Surveillance and Privacy: A Ramification of Article 21.

 

Rupinder Kaur

Research Scholar, Department of Law, Punjabi University, Patiala.

 

ABSTRACT:

Privacy is an issue of profound importance around the world. In nearly every nation, various statutes, constitutional rights and judicial decisions seek to protect privacy. In the constitutional law of countries around the globe, privacy is enshrined as a fundamental right. India is a signatory to the Universal Declaration on Human Rights 1948 (Article 12) and the International Convention on Civil and Political Rights (Article 17) which recognize privacy as a fundamental right. Though a member and signatory of these conventions, India does not have laws which guarantee a right to privacy to its citizens.

 

There is no express mention of ‘privacy’ in the provisions of the Constitution of India. In M.P Sharma, the question of law was related to right to property. The court has not rejected privacy but it rejected in the context of search and seizure of documents. Kharak Singh is related to surveillance powers of the police under UP Police Regulations under Article 19(1) (d) and Article 21.Article 21 is a constitutional right against state and not between individuals. The differences lie in the standard for justifying an infringement. The court insisted upon the far higher standard of compelling State interest. The state has the power to intrude to maintain a free and democratic society. It is submitted that the Supreme Court ought not to allow state or central government’s actions on assertion a national security interest and compelling state interest. The privacy is now recognised as part of Article 21 of the Constitution the case of Justice Puttaswamy (Retd.) and Ors. v. Union of India. If there is infringement while there is surveillance, the individual may seek constitutional remedies for violation of its right.

 

 

 

INTRODUCTION:

Privacy is an issue of profound importance around the world. In nearly every nation, various statutes, constitutional rights and judicial decisions seek to protect privacy. ¹ In the constitutional law of countries around the globe, privacy is enshrined as a fundamental right. India is a signatory to the Universal Declaration on Human Rights 1948 (Article 12) ² and the International Convention on Civil and Political Rights (Article 17) ³, which recognize privacy as a fundamental right. Though a member and signatory of these conventions, India does not have laws which guarantee a right to privacy to its citizens.

In order to fill this lacuna in the law, the Courts in India have tried to enforce a right to privacy in favour of its citizens through a recognition of a constitutional right to privacy which has been read as part of the rights to life and personal liberty as well as the freedom of expression and movement guaranteed under the Constitution and a common law right to privacy is available under tort law and has been borrowed primarily from American jurisprudence. Although the U.S. Constitution does not explicitly mention the word “privacy,” it safeguards the sanctity of the home and the confidentiality of communications from government intrusion. The Supreme Court has concluded that the Fourth Amendment protects against government searches whenever a person has a “reasonable expectation of privacy” ⁴.

 

Definition of Surveillance

The Cambridge Dictionary defined surveillance as “The careful watching of a person or place especially by the police or army, because of a crime that had happened or is expected.” ⁵The word surveillance comes from a French phrase for “watching over” (sur means “from above” and veiller means “to watch”) and is in contrast to more recent development. ⁶ Surveillance is the monitoring of behavior activities, or other changing information for the purpose of influencing, managing, directing or protecting people. It includes an observation from a distance by electronic equipments such as closed circuit television or interception of electronically transmitted information such as Internet traffic or Phone calls. Human intelligence agents and postal interception comes under the ambit of low technology methods. ⁷

Surveillance is used by governments for intelligence gathering, prevention of crime, the protection of a person, group or object and for the investigation of crime. It is also used by criminal organizations to plan and commit crimes, such as robbery and kidnapping and by businesses to gather intelligence for corporate governance and policy.

