Right To Privacy

The right to privacy in India has derived itself from essentially two sources: the common law of torts and the constitutional law In common law, a private action for damages for unlawful invasion of privacy is maintainable. The printer and publisher of a journal, magazine or book are liable in damages if they publish any matter concerning the private life of the individual without such person's consent. There are two exceptions to this rule: first, that the right to privacy does not survive once the publication is a matter of public record and, second, when the publication relates to the discharge of the official duties of a public servant, an action is not maintainable unless the publication is proved to be false, malicious or is in reckless disregard for truth.

In India, the Constitution does not expressly recognize the right to privacy. The concept of privacy as a fundamental right first evolved in 1964 in the case of Kharak Singh v State of Uttar Pradesh. The Supreme Court, for the first time, recognized that there is a right of privacy implicit in the Indian Constitution under Article 21. The Court held that the Right to Privacy is an integral part of the Right to Life, but with out any clear cut laws, it still remains in the grey area.

In Kharak Singh v State of Uttar Pradesh, Supreme Court of India struck down Regulation which authorized domiciliary visits as being unconstitutional but upheld the other provisions of surveillance under that Regulation. Their view was based on the conclusion that the infringement of a fundamental right must be both direct as well as tangible and that the freedom guaranteed under Article 19(1)(a) - a right to freedom of speech and expression - was not infringed by a watch being kept over the movements of a suspect. At that time court did not recognize the right of privacy. But in Gobind v. State of M.P , also a case of surveillance, the Supreme Court, while upholding the regulation in question which authorized domiciliary visits by security personal, also held ........Depending on the character and the antecedent of the person subjected to surveillance as also the object the limitation under which surveillance is made, it cannot be said surveillance by domiciliary visit would always be unreasonable restriction upon the right of privacy. Assuming that the fundamental right explicitly guaranteed to a citizen of have penumbral zone and that right is itself a fundamental right that fundamental right must be subject to restriction on the basis of compelling public interest.

Right to privacy v Right to know

The conflict between right to know and the privacy by imaging relationship and situation pertinent to both concluded that the right to know and right to privacy are two of the most ambiguous legal area today facing government the court, the public and individuals. The welfare of the society is the primary duty of every civilized state. In Mr X v Hospital Z the supreme court held that it was open to hospital authorities or the doctor concerned to revel such information to the person related girl whom he intended to marry and she had right to know about the HIV status of the appellant. A three judge bench of the supreme court held that the disclosure of HIV positive status justified as a girl has right to know , there was no need to for this court to go further and declare in general as to what right and obligation arise in such context as to right to privacy

An encroachment upon one's privacy is only shielded if the offender is the state and not a private entity. If the offender is a private individual then there is no effective remedy except in tort where one can claim damages for intruding in his privacy and no more. In R.Rajagopal v State of TN the Supreme Court held that the right to privacy is a right to be let alone. None can publish anything concerning the above matters without his consent, whether truthful or otherwise and whether laudatory or critical. If he does so, he would be violating the right to privacy of the person concerned and would be liable in an action for damages.

The right to privacy is not however, absolute; reasonable restriction can be placed thereon in public interest under article 19(5) MATHEW, J.., observed in Govind case.

 of secrecy and stresses the priority of human values.