Open Access Research Article
Right to Privacy vs. Administrative Discretion: A Critical Examination in the Context of Digital Governance in India
Published Paper
Article Details
“RIGHT TO
PRIVACY VS. ADMINISTRATIVE DISCRETION: A CRITICAL EXAMINATION IN THE CONTEXT OF
DIGITAL GOVERNANCE IN INDIA”
AURHORED BY
- ARUNDHATI CHATTERJEE
ABSTRACT
The
introduction of digital governance in India has resulted in notable modifications
to the manner in which citizens get government services. While digital platforms have enhanced
efficiency and transparency, they have also raised concerns about the
protection of each person's right to privacy. The gathering, preserving, and handling
of personal information
by government agencies pose risks to privacy, especially when administrative
discretion is exercised in decision-making processes.
This research paper aims to
critically examine the tension between “right to privacy” and administrative
discretion of digital
governance in India. It looks at the laws that control people's right to
privacy and analyzes the
scope and limitations of administrative discretion in the digital age. The
paper identifies the challenges and concerns arising from the interaction
between privacy and discretion and proposes recommendations for achieving a
harmonious balance between the two.
This work
employs a dual research methodology. Firstly, Investigations into doctrine is conducted to examine the relevant
laws, regulations, and case law pertaining to privacy rights and administrative
discretion in India. This includes a comparative analysis of international best
practices and standards. Secondly, empirical research is undertaken through
case studies of digital governance initiatives and interviews with experts and
stakeholders. This approach enables a comprehensive understanding of the
practical implications of the research question.
The findings of the research
highlight the need for a robust legal framework that safeguards individual
privacy rights while allowing for the use of administrative power
for the benefit of the public. The paper emphasizes the significance of data protection protocols,
accountability, and openness in digital governance procedures.
The paper concludes by offering
specific recommendations for policymakers, government officials, & more
parties engaged in the planning and execution of digital governance initiatives. These
recommendations aim to strike a balance between the legitimate interests of the
state and the fundamental right to privacy of individuals in the digital age.
KEYWORDS: right to privacy, administrative discretion,
digital governance, data protection, transparency, accountability.
I.
INTRODUCTION
The
"right to privacy" has undergone significant evolution as time passes.[1] It
is an integral part of the fundamental rights the Indian Constitution's
guarantees.[2] According
to the Supreme Court of India, the “right to privacy” is a component of the “Article
21 right to life and personal liberty”.[3] “In
the landmark case of K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India, the apex court held
that privacy is a fundamental right.”[4] An
important turning point in the acknowledgment and defence of individual privacy
rights in India was this ruling.
The
introduction of digital governance has resulted in a paradigm change in the
manner government
services are delivered to citizens. Digital platforms have enabled efficient
and transparent governance, making it easier for citizens to access various
services. However, worries over data security and privacy have also grown as a
result of our growing reliance on digital technologies. Individual privacy rights are
seriously jeopardised by government agencies' acquisition, processing, and
storage of personal data.
II. Research Question
“How can the right to privacy be
balanced with administrative discretion in the context of digital governance in
India?[5]”
This research question aims to
explore the tension between individual privacy rights and The use of
administrative discretion by public servants in the digital age. It seeks to identify the challenges
and concerns arising from the interaction between privacy and discretion and
propose solutions for achieving a harmonious balance.
III.
Research Objectives
The objectives of this research are
as follows:
B. Analyze the scope and limitations of
administrative discretion in digital governance.
C. Identify the challenges in balancing
the right to privacy with administrative discretion.
D. Propose recommendations for
reconciling privacy and administrative discretion.[7]
IV.
Research Methodology
A. Doctrinal research
1. Analysis of relevant laws, regulations, and case law.[8]
2. Examination of international best practices and standards.[9]
B. Empirical research
1. Case studies of digital governance initiatives in India.[10]
2. Interviews with experts and stakeholders.[11]
Firstly, doctrinal research will be
conducted to analyze the legal framework governing privacy rights and
administrative discretion in India.
Secondly, empirical research will be
undertaken to gain insights into the practical implications of the interaction
between privacy and discretion. Case studies of digital governance initiatives
in India will be analyzed to identify the challenges and concerns arising in
real-world scenarios.
