Dilemmas of Internet age: Privacy and other issues

Yash Midha & Vivek Kumar1.

  1. Students of Law, University of Petroleum & Energy Studies []
  2. United States Declaration of Independence, available at http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/declaration_transcript.html []
  3. Naz Foundation v Government of NCT of Delhi& Ors., 160 (2009) D.L.T.  277 []
  4. Lawrence Liang, Is the Naz Foundation decision the Roe v. Wade of India? (Kafila Blog, July 6, 2009), http://kafila.org/2009/07/06/is-the-naz-foundation-decision-the-roe-v-wade-of-india/ (last visited Dec. 25, 2015); see also Leonard Link, Indian Court Rules on Colonial-Era Sodomy Law (Leonard Link’s Blog, July 2, 2015), http://newyorklawschool.typepad.com/leonardlink/2009/07/indian-court-rules-on-colonialera-sodomy-law.html (last visited Dec. 25, 2009). []
  5. Information Technology (Amendment) Act, 2008, No. 10 of 2009 []
  6. Section 69, Information Technology (Amendment) Act, 2008, No. 10 of 2009 []
  7. Section 69A, Information Technology (Amendment) Act, 2008, No. 10 of 2009. Even though this section does affect the civil liberties of an individual, it is outside the scope of the present article, as the right being analyzed in this article is the right to privacy and not the right to speech and expression []
  8. Indian Telegraph Act, 1885, No. 13 of 1885 (hereinafter ‘telegraph Act’). []
  9. Section 69, Information Technology (Amendment) Act, 2008, No. 10 of 2009 []
  10. Information Technology (Reasonable security practices and procedures and Sensitive personal data or information) Rules, 2011 []
  11. Section 72, Information Technology (Amendment) Act, 2008, No. 10 of 2009 []
  12. People’s Union for Civil Liberties v. Union of India, (1997) 1 S.C.C. 301 (India) (concerned the legality of telephone tapping). []
  13. Information Technology (Procedure and Safeguards for Monitoring and Collecting Traffic Data or Information) Rules, 2009 (G. S. R. 782(E []
  14. Rule 419-A(1), Indian Telegraph Rules, 1951 []
  15. Rule 419-A(3), Indian Telegraph Rules, 1951 []
  16. Rule 419-A(8), Indian Telegraph Rules, 1951 []
  17. T. R. Andhyarujina, The Evolution of the Due Process of Law by the Supreme Court, in Supreme but not Infallible: Essay in honor of the Supreme Court of India 203 (B. N. Kirpal et al. eds., 2004). []
  18. Neera Agarwal v. Mahender Kumar Agarwal, 2009 (5) A.L.T. 518 (India). []
  19. Supra note 12 []
  20. State of Maharashtra v. Bharat Shanti Lal Shah, (2008) 13 S.C.C. 5 []
  21. Information Technology (Amendment) Act, 2008, No. 10 of 2009 (contains 49 numbered paragraphs which contain insertions, substitutions and deletions to several sections of the Information Technology Act, 2000). []
  22. Id []
  23. Supra note 12 []
  24. Section 66E (1), Information Technology Act, 2000, No. 21 of 2000 []
  25. Section 69B, Information Technology Act, 2000, No. 21 of 2000 []
  26. Rule 3(4), Information Technology (Procedure and Safeguards for Monitoring and Collecting Traffic Data or Information) Rules, 2009 []
  27. Rule 3(2), Information Technology (Procedure and Safeguards for Monitoring and Collecting Traffic Data or Information) Rules, 2009 []
  28. R. Sukanya v. R. Sridhar, A.I.R. 2008 Mad. 244 []
  29. Indu Jain v. Forbes Incorporated, IA 12993/2006 in CS(OS) 2172/2006 (High Court of Delhi, 12th October 2007 []
  30. Mr. K. J. Doraisamy v. The Assistant General Manager, State Bank of India, (2006) 4 M.L.J. 1877 []
  31. Mr. ‘X’ v. Hospital ‘Z’, (1998) 8 S.C.C. 296 (India) & (2003) 1 S.C.C. 500 []
  32. Akila Khosla v. Thomas Mathew, 2002 (62) D.R.J. 851 (India). []
  33. Mr. K. J. Doraisamy v. The Assistant General Manager, State Bank of India, (2006) 4 M.L.J. 1877 (India). []
  34. Rayala M. Bhuvaneshari v. Nagaphanender Rayala, A.I.R. 2008 A.P. 98 (India []
  35. Supra Note 34. The court held that, “if borrowers could find newer and newer methods to avoid repayment of the loans, the banks are also entitled to invent novel methods to recover their dues.” []