 

Types of Surveillance

Physical Surveillance Technology: This technology is used by the public as well as private agencies. It includes global positioning system (GPS), Bullet resistant video cameras. As per American Bar Association’s standards for Technology Assisted Physical surveillance, there are cameras for video surveillance, tracking devices, telescopic devices, illumination devices and detective devices. ⁸

 

Electronic Devices: The most prevalent types of electronic devices are wire tapping, bugging and videotaping. ⁹ Wiretapping physically intercepts telephone calls and messages. One must actually tap to accomplish this of surveillance. Bugging is done without the aid of wire by placing microphone or other listening device in one location to transmit conversation to nearby receiver. Video surveillance is done through hidden cameras, record visual images and through closed circuit television. ¹⁰

 

Data Surveillance:  The census is the basic mode of government for gathering information. It provides information to policy makers. With passage of time, government collects and maintains number of records such as name, place, voting record, telephone number, police records, property details and address. Earlier, the government used to collect personal information of social and economic importance. During 1990, with emergence of private sector various services started collecting data. Sophisticated strategists in the industries like credit card, direct marketing, insurance and publishing, enhanced profit by tailoring the consumer’s personal data. ¹¹ Law enforcement agencies can seek personal information about individuals from various companies, financial institutions, social networking sites and any private body or individual to investigate fraud, white-collar crime, drug trafficking, computer crime, child pornography, and any other type of criminal activity. ¹²

 

The Indian government has increased the collection of personal data from various sources. To protect law and order, sovereignty, security and integrity of India balance between privacy and state interest has been disturbed.

 

Surveillance in India

In India, surveillance by police (the law enforcement authority) is used for keeping peace and law in order. The two landmark decisions on the right to privacy were pronounced by the Supreme Court. In Kharak Singh v. Union of India¹³, one upheld the surveillance activities of the police and in Govind v. State of M.P ¹⁴struck them down mainly on a technical ground that they were being carried on without the proper authorizations. In the modern age, however, most surveillance activities are carried on through tapping or interception of telecommunication messages.

 

In 2009, the Central Monitoring System (CMS) ¹⁵started off as a project run by the Centre for Communication Security Research and Monitoring, along with the Telecom Testing and Security Certification project. The Central Monitoring System (CMS) was approved by the Cabinet Committee on Security on 16th June 2011 and the pilot project was completed by 30th September 2011. ¹⁶ Ever since, the CMS has been operated by India's Telecom Enforcement Resource and Monitoring cells, and has been implemented by the Centre for Development of Telemetric ,which is an Indian Government owned tele-communications technology development centre. The CMS has been implemented in three phases, each one taking about 13-14 months. Until June 2013, government funding of the CMS has reached at least Rs. 450 crore (around $72 million).

 

Legislative Landscape in India

The important legislations, in the context of surveillance today, are the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885 and the Information Technology Act, 2000. There are other relevant central statutes for surveillance.

 

The Indian Telegraph Act, 1885: The provision of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885, (“Telegraph Act”) which is relevant for the purpose of surveillance. Section 5 empowers the Central Government and State Governments of India to order the interception of messages in two circumstances: (1) In the occurrence of any “public emergency” or in the interest of “public safety” (2) If it is considered necessary or expedient to do so.

 

In addition to the following instances: 

(i)          The interests of the sovereignty and integrity of India

(ii)        The security of the State

(iii)      Friendly relations with foreign states

(iv)       Public order

(v)        For preventing incitement to the commission of an offense

 

In 2007, Rule 419A¹⁷ was added to the Indian Telegraph Rules, 1951 framed under the Indian Telegraph Act which provided that orders on the interception of communications should only be issued by the Secretary in the Ministry of Home Affairs. However, it provided that in unavoidable circumstances an order could also be issued by an officer, not below the rank of a Joint Secretary to the Government of India, who has been authorized by the Union Home Secretary or the State Home Secretary.

 

The Indian Post Office Act, 1898: Section 26 of the Indian Post Office Act, 1898¹⁸, empowers the Central Government and the State Governments of India to intercept postal articles. It states that on the occurrence of any public emergency or in the interest of public safety or tranquility, the Central Government, State Government or any officer specially authorized by the Central or State Government may direct the interception, detention or disposal of any postal article, class or description of postal articles in the course of transmission by post. Furthermore, section 26 states that if any doubt arises regarding the existence of public emergency, public safety or tranquility then a certificate to that effect by the Central Government or a State Government would be considered as conclusive proof of such condition being satisfied.

