admin

 

INTRODUCTION 

Ever searched for a health supplement online, and within minutes, your Instagram and YouTube feeds are flooded with ads for weight-loss pills and protein shakes. A few days later, a telecaller tries to sell you a diet plan mentioning details you never shared with them directly.

That’s because of data surveillance. Your personal information, including your name, browsing habits, location, even phone number was likely collected, shared, and monetized without your explicit consent.

Globally, high-profile cases like the Cambridge Analytica–Facebook scandal have shown how unchecked data usage can manipulate public opinion and violate individual rights. In India too, there have been disturbing instances of personal data leaks from telecom providers, banks, hospitals, and even government portals. To curb this misuse and empower citizens, India introduced the Digital Personal Data Protection (DPDP) Act, 2023. This landmark legislation grants individuals strong, enforceable rights over their personal data.

In this blog, we decode the 10 key rights you now enjoy under the DPDP Act and why every citizen, lawyer, and privacy-conscious user should understand them.

WHO ARE THE KEY STAKEHOLDERS ?

Before diving into the rights, it’s essential to understand two fundamental terms defined under the Act:

• Data Principal: The individual to whom the personal data relates, i.e., you.
• Data Fiduciary: The entity (company, organization, app, etc.) that determines the purpose and means of processing your personal data.

KEY RIGHTS UNDER THE DPDP ACT, 2023

• Right to Access Information – Legal Basis: Section 11 of DPDP Act, 2023

You have the right to know what data is being collected, why, and with whom it is shared. This is rooted in the right to privacy as a fundamental right under Article 21 of the Constitution. It ensures transparency and prevents hidden data practices.

Case Law: In K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India, (2017) 10 SCC 1, the Supreme Court recognized privacy as a fundamental right under Article 21.

• Right to Correction and Erasure – Legal Basis: Section 12 of DPDP Act, 2023

Data principals have the right to ask for their personal data to be corrected if it is incorrect, incomplete, or outdated. They can also request that their data be deleted in certain situations, such as when it is no longer needed for the reason it was collected or if they choose to withdraw their consent. 

Case Law: Indian Express Newspapers v. Union of India, AIR 1986 SC 515 emphasized the importance of factual information in upholding democratic rights.

• Right to Consent and Withdrawal – Legal Basis: Section 6 of DPDP Act, 2023

Your personal data cannot be collected or processed without your free, informed, specific, and unambiguous consent. You can also withdraw consent at any point. It gives you complete control over when and how your data is used.

Case Law: Anuradha Bhasin v. Union of India, (2020) 3 SCC 637 emphasized the principle of necessity and proportionality in state actions affecting digital rights.

• Right of Grievance Redressal – Legal Basis: Section 13 of DPDP Act, 2023

You have the right to raise a complaint regarding the handling of their personal data by either the data fiduciary or the consent manager. 

Case Law: People’s Union for Civil Liberties (PUCL) v. Union of India, (1997) 1 SCC 301 laid down procedural safeguards for surveillance, a precedent for redressal mechanisms.

• Right to Nominate – Legal Basis: Section 14 of DPDP Act, 2023

You can nominate another person to exercise your rights under this Act in the event of your death or incapacity. It prevents misuse of your data and ensures protection.

• Right to Data Portability

Though not expressly stated, it can be inferred under Sections 11 and 12 of DPDP Act, 2023. The DPDP Act implies that individuals can access and transfer their personal data to other service providers. This concept aligns with Article 20 of the                  GDPR, which promotes user autonomy in switching between digital platforms.

• Right to Be Informed About Data Breaches – Legal Basis: Section 8(6) of DPDP Act, 2023 

Data Fiduciaries are required to notify you and the Data Protection Board in the event of a personal data breach. It is important so that you can take prompt action like changing passwords, freezing bank accounts, or raising fraud alerts.

Case Law: Reinforced by Anuradha Bhasin, which emphasized timely notification and procedural fairness.