V. Legal
Framework for the Right to Privacy in India
A. Constitutional provisions
The right
to privacy is not specifically mentioned in the Indian Constitution. Nonetheless,
it has been construed by the Indian Supreme Court as an essential component of
the fundamental rights protected by Article 21, which upholds the right to life
and individual freedom. The Court has decided that the right to privacy is a
prerequisite to the exercise of other fundamental rights, such as the “freedom
of speech and expression and the right to freedom of association.”[12]
“Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution protects the right to freedom of speech and expression, which includes the right to receive and impart information.[13]”
“Article 19(2), such as the
interests of the sovereignty and integrity of India, the security of the State,
friendly relations with foreign States, public order, decency or morality, or
in relation to contempt of court, defamation or incitement to an offence.[14]”
B. Landmark Supreme Court judgments
The Supreme Court of India has played
a crucial role in recognizing and expanding the right to privacy through its
landmark judgments.
·
In
“Gobind v. State of Madhya Pradesh (1975),” “the Supreme Court
further elaborated on the right to privacy and held that it encompasses the "right
to be let alone" and the right to protect one's personal information
from unauthorized use or disclosure.[15] The
Court also laid down certain guidelines for the protection of privacy, such as
the need for a legal framework governing the collection, use, and disclosure of
personal information.”
·
In
“R. Rajagopal v. State of Tamil Nadu (1994),” “the Supreme
Court recognized the right to privacy as a fundamental right under Article
21 of the Constitution and held that the right to privacy includes the
right to be free from unlawful invasion of one's home and correspondence.[16] The Court also held that the right to privacy
can be restricted only by a procedure established by law, which must be just,
fair and reasonable.”
·
In
“People's Union for Civil Liberties (PUCL) v. Union of India (1997),” “the
Supreme Court held that the right to privacy includes the right to protect
one's telephone conversations from unlawful interception and monitoring.[17] The
Court laid down certain guidelines for the interception of telephone
conversations, such as the requirement for prior consent from the
Central or State Government's Home Secretary.”
The landmark judgment in K.S.
Puttaswamy v. Union of India (2017) was a turning point for India's
right to privacy. “A
nine-judge bench of the Supreme Court unanimously held that the right to
privacy is a fundamental right under Article 21 of the Constitution.” “The
Court also held that the right to privacy is not an absolute right and can be
subject to reasonable restrictions in the interests of the State, public order,
morality, and the rights and freedoms of others.”
C. Relevant legislation and regulations
·
“The Information Technology Act, 2000 (IT Act)” is the main piece of legislation
in India controlling e-transactions and cybercrime.[18] “Section 43A of the IT Act
provides for compensation for failure to protect sensitive personal data or
information,” while “Section 72A provides for punishment for
disclosure of information in breach of lawful contract.”
·
“The Information Technology (Reasonable Security Practices and
Procedures and Sensitive Personal Data or Information) Rules, 2011 (SPDI Rules)” were
created in accordance with the IT Act to safeguard “sensitive personal data
or information.”[19]
·
“The Aadhaar (Targeted Delivery of Financial and Other
Subsidies, Benefits and Services) Act, 2016 (Aadhaar Act)” is yet another important piece of
legislation that affects the right to privacy.[20] “Every
Indian citizen will receive a unique identification number (Aadhaar) based on
their biometric and demographic data according to the Aadhaar Act.”
D. International obligations and
commitments
India has
ratified a number of international agreements and treaties that uphold the
right to privacy, including the “Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) and the International
Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR).”
“Article 12 of the UDHR states that no one shall
be subjected to arbitrary interference with their privacy, family, home or
correspondence, nor to attacks upon their honour and reputation.”
“Article 17 of the ICCPR provides for the right
to privacy and states that no one shall be subjected to arbitrary or unlawful
interference with their privacy, family, home or correspondence, nor to
unlawful attacks on their honour and reputation.”
India has also been engaging with
other countries and regional organizations on “issues related to data
protection and privacy”. In 2018, India and the “European Union (EU)”
agreed to cooperate on “data protection and privacy issues” and to work
towards developing a common framework for “cross-border data flows”.[21]
In
conclusion, even though India lacks a comprehensive data protection statute,
numerous Supreme Court rulings have established the “right to privacy” as a
basic constitutional right. Furthermore, there are laws and regulations that
are sector-specific and address privacy and data protection concerns.