 

The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: Section 91 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 regulates targeted surveillance. Section 91 states that a Court in India or any officer in charge of a police station may summon a person to produce any document or any other thing that is necessary for the purposes of any investigation, inquiry, trial or other proceeding under the Code of Criminal Procedure. Under section 91, law enforcement agencies in India can access stored data. The Code also allows District Magistrates and Courts to issue directions requiring document, parcel or “things” within the custody of any postal or telegraph authority to be produced before it if needed for the purpose of any investigation, inquiry, trial or other proceeding under the Code. ¹⁹

 

The Information Technology Act, 2000: The Information Technology Act, 2000 (“IT Act”) widely regulates the interception, monitoring, decryption and collection of information of digital communications in India. Section 69²⁰ of the IT Act empowers the Central Government and the State Governments to issue directions for the monitoring, interception or decryption of any information transmitted, received or stored through a computer resource.

 

The Information Technology (Procedure and Safeguards for Interception, Monitoring and Decryption of Information) Rules, 2009:The Information Technology (Procedure and Safeguards for Interception, Monitoring and Decryption of Information) Rules, 2009 (“IT Interception Rules”) framed under Section 69 and 69B stipulate as to who may issue directions of interception and monitoring, how such directions are to be executed, the duration they remain in operation, to whom data may be disclosed, confidentiality obligations of intermediaries, periodic oversight of interception directions by a Review Committee under the Telegraph Act, the retention of records of interception by intermediaries and to the mandatory destruction of information in appropriate cases.

 

According to the IT Interception Rules, the secretary of the Ministry of Home Affairs has been designated as the "competent authority" to issue directions permitting the interception, monitoring, and decryption of communications. At the State and Union Territory level, the State Secretaries respectively in charge of the Home Departments are designated as "competent authorities" to issue interception directions. ²¹ The Central Motor Vehicle Act 1989 and 2012 Rules: Rule 138A of the Central Motor Vehicle Rules, 1989, concerning radio frequency identification tags was proposed. This proposed Rule mandates the installation of radio frequency identification (“RFID”) tags on all light and heavy motor vehicles to enable their instant identification and monitoring by electronic collection toll booths, the police and any other authority or person that is able to query and read RFID. ²²

 

The Information Technology (Reasonable Security Practices and Procedures and Sensitive Personal Data or Information) Rules, 2011: Rule 3 of these Rules designates the following types of information as ‘sensitive personal information’

Ø   Password

Ø   Financial information such as Bank account / credit card / debit card / other payment

Ø   Instrument details of the users; physiological and mental health condition

Ø   Sexual orientation

Ø   Medical records and history

Ø   Biometric information

 

Judicial Trends in India

In M.P Sharma v. Satish Chandra²³, the challenge was whether search violated the fundamental rights of the petitioners under Article 19(1)(f) and Article 20(3) of the Constitution. The court relied upon the US Supreme court judgment ²⁴holding that obtaining incriminating evidence by an illegal search and seizure violates the Fourth and Fifth Amendments of the American Constitution. It was held that guarantee against self-incrimination is not affected by a search and seizure. The provisions for search and seizure were contained in successive enactments of the Criminal Procedure Code.The Hon’ble Supreme Court upheld search and seizure in the following terms: “A power of search and seizure is in any system of jurisprudence an overriding power of the state for the protection of social security and that power is necessarily regulated by law. When the constitution makers have thought fit not to subject such regulation to constitutional limitations by recognition of a fundamental right to privacy, analogous to the America fourth amendment, we have no justification to import it, into a totally different fundamental right by some process of strained construction.” 

 

In Kharak Singh v. State of U.P²⁵, the constitutional validity of Ch.XX of the U.P. Police regulation and the powers conferred upon the police officials there under was questioned, it  violate the citizens fundamental rights under Article 19(c) (d) and Article 21 of the constitution. The court observed: “As already pointed out, the right of privacy is not a guaranteed right under our constitution and therefore the attempt to ascertain the movement of an individual which is merely a manner in which privacy is invaded is not an infringement of a fundamental right guaranteed by Part III.”

