Privacy per se is an undisputed right of an individual comprehensively bonded with his/her life. Privacy becomes matter of controversy when it is mishandled/intruded illegitimately by erroneous individuals.  Breach of privacy by oneself is less effective whereas deployed by third party is heinous. The disclosure of private information by third party brings disgrace/shame to victims although they are ignorant of.

Even though projected matter is of national interest primarily there is a right infringement complied with it. In the lights of judicial decisions/decrees right to privacy is protected as an intrinsic part of life and personal liberty enshrined under Article 21 of Indian Constitution.

Article 21 Provides that:
“No person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty except according to procedure established by law.”

So there is no procedure established by Law to intrude with one’s private space unless if it is done for spying, surveillance purposes etc.

The Protection of privacy and data can be read from various Laws pertaining to Information Technology, Intellectual property, Crimes (Cyber) and contractual obligations.
(a) Information Technology Act 2000
(b) Indian Penal Code 1890
(c) IR Laws
(d) CICRA, 2005

Radicles of Right to Privacy are bestowed by International Humanitarian Laws.

Privacy is a fundamental human right recognized in the UN Declaration of Human Rights, the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and in many other international and regional treaties. Privacy underpins human dignity and other key values such as freedom of association and freedom of speech. It has become one of the most important human rights issues of the modern age.

The object is to study relative connection of Privacy breach and its effect over its victim.

Women being more vulnerable are targeted by some unethical techheads and their lives become miserable by their inappropriate acts over them.

 

Women And Privacy: A Socio-Legal Discussion

Social Media plays a major role in one part of life, internet culture and mobile data bases promotes screening of private informations of people connected to it. Users are projected as an arena of marketing things knowing about their interests.

By taking the example of Facebook, the point of privacy issues can be made clearer. This particular site encourages users to start an account by providing authentic details. Moreover, the default settings of the site allow friends, friends of friends and almost all users (including the unknown ones) present in the site to have access to the basic information provided by a particular user. The alteration of the privacy settings offered by the site has to be done on individual basis like whom to add as a friend or with whom the information has to be disclosed. Usually, when young users make online profiles, they do not bother about the privacy and post as much as personal and sensitive information as possible. So, here the question comes, is the young brigade of social media users aware of such privacy settings and if yes then how much of it is being implemented by them? Further, do they realize the gravity of such privacy issues that might create trouble for them?

Identity theft, pestering, online victimization, etc. are some of the common consequences coming up as a result of posting personal information without checking the privacy settings. It has kind of become a common tendency among the youngsters of posting as many pictures as possible to gain attention from peer groups. Updating relationship status or posting self-portrait images is considered a trend.

India’s has no specific legislation focusing on data protection. A few principles of data protection are scattered through IT Act, Guidelines issued by RBI, TRAI etc.  One of the most important piece of legislation protecting our data at present is the Information Technology Act (IT Act). The IT Act makes hacking and tampering with computer source an offence and penalizes unlawful access to data.

The data protection law should be equally applicable on public and the private sector. Today, personal information is not only being held by the Government. It is increasingly being held by private players such telecom companies, banks etc. This law should be applicable to natural persons irrespective of their nationality and residence.

However, the Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology has appointed an expert group headed by former Supreme Court Judge BN Srikrishna to draft a data protection Law.

The decision to constitute the group was communicated by the UIDAI to Supreme Court as part of its arguments in the Right to Privacy case.

Under The IT Act, 2000, Section 66-A is applicable and Section 500, 506 & 507 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 are applicable. The accused may be punished for a term which may extend to three years and with fine. As per Section 77-B of IT Act, 2000[2] the offence shall be cognizable and bailable while if section 500 of IPC[3] is applied for the said offence under the case of public servant is non-cognizable, bailable, compoundable with permission of the Court.

In decisions of Kharak Singh V. State of Uttar Pradesh and M.P.Sharma V. Sathish Chandra it was decided that privacy doesn’t prevail under context of fundamental rights. It was overruled in the recent judgment on privacy by Apex Court.

In Justice K.S. Puttuswamy (Retd.) & Anr. v. Union of India & Ors. (2015)3. The Unique Identity Scheme was discussed along with right to privacy. The question before the court was whether such a right is guaranteed under the Constitution. The attorney general of Indian argued that it privacy is not a fundamental right guaranteed to Indian citizens, then it was overruled and provided right to privacy as a part of fundamental right.
 

Government's Interference To Privacy:

Intrusion to Privacy sometimes initiated by Government functionaries too. In Unique Identification Authority of India & Anr. v. Central Bureau of Investigation (2014). The Central Bureau of Investigation sought access to the huge database complied by the Unique Identity Authority of India for the purposes of investigating a criminal offence. The SC, however, said that the UIDAI was not to transfer any biometrics without the consent of the person. The ruling has implications for the government's vast biometric ID scheme, covering access to benefits, bank accounts and payment of taxes. Rights groups are concerned personal data could be misused. The authorities want registration to be compulsory. The verdict overturns two previous rulings by the top court which said that privacy was not a fundamental right. The nine-judge bench, comprising all the sitting judges in the Supreme Court, was necessary because one of the earlier rulings, made in 1954, was delivered by an eight-judge bench. During the hearing of the case, the government's lawyers had told the court that citizens did not have absolute right over their bodies which meant that people could be forced to give their biometrics.

Conclusion
In the midst of globalization and technical advancements there is chance of mishandling of private data even though it is protected with care and diligence. There is no use apologizing post breach problems so it need to be averted/prevented with precaution and foresight. Also Government’s effective functioning should only rely on mass happiness rather causing tension and keeping them in dismay.

End-Notes
[1] 1963 2SCC 148
2 (1954) S.C.R 1077
3  2015