VI. Administrative Discretion in Digital Governance
A. The concept of administrative
discretion
The
ability of administrative authorities to make choices depending upon their
ruling and within the parameters of their legal authority is known as
administrative discretion. It is the flexibility given to public officials to act according to
their own judgment in certain situations, rather than following strict rules or
guidelines. The exercise of administrative discretion is necessary for the
effective functioning of government, as it allows officials to adapt to
changing circumstances and make decisions that are appropriate for specific
cases.
In India, administrative discretion
is recognized as an essential aspect of governance. The
highest court in the land has ruled that administrative discretion must be used
fairly, rationally, and justly and that it is a necessary evil.
B. Scope of administrative discretion in
digital governance
Digital governance refers to the use
of digital technologies to deliver public services, engage with citizens, and
make government processes more efficient and transparent.[22]
In the context of digital governance, administrative discretion takes on new
dimensions and challenges.
One of the main areas where
administrative discretion comes into play in digital governance is in the “collection,
use, and sharing of personal data”. With the increasing digitization of
government services, public authorities have access to vast amounts of personal
data of citizens focusing on government services, spotting fraud,
and enhancing policymaking are just a few uses for this data. But the usage of
personal information also brings up issues with data security and privacy.
“In India, the Aadhaar Act allows for
the use of Aadhaar data for various purposes, such as the delivery of subsidies
and benefits.” The Act gives the government broad powers to use Aadhaar data
for these purposes, subject to certain safeguards and regulations. However, the
exercise of these powers involves a significant degree of administrative
discretion, as officials have to decide what data to collect, how to use it,
and with whom to share it.
Another area where administrative
discretion comes into play in digital governance is in the development and
deployment of e-governance platforms and services. Government officials have to
make decisions about the design, functionality, and accessibility of these
platforms and services, which can have a significant impact on the user
experience and the effectiveness of the service delivery.[23]
C. Limitations on administrative
discretion
While administrative discretion is
necessary for effective governance, it is not unlimited. There are various
legal and constitutional limitations on the exercise of administrative
discretion to ensure that it is not abused or misused.
One of the main limitations on
administrative discretion is the doctrine of reasonableness. This doctrine
requires that administrative decisions must be based on relevant considerations
and must not be arbitrary, capricious, or unreasonable.[24] According
to rulings by the Supreme Court, administrative discretion must be used
reasonably, and decision-making justifications must be documented.
Another limitation on administrative
discretion is the principle of natural justice. This principle requires that
administrative decisions that affect the rights or interests of individuals
must be made in a fair and impartial manner, and that the affected individuals
must be given an opportunity to be heard.[25]
The right to privacy is also a
significant limitation on administrative discretion in the context of digital
governance. According to the Supreme Court, “the right to privacy is guaranteed
by Article 21 of the Constitution as a basic right,” and any restriction on
that right is to be supported by a regulation that is “reasonable, fair, and
justifiable”. This means that administrative choices involving the
gathering, utilising, or disclosing of personal information must be grounded in
a lawful framework and commensurate with the justifiable objectives that are
being sought.
D. Judicial review of administrative
discretion
Judicial review is an essential
safeguard against the abuse or misuse of administrative discretion. It is the
power of the courts to review the legality and reasonableness of administrative
decisions and to strike down those that are found to be unlawful or arbitrary.[26]
“In India, the scope of judicial
review of administrative discretion is quite broad.” The Supreme Court courts have the authority
to review administrative decisions on various grounds, such as illegality,
irrationality, procedural impropriety, and violation of “fundamental rights”.[27] The Court
has also stressed that making sure administrative authorities behave within the
bounds of their legal power is vital and that judicial review is a crucial
component of the system of checks and balances.[28]
Judicial
review can be extremely important in the context of digital governance to
guarantee that administrative discretion is used in a just, reasonable, and
legal way. For example, In the
Aadhaar case, the nation's highest court ruled that the Aadhaar Act provisions
that permitted the use of Aadhaar data for uses other than providing subsidies
and benefits were unconstitutional because they infringed upon the right to
privacy.[29]
However, judicial review also has its
limitations. The executive bodies' judgement cannot be replaced by the courts' own and can only review the legality and
reasonableness of the decision.[30]
Moreover, judicial review can be time-consuming and costly, and may not always
provide an effective remedy for individuals whose rights have been violated.