 

In Govind v. State of Madhya Pradesh²⁶, the petitioner challenged the validity of regulations 855 and 856 of Madhya Pradesh police regulation made under section 46(2)(c) of the police act, 1861. He complained of certain false cases against him and the facts were as follows: The petitioner’s grievance was that the police were making domiciliary visits both day and night, at frequent intervals, that they were secretly picketing his house to his house; movements were being watched by the head of the village. The petitioner prayed for a declaration that regulation 855 and 856 are void as contravening his fundamental rights under the above article 19(1)(c) and article 21. The court observed that, it cannot be said surveillance by domiciliary visits would always be unreasonable restriction upon the right of privacy. It was held that the procedure under the regulations is reasonable having regard to the provisions of regulations 853(c) and 857. While declaring that surveillance does not tantamount to an unreasonable restriction on the right of privacy, the court has pointed put the following three limitations on the manner of exercise of the function:

(i)                

(ii)             ‘Surveillance’ can be made in respect of such person who are intent upon committing crimes which have the effect of endangering public peace or security in the society.

(iii)            

(iv)            Before embarking upon such surveillance, there must be in existence enough and reasonable material, indication an intention to commit such crimes.

(v)              

(vi)            ‘Surveillance’ cannot be resorted to, as a matter of course, and as a measure of harassment.

 

In Malak Singh v. State of Punjab²⁷ dealt with the provisions of Section 23 of the Punjab Police Rules under which a surveillance register was to be maintained among other persons, of all convicts of a particular description and persons who were reasonably believed to be habitual offenders whether or not they were convicted. The Hon’ble Justice O Chinnappa Reddy views: “Organized crime cannot be successful fought without close watch of suspects. But surveillance may be intrusive and it may so seriously encroach on the privacy of a citizen as to infringe his fundamental right to personal liberty guaranteed by Art. 21 of the constitution and the freedom of movement guaranteed by Art. 19(1) (d). That cannot be permitted”.

 

The Supreme Court of India in PUCL v. Union of India²⁸ dealt with telephone tapping. The petitioner challenged the constitutional validity of Section 5(2) of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885 and urged in the alternative of adopting procedural safeguards to curb arbitrary acts of telephone tapping. The Hon’ble Justice Kuldip Singh held as follows:“We have; therefore, no hesitation in holding that right to privacy is a part of the right to “life” and “personal liberty” enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution. Once the facts in a given case constitute a right to privacy, Article 21 is attracted. The said right cannot be curtained “except according to procedure established by law.”

 

The judgment relied on the protection of privacy under Article 17 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (and a similar guarantee under Article 12 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights) which, in its view, must be an interpretive tool for construing the provisions of the Constitution. The Court ruled that it would be necessary to lay down procedural safeguards for the protection of the right to privacy of a person until Parliament intervened by framing rules under Section 7 of the Telegraph Act. The Court framed guidelines to be adopted in all cases envisaging telephone tapping.

 

In Collector v. Canara Bank²⁹, The Supreme Court examined the development of American Law as well as Indian Law on search and seizure and the associated right to privacy. The challenge was confidential relationship between bank and customer under Section 73 of the Stamp Act. Under the section, collector can access private records. The court observed responding to the contention that one had voluntarily given over one’s bank records to a third party, there was no privacy interest remaining in them. The Court holds:

 

“…the right to privacy deals with ‘persons and not places’, the documents or copies of documents of the customer which are in (sic) Bank, must continue to remain confidential vis-à-vis the person, even if they are no longer at the customer’s house and have been voluntarily sent to a Bank…. Once that is so, then unless there is some probable or reasonable cause or reasonable basis or material before the Collector for reaching an opinion that the documents in the possession of the Bank tend to secure any duty or to prove or to lead tot eh discovery of any fraud or omission in relation to any duty, the search or taking notes or extracts therefore, cannot be valid. The above safeguards must be necessarily be read into the provision relating to search and inspection and seizure so as to save it from any unconstitutionality.”    

 

In P.R Metrani v. CIT³⁰, The apex court held that a search and seizure provision in Section 132(5) of the Income Tax Act was construed strictly as it constituted a “serious invasion into the privacy of a citizen.” The similar question of surveillance is undertaken namely as search and seizure as there is clear indication that anything more than a targeted search is ipso facto unreasonable. The court read down the provisions to save it from unconstitutionality.

