CONSTITUTIONAL PROTECTION OF THE RIGHT TO PRIVACY: A COMPARATIVE STUDY OF INDIA’S SURVEILLANCE FRAMEWORK WITH REFERENCE TO THE UNITED KINGDOM AND THE UNITED STATES

AUTHOR – ISHRAT AYESHA ATIYA, LLM (CONSTITUTIONAL LAW), AMITY INSTITUTE OF ADVANCED LEGAL STUDIES, AMITY UNIVERSITY UTTAR PRADESH, NOIDA

BEST CITATION – ISHRAT AYESHA ATIYA, CONSTITUTIONAL PROTECTION OF THE RIGHT TO PRIVACY: A COMPARATIVE STUDY OF INDIA’S SURVEILLANCE FRAMEWORK WITH REFERENCE TO THE UNITED KINGDOM AND THE UNITED STATES, INDIAN JOURNAL OF LEGAL REVIEW (IJLR), 6 (6) OF 2026, PG. 01-14, APIS – 3920 – 0001 & ISSN – 2583-2344.

ABSTRACT

The judgement passed by the nine-judge bench in the most famous case of Justice K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India (2017) ruled that the right to privacy was now a fundamental right which is protected by Articles 14, 19, and 21 of the Indian Constitution. However, while this was a constitutional breakthrough, India’s current surveillance system uses the Indian Telegraph Act (1885) and Information Technology (2000), as the basis of extensive and mostly unregulated surveillance of citizens, allows extensive executive/administrative powers to surveil and do not have prior judicial reviews; do not have independent reviewing bodies; and do not offer individuals meaningful legal recourse. To examine the legality and morality of the surveillance arrangement within Indian Jurisprudence through a doctrinal and comparative analysis of global human rights law and the experiences of the U.K. and U.S. Accordingly, the nature of surveillance and power to “surveil” are structurally unsatisfactory, do not meet the proportionality test per the Puttaswamy Judgement, or India’s legal obligations as a signer of the International Covenant on Civil Rights.  Targeted reform recommendations at the conclusion of the article include establishing a specific law to regulate surveillance; requiring courts to approve surveillance prior to the arrest and detention of individuals; creating an independent body with authority over surveillance practices; restricting the use of exemptions under the Digital Personal Data Protection Act (2023); and creating mechanisms for the Parliament to oversee intelligence agencies.

Keywords: Right to Privacy; Article 21; State Surveillance; Proportionality; Comparative Constitutional Law; India; United Kingdom; United States; Digital Personal Data Protection Act, 2023; Puttaswamy.