  36. Union of India v. Central Information Commission, WP(C) 16907/2006, 3607 & 7304/2007, 4788 & 6085/2008 & 7930, 8396 & 9914/2009 (High Court of Delhi, 5th January 2010) (India) (Per Sanjiv Khanna, J.). The case concerned a challenge to the refusal of the Central Information Commission to divulge information under the Right to Information Act, 2005 []
  37. Romesh Sharma v. State of Jammu & Kashmir, 2007 (1) J.K.J. 84 []
  38. R. M. Malkani v. State of Maharashtra, A.I.R. 1973 S.C. 157 (India). The court deciding on the admissibility of evidence under section 7 of the Evidence Act, 1972 held that, “…there is warrant for the proposition that even if evidence is illegally obtained it is admissible []
  39. State (N.C.T. of Delhi) v. Navjot Sandhu, A.I.R. 2005 S.C. 3820 []
  40. It is to be noted that even though the Information Technology Act, 2000 does not contain a section analogous to section 45 of the Prevention of Terrorism Act, 2002 which contained language to make evidence admissible even in cases of procedural impropriety for which the decision was given, the general approach of law enforcement is to flout procedural safeguards []
  41. Supra note 12 []
  42. Amar Singh v. Union of India, 2006 (2) S.C.A.L.E []
  43. Sunkara Satyanarayana v. State of Andhra Pradesh, 2000 (1) A.L.D. (Cri.) 117 []
  44. Is your email privacy safe with Google’s Gmail and Yahoo! Mail?, July 30, 2006, http://www.scooq.com/general/is-your-email-privacy-safe-with-googles-gmail-and-yahoo-mail/34/ (last visited January 5, 2016 []
  45. BBC News, Google’s Gmail Sparks Privacy Row, Apr. 5, 2004, http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/3602745.stm (last visited January 5. 2016 []
  46. BBC News, Rory Cellan-Jones, Web Creator Rejects Net Tracking, Mar. 17, 2008, http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/7299875.stm (last visited January 5, 2016). []
  47. Omer Tene, What Google Knows: Privacy and Internet Search Engines, 2008, Utah Law Review. 1433 []
  48. Cyber Cafe in Gandhinagar, India, http://www.worldembassyinformation.com/india-cyber-cafe/cyber-cafe-ingandhinagar.html. (last visited January 5, 2016). []
  49. John Battelle, The Database of Intentions (Nov. 13, 2003), http://battellemedia.com/archives/000063.php (last visited Jan. 4, 2016). []
  50. Section 6, Data Protection Act, 1998, No. 21 of 2000 []
  51. Merges R and Nelson R (1999), On the Complex Economics of Patent Scope, 90(1) Columbia Law Review, 838- 961 at 855 []
  52. Naz Foundation v. Government of NCT of New Delhi & others, Writ Petition no. 7455/2001 []
  53. Section 503, Indian Penal Code, 1860, No. 45 of 1860 []
  54. Section 499, Indian Penal Code, 1860, No. 45 of 1860 []
  55. Section 420, Indian Penal Code, 1860, No. 45 of 1860 []
  56. Section 468, Indian Penal Code, 1860, No. 45 of 1860 []
  57. Section 383, Indian Penal Code, 1860, No. 45 of 1860 []
  58. Section 500, Indian Penal Code, 1860, No. 45 of 1860 []
  59. Section 507, Indian Penal Code, 1860, No. 45 of 1860 []
  60. Section 378, Indian Penal Code, 1860, No. 45 of 1860 []
  61. Section 292 A, Indian Penal Code, 1860, No. 45 of 1860 []
  62. Section 294, Indian Penal Code, 1860, No. 45 of 1860 []
  63. Section 51, Indian Copyrights Act, 1957 []
  64. Section 63, Indian Copyrights Act, 1957 []
  65. Section 63A, Indian Copyrights Act, 1957 []
  66. Section 63B, Indian Copyrights Act, 1957 []
  67. Donoghue v Stevenson (1932), AC 532 []
  68. Section 43, Information Technology Act, 2000, No. 21 of 2000 []
  69. Section 43A, Information Technology Act, 2000, No. 21 of 2000 []
  70. Section 66B, Information Technology Act, 2000, No. 21 of 2000 []
  71. Section 66E, Information Technology Act, 2000, No. 21 of 2000 []
  72. Section 66, Information Technology Act, 2000, No. 21 of 2000 []
  73. Section 66F, Information Technology Act, 2000, No. 21 of 2000 []
  74. Section 67A, Information Technology Act, 2000, No. 21 of 2000 []
  75. Section 71, Information Technology Act, 2000, No. 21 of 2000 []
  76. Section 73, Information Technology Act, 2000, No. 21 of 2000 []
  77. Section 72, Information Technology Act, 2000, No. 21 of 2000 []
  78. Section 85, Information Technology Act, 2000, No. 21 of 2000 []
  79. Section 75, Information Technology Act, 2000, No. 21 of 2000 []

Share this post:

Recent Posts