 

In Bhavesh Jayanti v. State of Maharashtra, ³¹ the apex court held that ‘surveillance’ per se under the provisions of the Act may not violate individual or private rights including right to privacy. Section 91 and section 93(1) of the Criminal Procedure Code were not considered as voliative of section Article 20(3) of the Constitution of India. However, the court has not considered a fundamental right to privacy as constitutional limitation on the power of search and seizure. The court concluded that the Constitution makers themselves thought not to include fundamental right to privacy as analogous to the Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution.

 

In Directorate of Revenue v. Mohd. Nisar Holia ³² case, the question was the interpretation of the search and seizure provisions of Sections 42 and 43 of the NDPS Act. The court held while keeping Canara Bank³³ and Govind³⁴ in view that right to privacy was crucial and imposed a strict requirement of written recording of reasons (nature of search) before an NDPS search and seizure could be carried out.

 

The decision in the State of Maharashtra v. Bharat Shanti Lal³⁵ dealt with the constitutional validity of sections 13 to 16 of the Maharashtra control of organized crime act (MCOCA) which inter alia contains provisions for intercepting telephone and wireless communication upholding the provision, the court observed that  “the object of  MCOCA is to prevent the organised crime and a perusal of the provisions of the act under challenge would indicate that the said law authorises the intercepting of wire, electronic or oral communication only if it is intended to prevent the commission of an organised crime or if it is intended to collect evidence to the commission of such an organised crime. The procedures authorizing such intercepting are also provided therein with enough procedural safeguards, some of which are indicated and discussed hereinbefore.”

 

The safeguards that the court adverts to in the above extract include section 14, which requires details of the organized crime that is being committed or is about to be committed, before surveillance could be authorized. The requirement also mandate describing the nature and location of the facilities from which the communication is to be intercepting, nature of the communication and the identity of the person, if it is known.

 

In Selvi v. State of Karanataka³⁶, The Court dealt with challenge to the validity of three investigative techniques: narco-analysis, polygraph test (lie -detector test) and Brain Electrical Activation Profile (BEAP) on the ground these implicate the fundamental rights under Articles 20(3) and 21 of the Constitution. The court held that the results obtained through an involuntary administration of these tests are within the scope of testimonial, attracting the protective shield of Article 20(3) of the Constitution. The decision relied on previous privacy judgment based on the protection of the body and physical actions induced by the state. The court emphasized that while the right against self-incrimination is component of personal liberty under Article 21, privacy under the constitution has the meeting point with Article 20(3) of the Constitution.

 

In Justice K.S. Puttaswamy (Retd.) v. Union of India, ³⁷ Privacy is an intrinsic element of right to life and personal liberty under Article 21 and as constitutional values³⁸ embodied in Part III of the Constitution. The limitations operate on the right to life and personal liberty would operate on right to privacy, as it is not an absolute. Any curtailment or deprivation of that right would have to take place under a regime of law. The law which provides for the curtailment of the right must also be subject to constitutional safeguards.

 

Position in USA

The practice of mass surveillance in the United States³⁹ dates back to WWI wartime monitoring and censorship of international communications or which passed through the United States. After the First World War and the Second World War, the surveillance continued through various programs such as the Black Chamber and Project SHAMROCK. The formation and growth of federal law-enforcement and intelligence agencies such as FBI, CIA and NSA institutionalized surveillance used to also silence political dissent. During the Civil Rights Movement era, many individuals put under surveillance orders were first labeled as integrationists then deemed subversive. Other targeted individuals and groups included Native American activists, African American and Chicano liberation⁴⁰ movement activists, and anti-war protesters. ⁴¹ According to James Clapper⁴², “In the future, intelligence services might use the internet of recruitment, to gain access to networks for user credentials.”

 

The United States v. Carpenter ⁴³ is the latest rulings by the Supreme Court of United Sates defining the Fourth Amendment right to privacy in a world of ever-evolving technology. The case began with the investigation of a series of armed robberies in southeastern Michigan and northwestern Ohio. The police suspected Timothy Carpenter and ordered his cell phone service provider to turn over all data revealing Mr. Carpenter’s movements. There was no warrant; the service provider complied with the request, giving the police data showing the suspect’s movements over the course of 127 days showing geographical location. The question arose whether police can collect cell phone location data without a warrant?  The Court held that the government violates the Fourth Amendment by accessing records containing the physical locations of cell phones without a search warrant.

