Informational Privacy under Article 21

Informational privacy is a person's interest in controlling how information about them is collected, used and shared. Article 21 protects it as part of the fundamental right to privacy, so State disclosure of personal data must satisfy constitutional standards rather than rest merely on administrative convenience. This protection is not absolute, but restrictions require adequate legal justification.

Constitutional foundation

In Justice K.S. Puttaswamy (Retd.) v. Union of India (2017), a nine-judge Supreme Court Bench unanimously recognised privacy as a fundamental right. Privacy is intrinsic to life and personal liberty under Article 21 and to the freedoms guaranteed by Part III.

• Informational privacy protects dignity and autonomy, because the disclosure and use of personal information can affect an individual's choices and relationships.
• Privacy protection operates alongside Articles 14 and 19: State action affecting personal information must also satisfy applicable requirements of non-arbitrariness and fundamental freedoms.

When State disclosure can be justified

Disclosure interferes with informational privacy even when the State originally obtained the information lawfully. Its constitutional justification depends on the purpose, scope and safeguards of the disclosure.

• Legality requires a basis in law for an intrusion into privacy; an asserted public benefit alone is insufficient.
• A legitimate State aim must justify the interference, rather than a vague claim of administrative convenience.
• Proportionality requires a connection between disclosure and its objective, consideration of less intrusive alternatives, and a balance between the public benefit and the harm to privacy.
• Procedural safeguards must protect against abuse, including appropriate limits on access and use and mechanisms for accountability.

Implications for public access to personal data

The State must distinguish between holding information for a public function and making it available to others. Lawful collection does not by itself justify unrestricted disclosure.

• The assessment should consider the nature of the information, the purpose of publication, the intended recipients and the extent of dissemination.
• Transparency and privacy must be reconciled: where disclosure serves a legitimate public purpose, limiting the information disclosed or restricting access may reduce unnecessary intrusion.
• An affected person may seek constitutional remedies under Article 32 before the Supreme Court or Article 226 before a High Court.