Right to Informational Privacy

Informational privacy is a person’s interest in controlling how personal information is collected, used and disclosed. Under Article 21, an accused remains entitled to dignity, privacy and fair procedure; accusation alone does not permit the State to publicise personal information without adequate justification.

Constitutional foundation

In Justice K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India (2017), a nine-judge Bench recognised privacy, including informational privacy, as a fundamental right protected by Article 21 and other freedoms. Because Article 21 protects every person, an accused does not lose privacy merely on arrest or investigation.

• Privacy also supports dignity and a fair trial by limiting disclosures that can cause stigma, prejudice proceedings or portray an accused as guilty before adjudication.
• Under R. Rajagopal v. State of Tamil Nadu (1994), privacy does not ordinarily prevent publication of information already forming part of public records, subject to legally recognised protections.

Test for a valid disclosure

State disclosure of an accused person’s information must satisfy the constitutional requirements of legality, a legitimate state aim, proportionality and safeguards against abuse. The existence of investigative interest does not by itself justify unrestricted publicity.

• Disclosure must have authority in law rather than rest solely on administrative convenience or publicity.
• The information disclosed must bear a rational connection to a legitimate purpose, such as investigation, public safety or securing assistance from the public.
• The State should disclose no more information than is necessary and consider less intrusive means.
• Clear responsibility, limited access and review mechanisms help prevent arbitrary dissemination of personal data.

Implications for police communication

A police briefing should distinguish necessary factual communication from disclosure of intimate, medical, biometric or digital information unrelated to a lawful purpose. Article 21 also weighs against presenting allegations or custodial statements as established guilt, because official publicity can impair dignity and the fairness of criminal proceedings.

• Open court proceedings or lawful public records do not create a general licence to release unrelated information held by investigators.
• An unjustified disclosure may be challenged through constitutional remedies before the Supreme Court or High Courts.