The State government may have infringed upon the fundamental rights of PDS beneficiaries by making public their personal details.
According to Supreme Court Lawyer Kaleeswaram Raj, though India does not have a law for data protection and privacy, it has been interpreted as a fundamental right by various Supreme Court judgments.
“The Supreme Court has pronounced on right to privacy in the context of Article 21. Article 21 has always been explained by the Supreme Court as a right not for a mere existence of subsistence. Right to life has always been expanded as right to have a dignified life, which takes in privacy as a factor. Even though it is not a statutory or constitutional right on the face of it, by way of this interpretive process, the Supreme Court has said that every individual has a right to privacy and any invasion by the state or third party will amount to violation of his fundamental right,” he said.
Privacy right was for the first time interpreted in the case of Kharak Singh Vs The State of U.P. in 1963, related to the surveillance of a citizen.
“In recent times, there have been quite a few judgments following Kharak Singh. There will be situations in which the State will have reasons for surveillance or invading privacy. But in this case of disclosure of personal information of so many citizens, the State doesn’t even have a legitimate justification. There is some element of irresponsibility attached to this, even if it is inadvertent,” says Mr. Raj.
He says that there is absence of data protection laws, as opposed to other nations like the U.K., where a citizen can straight away challenge the State as privacy is a statutory right.
“Suppose the same situation occurs in the U.K., a citizen can challenge it successfully and the State will have to compensate. The situation makes out a case for a comprehensive legislation on data protection,” he says.
Only with permission
The Information Technology Act of 2000 also says that disclosure of sensitive personal data can only be done with permission from the provider of such information or as agreed to through a lawful contract.
This includes password, financial information, physical/physiological/mental health condition, sexual orientation, medical records and history and biometric information.
If the same situation occurs in the U.K., a citizen can challenge it and the State will have to compensate
Kaleeswaram Raj
Supreme Court lawyer