In conclusion, administrative
discretion is an essential aspect of digital governance, but it must be
exercised within the limits of the law and subject to appropriate safeguards
and limitations. The right to privacy is a significant limitation on
administrative discretion in the context of digital governance, and any
infringement of this right must be justified by a fair, just and reasonable
law.
VII.
Challenges in Balancing the “Right to Privacy and Administrative Discretion”.
A. Data collection and use by government
agencies.
“The collection and use of personal
data by government agencies pose significant challenges to the right to privacy”.
With the increasing digitization of government services, vast amounts of personal
data are being collected and stored by various agencies.[31]
This data includes sensitive information such as biometric data, financial
data, and health data.
B. Surveillance and monitoring of
citizens
The surveillance and monitoring of
citizens by government agencies is another major challenge to the “right to
privacy in the context of digital governance”. With the increasing use of
digital technologies, such as CCTV cameras, drones, and facial recognition
software. government agencies have unprecedented “capabilities to monitor and
track individuals.”[32]
C. Lack of transparency and
accountability
“The lack of transparency and
accountability in the exercise of administrative discretion is another major
challenge to the right to privacy in the context of digital governance”. Often,
individuals are not aware of how their personal data is being collected, used,
or shared by government agencies, and there is little transparency about the
decision-making processes involved.[33]
D. Inadequate data protection safeguards
The inadequacy of data protection
safeguards is another major challenge to the right to privacy in the context of
digital governance. Despite the increasing collection and use of personal data
by government agencies, India currently lacks a comprehensive data protection
law.[34]
The existing legal framework, which includes the “Information Technology
Act and the Aadhaar Act,” provides only limited protections for
personal data and does not adequately address the challenges posed by digital
governance.
VIII. Case
Studies of Digital Governance Initiatives
A. Aadhaar program
Launched
in 2009, the Aadhaar programme is a digital identity system that gives Indian
citizens a unique 12-digit number based on their biometric and demographic
information..[35]
The program aims to streamline the delivery of government services, reduce
fraud, and promote financial inclusion. “However, concerns have been raised
about the potential misuse of Aadhaar data and its impact on privacy rights.”[36]
“The
Supreme Court maintained the legitimacy of the Aadhaar Act in the historic case
of Justice K.S. Puttaswamy (Retd.) v. Union of India, but it invalidated
some clauses that permitted the use of Aadhaar data for uses other than the
provision of subsidies and benefits.”[37] The Court ruled that the Aadhaar
program's collection and use of biometric data must be restricted to the
express reasons outlined in the Act, as any other use or collection would
infringe upon the right to privacy.[38]
B. National Intelligence Grid (NATGRID)
“NATGRID is a centralized database
that aims to collect and analyze information” from various intelligence and law
enforcement agencies to combat terrorism and other national security threats.[39]
The project has been criticized for its potential to enable mass surveillance
and violate privacy rights.[40]
One of the main concerns with NATGRID
is the “lack of oversight and accountability mechanisms” to prevent the misuse
of the system for political or other purposes.[41] Because
the information gathered is sensitive, there are also worries over the
database's security and the possibility of data breaches.[42]
C. Surveillance systems and interception
of communications
The Indian government has been
expanding its surveillance capabilities in recent years, including using facial
recognition technology and the interception of communications.[43]
These measures have been justified on “the grounds of national security”
and crime prevention, but they also raise concerns about the potential for
abuse and the impact on “privacy rights.”[44]
“In 2018, the Supreme Court held”
that any connection interference must be authorized by a specific court order and that there must be
procedural safeguards in place to prevent arbitrary or excessive surveillance.[45]
However, there are concerns that the current legal framework for surveillance
is inadequate and does not provide sufficient protections for individual
privacy rights.[46]
The use of surveillance systems and
the interception of communications highlights the need for clear legal frameworks
and oversight mechanisms to regulate the use of these powers and prevent abuse.
Maintaining individual privacy rights while protecting genuine security
objectives must be balanced.
