Data mining and the Right to Privacy

 Data mining and the Right to Privacy

Particularly the surveillance of Constitutional Authorities and an active Supreme Court of India Judge

throughout that time make the most recent claims of spying and phone tapping against the State

particularly serious and dangerous in character. The way the accusations were presented, the cases

the judge had on the docket, and the subsequent rulings in the Government's favour raise serious

concerns about the integrity of the judiciary's lofty ideals of independence and impartiality.

The last and most important institution for the general populace, and one that can be compared to

God, is the judiciary. The public's confidence in the independence of our legal system has been

undermined, however, by the spying surveillance of the judiciary and the contested results of the

petitions delivered in the government's favour. Here, it's important to keep in mind that one of the

fundamental tenets of both our democracy and the Indian Constitution is the independence of the

judiciary.

Teachers of constitutional law must be asking themselves aloud how they will continue to teach

Basic Structure Theory while describing the independence of the Four Pillars of Democracy. With

clear accusations of spying on a Supreme Court judge for the first time in the seven decades of

Indian democracy, this is the darkest mark on our democracy. While it cannot be fully ruled out that

such rumours have never circulated in the Supreme Court or North Block corridors, they were always

hearsay in nature.

Phone interception is a technique for eavesdropping, tapping, intercepting, listening to, and

recording every phone conversation with the goal of learning about all actions. It is referred to as

"Wire Tapping" in the United States of America and many other Western countries. The earliest

instance of wiretapping or telephone tapping dates back to the 19th century, when successful call

interception or tapping took place in the United States during the 1890s decade.

The process of phone tapping is now greatly detrimental to a citizen's Right to Privacy because it

includes snooping. The tapping is permissible when done with the official consent of the relevant

government agency, but it is prohibited and will be treated as a serious crime if it is done without

permission.

In Katz v. United States, a major decision from the American Supreme Court in 1967, it was stated

that wiretapping and searches need a valid warrant to be legitimate.

The "Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act 1978," which ensures the issuing of lawful warrants for

such situations in the name of National Security, was established by the US in the years that

followed this judgement.

Snooping constitutional authorities, judges, or any other law-abiding Indian citizen jeopardises both

the principles of our outstanding democracy and the terms of our Constitution. This is a very serious

matter, and the fundamental right to privacy should not only be severely upheld but also thoroughly

investigated by a Constitutional Bench of the Supreme Court. In the recent case of Justice K.S.

Puttaswamy v. Union of India, 2017, a 9 judges constitutional bench delivered a unanimous verdict

while affirming that the Constitution of India guarantees to each individual a Fundamental Right to

Privacy. The Supreme Court of India has always positively emphasised on the topic of privacy.

The judgement emphasised the relevant circumstances and stated that the three court rulings in the

cases of M.P. Sharma v. Satish Chandra (1954, SC), Kharak Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh (1962, SC),

and Govind v. State of Madhya Pradesh (1975, SC) form the doctrinal basis for the right to privacy in

India.

In order to avoid being held accountable for violating a person's right to life and personal liberty, the

government is required by the right to privacy to preserve that person's privacy at all costs.

The rights to life and liberty are an inalienable part of human existence and not a privilege bestowed

by the government, a court of law, or the constitution. Whether you believe in the Constitution or

not, it only protects this particular Right from the start to the finish. Without the backing of the law,

no civilised state can even consider encroaching upon them.

The case ADM Jabalpur v. S.S. Shukla, decided by his father Hon. Justice YV Chandrachud, was

overruled by Hon. Justice DY Chandrachud in the stated judgement of Justice K.S. Puttaswamy v.

Union of India, 2017, insofar as it held that the aforementioned rights may be waived in an

emergency. Therefore, the right to privacy cannot be violated in any way.

Most crucially, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India decided that "Phone tapping is a major

infringement of an individual's privacy" in the case of People's Union for Civil Liberties v. Union of

India, which involved the subject of phone tapping.

In the 2010 case Smt. Selvi v. State of Karnataka, the Hon. Supreme Court acknowledged the

distinction between bodily & physical privacy and mental privacy up to the mark of Western

Countries' level of broad democracy and further held that subjecting a person without their consent

to techniques like narcotics analysis, polygraph exams, and the BEAP/Brain Electrical Activation

Profile test is a clear violation of their mental privacy.

In India, the provision 5(2) of the Indian Telegraphic Act of 1885 gives the government the legal right

to intercept calls. The Ministry of Home Affairs must be notified in writing of the institution's request

to listen in on phone calls and must be provided with documentation of the institution's need for the

interception. The Ministry of Home Affairs may authorise the interception and tapping once

legitimate reasons are established.

However, if the snooping and tapping are done unlawfully and it results in a violation of a person's

right to privacy, that person may file a police report as soon as they become aware of the illegal

snooping on them.

Since section 26 of the Indian Telegraphic Act of 1885 states unlawful interception and penalty in

such cases, the person in question is free to file a legal complaint at any time.

Additionally, in cases of unauthorised and illegal tapping and spying, the offended party may file a

complaint with the National Human Rights Commission.