 

 

In United States v. Jones⁴⁴, the defendant in the case had been the target of a drug trafficking investigation conducted jointly by the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) and the District of Columbia Metropolitan Police Department. In an effort to track Jones’s whereabouts and establish a pattern of trafficking, officers applied to the United States District the warrant request sought permission to place a tracking device on a vehicle owned by Jones’s wife, so that the vehicle’s location could be tracked via Global Positioning (Satellite) Systems (GPS). the sole question the Court considered was whether the  attachment of the GPS device to a vehicle, and its subsequent monitoring of the vehicle’s movements using that device, constituted a search within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment. The Court unanimously answered that precise question in the affirmative. “In the pre-computer age, the greatest protections of privacy were neither constitutional nor statutory, but practical. Traditional surveillance for any extended period of time was difficult and costly and therefore rarely undertaken. The surveillance at issue in this case--constant monitoring of the location of a vehicle for four weeks--would have required a large team of agents, multiple vehicles, and perhaps aerial assistance. Only an investigation of unusual importance could have justified such an expenditure of law enforcement resources. Devices like the one used in the present case, however, make long-term monitoring relatively easy and cheap. In circumstances involving dramatic technological change, the best solution to privacy concerns may be legislative. A legislative body is well situated to gauge changing public attitudes, t to draw detailed lines, and to balance privacy and public safety in a comprehensive way.

 

The Government obtained a search warrant permitting it to install a Global-Positioning-System (GPS) tracking device on a vehicle registered to respondent Jones's wife. The warrant authorized installation and then tracked the vehicle's movements for 28 days. It subsequently secured an indictment of Jones on drug trafficking conspiracy charges. The District Court suppressed the GPS data obtained while the vehicle was parked at Jones's residence, but held the remaining data admissible because Jones had no reasonable expectation of privacy when the vehicle was on public streets. Jones was convicted. The D. C. Circuit reversed the concluding that admission of the evidence obtained by warrantless use of the GPS device violated the Fourth Amendment. It was held that Government’s attachment of the GPS device to the vehicle, and its use of that device to monitor the vehicle's movements, constitutes a search under the Fourth Amendment.

 

 

 

CONCLUSION:

There is no express mention of ‘privacy’ in the provisions of the Constitution of India. In M.P Sharma, ⁴⁵ the question of law was related to right to property. The court has not rejected privacy but it rejected in the context of search and seizure of documents. Kharak Singh⁴⁶ is related to surveillance powers of the police under UP Police Regulations under Article 19(1) (d) and Article 21.Article 21 is a constitutional right against state and not between individuals. The differences lie in the standard for justifying an infringement. The court insisted upon the far higher standard of compelling State interest. The state has the power to intrude to maintain a free and democratic society. It is submitted that the Supreme Court ought not to allow state or central government’s actions on assertion a national security interest and compelling state interest. The Apex court is hesitant in its role as the guarantor of civil liberties.

Privacy jurisprudence continues to explode globally. The Hon’ble President Mr. Barack Obama⁴⁷ rejected the contention of bulk surveillance is necessary to compromise to make liberty/security balance while appearing before Review Panel set up for NSA spying program. The Canadian Supreme Court in R V. Spencer⁴⁸ prohibited the warrantless disclosure of basic subscriber information by internet companies to law enforcement agencies. In India, the Supreme Court as an interpreter of the Constitution has responsibility to converge the balance between individual and state interest. The legislative intent of the Parliament should be within the ambit of prosperous growth of the nation.

 

REFERENCES:

1.       Daniel J Solove, Understanding Privacy ,2( Harvard University Press, London ,2008).

2.       No one shall be subjected to arbitrary interference with his privacy, family, home or correspondence, nor to attacks upon his honour and reputation. Everyone has the right to the protection of the law against such interference or attacks.

3.       No one shall be subjected to arbitrary or unlawful interference with his privacy, family, home or correspondence, nor to unlawful attacks on his honour and reputation.

Everyone has the right to the protection of the law against such interference or attacks.