D. Smart city projects
India has launched several smart city
projects in recent years, which aim to use digital technologies to improve
urban infrastructure and service delivery.[47]
These projects involve the collection and analysis of large amounts of data
from various sources, including sensors, cameras, and social media.[48]
While smart city projects have the
capacity to raise living standards for urban residents, they also raise concerns about the “collection
and use of personal data.”[49]
There are concerns about the lack of transparency and accountability in the
decision-making processes involved in these projects and the potential for
misuse of the data collected.[50]
The case studies of digital
governance initiatives in India highlight the challenges of “balancing the
benefits of these initiatives with the need to protect individual privacy
rights.”
It is also important to engage with
stakeholders and the public to build trust in digital governance initiatives
and ensure that they are developed in an inclusive and transparent manner. This
includes giving detailed information about the procedures involved in the “data
collection and use” in
these initiatives and establishing mechanisms for individuals to exercise their
rights and seek redress for any violations.
“In the
end, finding the ideal equilibrium between the advantages of digital governance
and the defence of personal privacy rights requires a multi-stakeholder approach that involves the
government, civil society, and the private sector.” By working together to
develop and implement robust data protection safeguards and oversight
mechanisms, we can ensure that digital governance initiatives serve the
interests of all citizens while respecting their fundamental rights and
freedoms.
IX.
Recommendations for Reconciling Privacy and Administrative Discretion
A. Strengthening the legal framework for
data protection
One of the key recommendations for
reconciling privacy and administrative discretion is to strengthen the legal
framework for “data protection in India”. This includes enacting a
comprehensive “data protection law” that provides strong safeguards for
personal data and establishes an independent data protection authority to
oversee the implementation of these safeguards.[51]
“The proposed data protection law
should be based on the principles of data minimization, purpose limitation, and
data subject rights.”[52]
It should require government agencies to collect only the minimum amount of
personal data necessary for the specific purpose for which it is being
collected and to use that data only for that purpose.[53]
In addition to enacting a
comprehensive data protection law, it is also important to amend existing laws
and regulations must confirm that they adhere to the data
protection principles.[54] “This
includes amending the Aadhaar Act to provide stronger safeguards for the
collection and use of biometric data and amending the Information Technology
Act to provide stronger penalties for data breaches and other violations of
data protection rules.”
B. Establishing independent oversight
mechanisms
Another key recommendation is to
establish independent oversight mechanisms to monitor the collection and use of
personal data by government agencies and to investigate any complaints or
violations of data protection rules.[55]
This could include establishing a data protection authority with the power to
conduct audits, investigate complaints, and impose penalties for violations.
The data protection authority should
be independent of the government and should have the necessary resources and
expertise to carry out its functions effectively.[56]
It should also have the “power to issue binding orders and to refer cases to
the courts for enforcement.”
In addition to a data protection
authority, it is also important to establish other oversight mechanisms, such
as parliamentary committees and civil society watchdogs, to monitor the
implementation of data protection rules and to hold government agencies
accountable for any violations.[57]
C. Promoting transparency and
accountability in digital governance
To build public trust in digital
governance initiatives, it is important to promote transparency and
accountability in the decision-making processes involved.[58] This
entails setting up procedures for people to request information about how their
personal data is being used and disseminating information in an understandable
and accessible manner regarding the data collection and use policies of
government organisations.
Government agencies should also be
required to conduct privacy impact assessments before implementing any new
digital governance initiatives and to publish the results of these assessments.[59]
This will help to identify any potential privacy risks and to develop
appropriate safeguards to mitigate those risks.
Furthermore, it should be
mandatory for government organisations to keep correct and current records of
their data collection and use procedures and to submit periodic reports on
their adherence to data privacy regulations.[60]
D. Adopting privacy-by-design principles
in governance initiatives
To ensure that privacy considerations
are integrated into the design and implementation of digital governance
initiatives, it is important to adopt privacy-by-design principles.[61] “This
means that privacy should be considered at every stage of the development
process, from the initial planning stages to the final implementation and
ongoing maintenance.”
Privacy-by-design principles include
data minimization, purpose limitation, and security safeguards.[62]
Government agencies should collect only the least amount of personal
information required for the particular purpose for which it is being gathered,
and that information should only be used for that purpose. They should also implement
appropriate security safeguards, to prevent unwanted access to or
exposure of personal data, such as access restrictions and encryption.
