom, autonomy, and democratic participation. This article examines how privacy has developed as a constitutional value rooted in dignity, tracing its journey from early denial to firm recognition as a fundamental right.
II. CONCEPTUAL FOUNDATIONS: PRIVACY AS A DIMENSION OF DIGNITY:
Privacy is not a single, rigid concept. It encompasses multiple dimensions bodily integrity, spatial seclusion, decisional autonomy and informational control. Together, these dimensions protect the individual’s ability to shape identity and make intimate choices free from coercion.
At its core, privacy derives normative strength from the idea of human dignity. Dignity presupposes that each person possesses intrinsic worth and autonomy. Without a protected private sphere, individuals cannot exercise meaningful choice. Surveillance forced disclosure or intrusion into personal life reduces a person to an object of State or societal control. Indian constitutional jurisprudence increasingly recognizes dignity as a foundational value. Article 21 has been interpreted not merely as protection against physical restraint but as a guarantee of meaningful life. ² Privacy thus operates as an enabling right without it, freedoms of speech, association and conscience cannot flourish. In a pluralistic society like India, privacy also protects diversity. It allows individuals to hold minority beliefs, pursue unconventional lifestyles and form personal relationships without fear of majoritarian interference. The protection of privacy therefore reinforces democratic pluralism.
III. EARLY JUDICIAL APPROACH TO PRIVACY IN INDIA:
III.I THE NARROW APPROACH IN A.K. GOPALAN:
The first major interpretation of Article 21 came in A.K. Gopalan vs. State of Madras. The Supreme Court adopted a restrictive reading of personal liberty and treated fundamental rights as isolated compartments. The Court held that “procedure established by law” meant any procedure enacted by the legislature, regardless of fairness. This approach left little space for recognizing implied rights such as privacy. Liberty was confined to freedom from unlawful detention, and broader concerns of dignity or autonomy were not considered central.
III.II KHARAK SINGH AND THE VOICE OF DISSENT:
The issue of surveillance was directly confronted in Kharak Singh vs. State of Uttar Pradesh. The majority declined to recognize privacy as a fundamental right, though it invalidated domiciliary visits on limited grounds. Justice Subba Rao’s dissent, however, offered a broader conception of liberty. He argued that constant surveillance violated personal freedom and dignity. Although the dissent did not prevail at the time, it later became foundational to privacy jurisprudence. It reflected an early recognition that liberty extends beyond physical restraint to protection of personal life.
IV. TRANSFORMATIVE INTERPRETATION: MANEKA GANDHI:
The doctrinal shift occurred in Maneka Gandhi vs. Union of India. The Court rejected the compartmentalized approach of Gopalan and held that laws affecting personal liberty must be just, fair and reasonable. Articles 14, 19 and 21 were read harmoniously, creating an integrated rights framework. This development marked the beginning of substantive due process in Indian constitutional law. Article 21 became a source of various derivative rights grounded in dignity.
The transformation initiated by Maneka Gandhi made it constitutionally plausible to recognize privacy as implicit within personal liberty. The decision signaled that constitutional rights must protect not only physical existence but the quality and autonomy of life.
V. INTERNATIONAL HUMAN RIGHTS AND COMPARATIVE INFLUENCE:
Privacy has long been protected under international law. Article 12 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and Article 17 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights prohibit arbitrary interference with private life. Indian courts have consistently referred to international conventions when interpreting fundamental rights, especially where domestic law is silent.³ The convergence between international human rights standards and constitutional values strengthened the normative basis for privacy recognition. Comparative constitutional jurisprudence, particularly from Europe, has played a persuasive role in shaping Indian judicial thinking. The European Convention on Human Rights recognizes privacy as a core right essential to dignity, autonomy, and democratic participation. Indian courts have increasingly drawn upon international norms to interpret constitutional rights, especially where domestic law is silent. This global perspective influenced the Indian judiciary’s eventual recognition of privacy as an intrinsic constitutional value.
VI. THE CONSTITUTIONAL MILESTONE: PUTTASWAMY (2017):
The debate was conclusively settled in Justice K.S. Puttaswamy (Retd.) vs. Union of India. A nine-judge Constitution Bench unanimously declared that privacy is a fundamental right protected under Articles 14, 19 and 21. Justice D. Y. Chandrachud, writing for part of the Bench, eloquently observed that dignity cannot exist without privacy and that privacy represents the sanctity of the individual. The judgment recognized privacy as encompassing bodily integrity, informational control, and decisional autonomy. The Court recognized privacy as intrinsic to dignity and autonomy. It acknowledged multiple dimensions of privacy bodily, informational and decisional. Importantly, it overruled earlier precedents to the extent that they denied the existence of a privacy right.
The judgment articulated a structured proportionality test:
- Existence of a valid law.
- Legitimate State objective.
- Rational connection and necessity.
- Procedural safeguards.
This framework ensures that any limitation on privacy must withstand rigorous constitutional scrutiny. The decision reflects mature constitutional reasoning, balancing individual rights with legitimate governance needs.