4.       Daniel J Solove, Understanding Privacy, 2( Harvard University Press, London, 2008).

5.       Available at https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/surveillance accessed on July 12, 2018 at 2:30pm IST.

6.       Available at http://ro.uow.edu.au/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2510&context=infopapers accessed on July 12, 2018 AT 3: 00pm IST.

7.       Leighton Walters & Martin Maximino, The effect of CCTV on Public Safety: Research Round Up at https://journalistsresource.org/studies/government/criminal-justice/surveillance-cameras-and-crimeaccessed on July12, 2018 at 3:15 pm IST.

8.       https://www.americanbar.org/publications/criminal_justice_section_archive/crimjust_standards_taps_blk.html   accessed on July 12, 2018 at 7:47 pm IST.

9.       Available at https://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Electronic+Surveillance accessed on July 12, 2018 at 8:30 pm IST.

10.     Leighton Walters & Martin Maximino, The effect of CCTV on Public Safety: Research Round Up at https://journalistsresource.org/studies/government/criminal-justice/surveillance-cameras-and-crimeaccessed on July12, 2018 at 3:15 pm IST.

11.     James B. Rule, “Towards Strong Privacy: Values, Markets, Mechanisms and Institutions”, University of Toronto Law Journal, 195(2004).

12.     Whalen v. Roe 429 U.S. 589 (1977) at 598-60.

13.     AIR 1963 SC 1295.

14.     AIR 1975 SC 1378.

15.     Available at https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/india-central-monitoring-system-something-to-worry-about accessed on July 14, 2018 at 12:44 IST.

16.     Ibid.

17.     Rule 419A (1), Indian Telegraph Rules, 1951.

18.     Available at https://www.indiapost.gov.in/VAS/DOP_RTI/TheIndianPostOfficeAct1898.pdf at p.15accessed on July 14, 2018 at 5:20 pm IST.

19.     The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, S.92.

20.     Part II, Dated February 5, 2009 Published in The Gazette of India,2000.

21.     Rule 2(d), Information Technology (Procedure and Safeguards for Interception, Monitoring and Decryption of Information) Rules, 2009.

22.     Bhairav Acharya, “Comments on the Proposed Rule 138A of the Central Motor Vehicle Rules, 1989, Concerning Radio Frequency Identification Tags”, The Centre for Internet and Society, 03 December 2012, http://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/comments-on-motor-vehicle-rules accessed on July 14,2018 at 5:42 pm IST.

23.     (1954) SCR 1077.

24.     Boyd v. United States, 116 US 616(1886).

25.     (1964) 1SCR 332.

26.     (1975) 2 SCC 148.

27.     (1981) 1 SCC 420.

28.     AIR 1997 SC 568.

29.     (2005) I SCC 496.

30.     (2007) 1 SCC 789.

31.     (2009) 9 SCC 551.

32.     (2008)2 SCC 370.

33.     (2005) I SCC 496.

34.     (1975) 2 SCC 148.

35.     (2008) 13 SCC 5.

36.     (2010) 7 SCC 263.

37.     AIR 2017 SC 1461.

38.     AIR 2017 SC 4161.

39.     Available at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass_surveillance_in_the_United_States accessed on July 12, 2018 at 5pm IST.

40.     Chicano movement was a civil rights movement extending the Mexican-American civil rights movement of the 1960s with the stated goal of achieving Mexican American empowerment.

41.     Leighton Walters & Martin Maximino, The effect of CCTV on Public Safety: Research Round Up at https://journalistsresource.org/studies/government/criminal-justice/surveillance-cameras-and-crimeaccessed on July12, 2018 at 3:15.

42.     Available:https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2016/feb/09/internet-of-things-smart-home-devices-government-surveillance-james-clapper accessed on July 12, 2018 at 4:15 pm IST.

43.     585 US 16-402 (2018).

44.     565 US 400(2012).

45.     (1954) SCR 1077.

46.     (1964) 1SCR 332.

47.     Klayman v. Obama, 957 F Supp 2d 1 (2013) (Columbia District Court).

48.     2014 SCC 43 (Supreme Court of Canada).

 

 

 

Accepted on 21.08.2018            © A&V Publications All right reserved