In addition, government agencies
should be required to Perform routine risk assessments and privacy audits
to find any possible privacy hazards and to develop appropriate mitigation strategies.[63]
E. Engaging stakeholders and building
public trust
Finally, it is important to engage
with stakeholders and the public to build trust in digital governance
initiatives and to ensure that they are developed in an inclusive and
transparent manner.[64]
This includes conducting public consultations and workshops to gather input and
feedback from citizens, civil society organizations, and other stakeholders.
Government agencies should also
establish clear and accessible complaint and redress mechanisms for “individuals
who believe that their privacy rights have been violated.”[65]
These mechanisms should be independent, transparent, and effective in providing
remedies for any violations.
In addition, government agencies
should work with “civil society organizations and other stakeholders to develop
and implement public awareness and education campaigns” about data protection
rights and digital governance initiatives.[66]
X. Conclusion
The
digital age has radically changed how authorities communicate with people and
provide services to the public. In India, the push towards digital governance has been accompanied by
concerns about the protection of individual privacy rights and the need to
balance these rights with the exercise of administrative discretion by
government agencies.
“This research paper has examined the
legal framework for the right to privacy in India, including the constitutional
provisions, landmark Supreme Court judgments, and relevant legislation and
regulations. It has also analyzed the scope and limitations of administrative
discretion in the context of digital governance, and the challenges that arise
in balancing privacy and discretion.”
Through case studies of specific
digital governance initiatives, such as the Aadhaar program and the “National
Intelligence Grid, the paper has highlighted the potential risks to privacy
posed by the collection and use of personal data by government agencies.”
It has also identified key issues such as the “lack of transparency and
accountability in decision-making processes and the inadequacy of existing data
protection safeguards.”
Based on these findings, the paper
has proposed a set of recommendations for reconciling privacy and
administrative discretion in the context of digital governance. These include
strengthening the legal framework for data protection, establishing independent
oversight mechanisms, promoting transparency and accountability, adopting
privacy-by-design principles, and engaging with stakeholders and the public to
build trust.
Specific suggestions for implementing
these recommendations include amending existing laws and regulations to provide
stronger safeguards for personal data, creating a comprehensive data protection
law, building capacity and providing training for government officials, and
conducting public awareness and education campaigns.
Ultimately, the goal of these
recommendations and suggestions is to develop a robust and inclusive digital
governance framework that upholds the “fundamental right to privacy” while also
leveraging the benefits of digital technologies for public service delivery and
socio-economic development.
The challenges posed by “the digital
age are complex and multifaceted,” but they are not insurmountable. By working
together to develop and implement effective legal, institutional, and technical
safeguards for privacy, we can create a digital governance framework that
empowers citizens, promotes transparency and accountability, and drives
innovation and progress for all.
As India continues its journey
towards a digital future, it is essential that the right to privacy remains a
central consideration in the design and implementation of digital governance
initiatives. By striking the right balance between privacy and administrative
discretion, we can ensure that the benefits of digital technologies are
realized while also “protecting the fundamental rights and freedoms of all
citizens.”
“In conclusion, reconciling privacy
and administrative discretion in the context of digital governance is a
critical challenge that requires a multi-faceted approach.” This research paper
has sought to contribute to the ongoing dialogue on this issue by examining the
legal framework, identifying key challenges, and proposing recommendations and
suggestions for the way forward.
[19] The Information Technology
(Reasonable Security Practices and Procedures and Sensitive Personal Data or
Information) Rules, 2011.
[20] The Aadhaar (Targeted Delivery of
Financial and Other Subsidies, Benefits and Services) Act, 2016.
[21] Joint Statement on Cooperation in
Information and Communication Technologies between the European Union and the
Republic of India (2018).
[22] Digital India Programme, Ministry
of Electronics and Information Technology, Government of India, available at
https://www.digitalindia.gov.in/ (last visited on Apr. 10, 2023).
[23] Subhash Bhatnagar, E-Government:
From Vision to Implementation – A Practical Guide with Case Studies 31 (2004).
[31] Justice B.N. Srikrishna Committee,
A Free and Fair Digital Economy: Protecting Privacy, Empowering Indians (2018).
