Part 12.4: Privacy Torts

⚖️ Constitutional Foundation: Puttaswamy

K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India

Supreme Court, 2017 (9-Judge Bench)

Held: Right to Privacy is a fundamental right under Article 21. It includes: (1) Bodily integrity, (2) Personal autonomy, (3) Informational privacy. Any state action limiting privacy must satisfy the proportionality test: legitimate aim, rational nexus, necessity, and balancing.

📌 Three Zones of Privacy (per Justice Kaul)

Intimate Zone: Absolute protection (family, marriage, reproduction)
Private Zone: Intrusion requires justification (home, personal data)
Public Zone: Limited expectation (public spaces, but dignity protected)

📋 The Four Privacy Torts

While Indian law hasn't fully codified privacy torts, courts recognize these categories based on common law principles:

1

Intrusion Upon Seclusion

Intentional intrusion into private affairs that would be highly offensive to a reasonable person.

💡 Example: Employer secretly installing cameras in washrooms; hacking into personal email/phone

2

Public Disclosure of Private Facts

Publishing private information that would be highly offensive and is not of legitimate public concern.

💡 Example: Publishing someone's medical records, sexual orientation, or financial troubles without consent

3

False Light

Publishing information that places a person in a false light that would be highly offensive (similar to defamation but not reputation-focused).

💡 Example: Using someone's photo in an article about criminals when they're not a criminal

4

Appropriation

Using another's name, likeness, or identity for commercial benefit without consent.

💡 Example: Using celebrity's photo for product advertisement without permission; deepfakes for commercial gain

⚖️ Key Indian Privacy Cases

R. Rajagopal v. State of Tamil Nadu

Supreme Court, 1994

First recognition of right to privacy as part of Article 21. Media cannot publish personal matters without consent unless based on public records or matters of public interest.

PUCL v. Union of India (Telephone Tapping)

Supreme Court, 1996

Telephone tapping violates Article 21 unless done under lawful authority with proper safeguards. Led to formulation of guidelines for interception.

Sharda v. Dharampal

Supreme Court, 2003

Medical examination (DNA test) can be ordered in matrimonial disputes but right to privacy is not absolute when it conflicts with other rights.

Puttaswamy II (Aadhaar)

Supreme Court, 2018

Aadhaar upheld with limitations. Mandatory linking with bank accounts and mobiles struck down. Proportionality principle applied to privacy restrictions.

🔍 Privacy vs Other Rights

Privacy vs Freedom of Speech

Public figures have reduced privacy expectations for public conduct
Matter of public interest can override privacy claims
Private facts protection stronger than against commentary

Privacy vs Right to Information

RTI Act Section 8(1)(j) exempts personal information
"Public interest" override available but narrowly applied
Privacy of third parties must be considered

✅ Defences to Privacy Claims

Consent: Express or implied
Public Interest: Genuine matter of public concern
Public Record: Information already in public domain
Legal Authority: Lawful interception under IT Act/Telegraph Act
Newsworthiness: For press, legitimate news coverage

Privacy Torts