INTRODUCTION

A definite legal definition of Privacy is not available. Some legal experts tend to define
privacy as a human right enjoyed by every human being by virtue of his or her existence. It
depends on no instrument or charter. Privacy can also extend to other aspects, including bodily
integrity, personal autonomy, informational self-determination, protection from state
surveillance, dignity, confidentiality, compelled speech and freedom to dissent or move or think.
In short, the right to privacy has to be determined on a case-by-case basis1
In constitutional law, the right of people to make personal decisions regarding intimate matters;
under the common law, the right of people to lead their lives in a manner that is reasonably
secluded from public scrutiny, whether such scrutiny comes from a neighbor's prying eyes, an
investigator's eavesdropping ears, or a news photographer's intrusive camera; and in statutory law,
the right of people to be free from unwarranted drug testing and electronic surveillance.
The origins of the right to privacy can be traced to the nineteenth century. In 1890, Samuel D.
Warren and louis d. brande is published "The Right to Privacy," an influential article that
postulated a general common-law right of privacy. Before the publication of this article, no U.S.
court had expressly recognized such a legal right. Since the publication of the article, courts have
relied on it in hundreds of cases presenting a range of privacy issues.2
What Right to Privacy mean is the right to be let alone; the right of a person to be free from any
unwarranted publicity; the right to live without any unwarranted interference by the public in
matters with which the public is not necessarily concerned. It is right of every individual in this
world to be free from any outside interference this is because everyone has a private life and
everyone wants to live their private life comfortably without sharing it to anyone.
Like everything mankind has ever achieved, there has been a positive and a negative side to it.
Technology has invaded every part of our lives whether the invasion was desired or not, we cannot
be sure whether what we say has been heard by a third party as well whether that was desired or
not. The proverbial Hindi saying of even walls having ears has never rung truer. The principle of
the world today can be: whatever you may do, the world will get to know before you realize, ask
a certain Tiger Woods about it.3
In the earlier times in India, the law would give protection only from physical dangers such as
trespass from which the Right to Property emerged to secure his house and cattle. This was
considered to be the Right to Life. As the ever changing common law grew to accommodate the
problems faced by the people, it was realized that not only was physical security required, but also
security of the spiritual self as well as of his feelings, intellect was required. Now the Right to Life

1
rajagopal krishnadas, The lowdown on the right to privacy, The Hindu (oct.5, 2017, 8:25 pm)
http://www.thehindu.com
2
"Privacy." West's Encyclopedia of American Law, Encyclopedia.com (oct.5, 2017, 8:32 pm)
<http://www.encyclopedia.com>.
3
hinailiyas, Right to Privacy Under Article 21 and the Related Conflicts, LegalServiceIndia (oct.5, 2017, 8:40 pm)
http://www.legalservicesindia.com
has expanded in its scope and comprises the right to be let alone the right to liberty secures the
exercise of extensive civil privileges; and the term property has grown to comprise every form
of possession intangible, as well as tangible.
Article 21 of the Constitution of India states that No person shall be deprived of his life or
personal liberty except according to procedure established by law. After reading the Article 21,
it has been interpreted that the term life includes all those aspects of life which go to make a
mans life meaningful, complete and worth living. Although this right is not directly mentioned in
Article 21. It comes under the basic feature of constitution which can never be amended and this
was held after the judgment in the case of Kesavnanda Bahrti VS State of Kerala 1973.
But this right, right to privacy is not enumerated as a Fundamental Right in the Constitution of
India. The scope of this right first came up for consideration in Kharak Singhs Case which was
concerned with the validity of certain regulations that permitted surveillance of suspects. The
minority decision of SUBBA RAO J. deals with this light. In the context of Article 19(1) (d), the
right to privacy was again considered by the Supreme Court in 1975. In a detailed decision,
JEEVAN REDDY J. held that the right to privacy is implicit under Article 21. This right is the
right to be let alone. In the context of surveillance, it has been held that surveillance, if intrusive
and seriously encroaches on the privacy of citizen, can infringe the freedom of movement,
guaranteed by Articles 19(1)(d) and 21. Surveillance must be to prevent crime and on the basis of
material provided in the history sheet. In the context of an anti-terrorism enactment, it was held
that the right to privacy was subservient to the security of the State and withholding information
relevant for the detention of crime cant be nullified on the grounds of right to privacy. The right
to privacy in terms of Article 21 has been discussed in various cases.4
There is some international concept of Privacy they are
Article 12 of Universal Declaration of Human Rights (1948) states that No one shall be
subjected to arbitrary interference with his privacy, family, home or correspondence nor to attack
upon his honor and reputation. Everyone has the right to protection of the law against such
interference or attacks.
Article 17 of International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (to which India is a party)
states No one shall be subjected to arbitrary or unlawful interference with his privacy, family,
home and correspondence, nor to unlawful attacks on his honor and reputation
Article 8 of European Convention on Human Rights states Everyone has the right to respect
for his private and family life, his home and his correspondence; there shall be no interference by
a public authority except such as is in accordance with law and is necessary in a democratic society
in the interests of national security, public safety or the economic well-being of the country, for
the protection of health or morals or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others.5

HYPOTHESIS
4
Id
5
Id
Researcher believe that -
1. Right to privacy is a very important for an individual
2. It is inherent human right that every human possesses; and
3. Its imposition will protect the individuals right.

RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
In this project Doctrinal and Non- doctrinal method of research is used.

RIGHT TO PRIVACY IN DIFFERENT COUNTRIES

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
The world's oldest democracy, USA has not exactly mentioned the word 'privacy' in its
Constitution. However, the Fourth Amendment to the Constitution is largely seen as the clause
protecting that right. The amendment The Fourth Amendment states "the right of the people to be
secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures,
shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or
affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be
seized".6
AUSTRALIA
The country has its own 'Privacy Act' which came into being around 1988. It governs the handling
of personal information of individuals.
The Privacy Act provides protection through regulating the handling of personal information by
federal government agencies. This is done by establishing rules of conduct (Information Privacy
Principles or IPPs for the collection, retention, access to, correction, use and disclosure of personal
information. These principles apply to Commonwealth departments and agencies. The Act also
provides protection for the use of tax file numbers and consumer credit information.
Under the Act the office of Privacy Commissioner was established within the Human Rights and
Equal Opportunity Commission. The Commissioner is empowered to take privacy protection
measures in relation to Commonwealth departments and agencies and tax file number users. An
individual alleging a breach of privacy can complain to the Privacy Commissioner, who is
authorized to investigate and conciliate complaints. The Commissioner is empowered make
determinations, which includes making a determination that an agency has breached an IPP and
should pay damages to an aggrieved party.7
Japan

6
How other countries look at right to privacy, OneIndia (Oct.5, 2017, 9:00 pm) https://www.oneindia.com
7
Australia, Right to Privacy, AustraliaLaw (Oct.5, 2017, 9:04 pm) www.hrcr.org/safrica/privacy/austr_law.html
 In 2015, Japan adopted a system of citizen identification which united personal tax information,
social security and disaster relief benefits. It was launched amid protests by critics who were
worried by the privacy concerns it posed.
The law gave all Japanese citizens and foreign residents a 12 digit 'My Number'. The aim was to
make administration more systematic and social welfare benefits more efficient, while also helping
to cut down on tax evasion and benefit fraud. The government will eventually extend the system
to bank accounts, as well, to keep track of people's assets for taxation purposes. It will first be
voluntary from 2018 but could become mandatory by 2021.
Japanese law in itself does not explicitly provide for a right to privacy. But the right is read into
Article 13 of the Japanese Constitution which provides for the right to "life, liberty, and the pursuit
of happiness" and for the right for people to be "respected as individuals".8
EUROPE
Member countries of the European Union (EU) adopted the EU Data Protection Directive in 1995
which looks at protection of personal data and regulates free movement of such data.
However, come 2018, the European Commission has said that it will be rolling out a new set of
rules on data protection. The new rules, the Commission cites, will give citizens lawful control
over their personal data.
Also important to note is Article 8 of the European Convention of Human Rights (ECHR). "There
shall be no interference by a public authority with the exercise of this right except such as is in
accordance with the law and is necessary in a democratic society in the interests of national
security, public safety or the economic well-being of the country, for the prevention of disorder or
crime, for the protection of health or morals, or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of
others," it says9
BRAZIL
The country's Constitution states, "The intimacy, private life, honor and image of the people are
inviolable, with assured right to indenization by material or moral damage resulting from its
violation."
Brazil has ratified the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), which Article
17 provides that no one shall be subjected to arbitrary or unlawful interference with his privacy,
family, home or correspondence, nor to unlawful attacks on his honor and reputation. The Human
Rights Committee has noted that states party to the ICCPR have a positive obligation to adopt
legislative and other measures to give effect to the prohibition against such interferences and
attacks as well as to the protection of this right [privacy].
CANADA

8
Supra Note 6
9
Supra Note 6
The Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act governs the collection and
usage of personal information.
The right to privacy is a fundamental human right that is protected by sections 8 and 7 of the
Canadian charter, fundamental to freedom of expression and reflected in international covenants.
The right is multifaceted and linked to bodily integrity, dignity, liberty and autonomy 10

EVOLUTION OF RIGHT TO PRIVACY

Right to privacy is not mentioned in the Indian constitution but we can trace its evolution with
following cases-
1962: Kharak Singh vs. State of UP: Inclusion of privacy under personal liberty
Kharak Singh, the petitioner, was charged under dacoity and was released due to lack of evidence.
Ignoring the release of Singh, the Uttar Pradesh police put him under surveillance which involved
secret picketing of his house, night visits at home, periodical inquiries by officers and monitoring
and verifying movements of Singh. The petitioner filed a writ petition for violation of his
fundamental rights (Article 32).
Extending the dimension of personal liberty, the apex court for the first time declared right to
privacy to fall under the purview of Article 21. The court held that at the end of the day, a persons
house is his castle where he lives with his family and it is his rampart against encroachment on
his personal liberty.
Nothing is more deleterious to a mans physical happiness and health than a calculated interference
with his privacy. We would, therefore, define the right of personal liberty in Art. 21 as a right of
an individual to be free from restrictions or encroachments on his person, whether those restrictions
or encroachments are directly imposed or indirectly brought about by calculated measures.

10
Supra Note 6