[32] Usha Ramanathan, "Implications
of Aadhaar and the Right to Privacy," 52(37) Economic and Political Weekly
10 (2017).
[33] Vrinda Bhandari and Renuka Sane,
"Protecting citizens from the State post Puttaswamy: Analysing the privacy
implications of the Justice Srikrishna Committee Report and the Data Protection
Bill, 2018," 14(2) Socio-Legal Review 143 (2018).
[34] Amber Sinha and Elonnai Hickok,
"The Srikrishna Committee Data Protection Bill and Artificial Intelligence
in India," The Centre for Internet and Society, Oct. 31, 2018
[35] Unique Identification Authority of
India, "About Aadhaar," https://uidai.gov.in/about-aadhaar.html.
[36] Vrinda Bhandari and Renuka Sane,
"Protecting citizens from the state post Puttaswamy: Analysing the privacy
implications of the Justice Srikrishna Committee Report and the Data Protection
Bill, 2018," Socio-Legal Review 14, no. 2 (2018): 143.
[39] Ministry of Home Affairs,
"National Intelligence Grid (NATGRID)," https://www.mha.gov.in/division_of_mha/national-intelligence-grid-natgrid.
[41] Udbhav Tiwari, "The Design
& Technology behind India's Surveillance Programmes," The Centre for
Internet and Society, January 20, 2017.
[43] Smitha Krishna Prasad,
"Surveillance in India: Policy and Practice," NLUD Journal of Legal
Studies 1, no. 2 (2019): 58.
[44] Anja Kovacs and Dixie Hawtin,
"Cyber Security, Surveillance, and the Right to Privacy in India,"
The Centre for Internet and Society, November 2013.
[46] Bedavyasa Mohanty, "India's
Surveillance State: A Review of the Indian Telegraph Act and the Information
Technology Act," The Leaflet, July 30, 2018.
[48] Anuj Tiwari and Subhash Chandra,
"Sustainability of Smart Cities in India: Challenges and Solutions,"
International Journal of Applied Engineering Research 13, no. 12 (2018): 10412.
[51] Justice B.N. Srikrishna Committee,
"A Free and Fair Digital Economy: Protecting Privacy, Empowering
Indians" (2018).
[54] Vrinda Bhandari and Renuka Sane,
"Protecting Citizens from the State Post Puttaswamy" (2018) 14(2)
Socio-Legal Review 138.
[56] Graham Greenleaf, "India's
Data Protection Framework: The Missing Pieces" (2018) 149 Privacy Laws
& Business International Report 18.
[57] Sunil Abraham and Elonnai Hickok,
"Government Access to Private Sector Data in India" (2012) 2(4)
International Data Privacy Law 302.
[58] Rishab Bailey et al.,
"Disclosures in Privacy Policies: Does 'Notice and Consent' Work?"
(2018) NIPFP Working Paper No. 246.
[59] Maria Xynou and Kodali Naga Bhaskar
Rao, "India's Surveillance State" (2015) 50(32) Economic &
Political Weekly 21.
[63] Smitha Krishna Prasad,
"Privacy and Data Protection in India: A Critical Assessment" (2018)
53(1) Journal of the Indian Law Institute 1.
[64] Udbhav Tiwari et al., "The
Design & Technology behind India's Surveillance Programmes" (2017) The
Centre for Internet and Society.
[65] Anja Kovacs and Dixie Hawtin, "Cyber
Security, Surveillance, and the Right to Privacy in India" (2013) The
Centre for Internet and Society.
[66] Maria Xynou and Kodali Naga Bhaskar
Rao, "India's Surveillance State" (2015) 50(32) Economic &
Political Weekly 21.
Article Information
Right to Privacy vs. Administrative Discretion: A Critical Examination in the Context of Digital Governance in India
Authors: Arundhati Chatterjee
- Journal IJLRA
- ISSN 2582-6433
- Published 2024/06/20
- Issue 7
About Journal
International Journal for Legal Research and Analysis
- Abbreviation IJLRA
- ISSN 2582-6433
- Access Open Access
- License CC 4.0
All research articles published in International Journal for Legal Research and Analysis are open access and available to read, download and share, subject to proper citation of the original work.
Disclaimer: The opinions expressed in this publication are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of International Journal for Legal Research and Analysis.