VII. PRIVACY IN THE DIGITAL AGE:
Technological advancements have profoundly altered the meaning of privacy. Digital platforms continuously generate data about individuals’ preferences, movements and associations. Biometric identification systems and algorithmic profiling intensify concerns about informational autonomy. The Aadhaar scheme, central to the Puttaswamy litigation, demonstrated both the benefits and risks of digital governance. While technology can enhance efficiency and inclusion, centralized databases may expose individuals to surveillance and misuse. In response, Parliament enacted the Digital Personal Data Protection Act, 2023. The Act establishes a framework for consent-based data processing and imposes obligations on data fiduciaries. However, concerns remain regarding executive exemptions and regulatory independence. The effectiveness of statutory protection will depend upon institutional integrity and enforcement mechanisms. Constitutional recognition alone cannot guarantee privacy unless supported by transparent governance and public awareness.
VIII. SOCIO-LEGAL IMPLICATIONS:
Privacy has far-reaching socio-legal implications.
First, it strengthens democratic participation. Citizens must feel secure in forming opinions and engaging in discourse without fear of constant monitoring.
Second, privacy advances gender and sexual autonomy. In Navtej Singh Johar v. Union of India, the Court emphasized dignity and personal choice in decriminalizing consensual same-sex relations.
Third, privacy supports equality. Data misuse and profiling often disproportionately affect marginalized communities. Strong privacy protections prevent discrimination and digital exclusion.
Thus, privacy operates not merely as an individual entitlement but as a structural safeguard for democratic society.
IX. CONTINUING CHALLENGES:
Despite significant judicial progress, challenges remain. Rapid technological innovation often outpaces legal regulation. Surveillance technologies are increasingly sophisticated, raising new ethical dilemmas. Additionally, balancing national security and privacy presents ongoing tensions. Courts must carefully apply proportionality to ensure that security measures do not erode constitutional freedoms. Public awareness is equally critical. Without knowledge of privacy rights, citizens cannot effectively demand accountability. Educational and institutional reforms are therefore essential.
X. FUTURE DIRECTIONS:
Looking ahead, India’s privacy framework must evolve in a way that meaningfully protects individuals in an increasingly data‑driven society. A crucial first step is the enactment of a genuinely comprehensive, rights‑based data protection law—one that not only sets out clear obligations but also recognizes privacy as a lived, everyday right rather than a purely theoretical guarantee. Equally important is the creation of regulatory institutions that are truly independent, transparent, and capable of earning public trust. Oversight mechanisms must operate without political or commercial influence, ensuring that enforcement is fair, consistent, and accountable. At the technological level, embedding privacy‑by‑design into products and digital infrastructures can help shift the system from reactive protection to proactive safeguarding. This requires collaboration between policymakers, legal experts, and technology developers to ensure privacy is built in from the start. Courts, too, will continue to have a vital role. Through rigorous proportionality review, the judiciary can act as a constitutional check against excessive data collection or intrusive surveillance practices, ensuring that privacy restrictions remain both necessary and narrowly tailored. Finally, aligning domestic standards with global privacy norms will not only enhance individual rights but also strengthen India’s position in international data governance. Harmonization with established international frameworks can boost trust, enable smoother cross‑border data flows, and signal India’s commitment to a rights‑respecting digital ecosystem.
XI. CONCLUSION:
The journey of privacy in India illustrates the dynamic nature of constitutional interpretation. From early judicial hesitation to emphatic recognition in Puttaswamy, privacy has emerged as a cornerstone of dignity-based constitutionalism. In a digital democracy, privacy is not a peripheral concern. It safeguards autonomy, nurtures diversity and sustains democratic participation. The future of Indian constitutionalism will depend on how effectively this right is protected in practice. Ultimately, privacy affirms a simple yet profound principle: that every individual deserves a sphere of life free from arbitrary intrusion into a space where dignity can truly flourish. Thus, safeguarding privacy is not merely a legal obligation but a moral commitment to respect human dignity. The future of constitutional democracy in India will depend on how effectively this right is protected, enforced, and realized in everyday life.
Cite this article as:
Farheen Khan, “Right To Privacy As Dignity: A Socio-Legal Study Of The Constitutional Journey Of Privacy In India”, Vol.6 & Issue 3, Law Audience Journal (e-ISSN: 2581-6705), Pages 141 to 148 (21st Feb 2026), available at https://www.lawaudience.com/right-to-privacy-as-dignity-a-socio-legal-study-of-the-constitutional-journey-of-privacy-in-india/.
Footnotes:
- N. Pandey, Constitutional Law of India (Central Law Agency, latest ed.).
- Vishaka v. State of Rajasthan, (1997) 6 SCC 241.
- Jain, M.P. Constitutional Law of India, LexixNexis, New Delhi
- K. Gopalan v. State of Madras, AIR 1950 SC 27.
- Kharak Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh, AIR 1963 SC 1295.
- Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India, AIR 1978 SC 597.
- Justice K.S. Puttaswamy (Retd.) v. Union of India, (2017) 10 SCC 1.
- Navtej Singh Johar v. Union of India, (2018) 10 SCC 1.
- Digital Personal Data Protection Act, 2023.
- Universal Declaration of Human Rights, Art. 12.
- International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, Art. 17.
- Basu, D. D. Introduction to the Constitution of India, LexixNexis, New Delhi.
- Bakshi, P.M. The Constitution of India, Universal Law Publishing