• Right Against Unlawful Automated Decision-Making

Although the Act does not ban automated decision-making, it limits significant decisions such as job offers, loan approvals, or profiling based solely on algorithms without human oversight.

 Judicial View: Courts in India and globally have emphasized the need for fairness and human oversight in automated decisions, highlighted again in Puttaswamy.

• Right to File Complaints with the Data Protection Board – Legal Basis: Section 28 of DPDP Act, 2023

If your grievance isn’t resolved satisfactorily by the Data Fiduciary, you can file a complaint with the Data Protection Board of India, which has the powers to:

1. Conduct inquiries
2. Impose monetary penalties
3. Enforce compliance
4. Order compensation for data harms

• Right to Fair and Lawful Processing – Legal Basis: Section 4 of DPDP Act, 2023

Data should be collected lawfully, fairly, and only for specified purposes. This forms the ethical backbone of the DPDP Act.

Case Law: K.S. Puttaswamy, PUCL case, both emphasize legality, fairness, and proportionality as essential elements of privacy.

 

JUDICIAL DEVELOPMENTS & GLOBAL INFLUENCE

• K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India (2017): Privacy declared a fundamental right.
• PUCL v. Union of India (1997): Established surveillance safeguards.
• Anuradha Bhasin v. Union of India (2020): Stressed proportionality.
• Justice B.N. Srikrishna Committee Report: Laid groundwork for the DPDP Act.
• GDPR Influence: Inspired India’s framework on consent and data rights.

LIMITATIONS AND EXCEPTIONS

Your rights may be limited in cases involving:

• National security, sovereignty (Sections 17 & 18)
• Public interest or legal obligations
• Statistical/research purposes with anonymized data

CONCLUSION

The DPDP Act, 2023 marks a shift in India’s digital rights landscape. With enforceable mechanisms and judicial backing, it empowers individuals to control and protect their personal data. In today’s digital world, understanding your rights is not just useful, it’s essential. Next time a website asks for your location or contact list, remember: You have the legal right to say yes, no, or even change your mind later.

Introduction

For any society to function harmoniously, it must operate under a structured system of rules that dictate acceptable behavior and discourage wrongdoing. Laws are the bedrock of this structure. In India, criminal law does more than punish offenders; it safeguards public order and upholds justice. Crimes here are considered not just personal wrongs but offences against the State. As society evolves, so too does the law, adapting to new threats, technologies, and societal values.

Let us explore five landmark Supreme Court judgments that have significantly influenced Indian criminal law, reshaping how justice is interpreted and delivered.

• Selvi v. State of Karnataka (2010) 

Citation: (2010) 7 SCC 263

Case Brief:

Petitioners challenged the compulsory use of narco-analysis, polygraph, and brain‑mapping tests by law enforcement, arguing that these violated their fundamental rights to personal liberty and privacy, as well as their protection against self-incrimination.

Key Judgement:

• The Supreme Court held that the involuntary administration of these tests without consent breaches Article 20 (3) (protection against self-incrimination) and Article 21 (right to life, personal liberty, and mental privacy).
• The Court held that polygraph and BEAP tests, though seemingly physical, are testimonial in nature and violate Article 20(3) as they extract personal knowledge.
• Even voluntary tests require informed consent before a magistrate with counsel present, but their results are inadmissible unless independently corroborated.

Impact on Criminal Law:

• It dealt directly with investigative procedures in criminal cases. 
• The judgment reinforced that the right to mental privacy and protection against self-incrimination applies even during investigations. It set strict limits on intrusive, technology-based methods, requiring informed consent and procedural safeguards, and affirmed that no investigative shortcut can override constitutional rights.

• K.M. Nanavati v. State of Maharashtra (1962) 

Citation: AIR 1962 SC 605

Case Brief:

Commander K.M. Nanavati, a naval officer, shot and killed Prem Ahuja, his wife’s lover, claiming it was an act of grave and sudden provocation and thus amounted to culpable homicide not amounting to murder. Initially acquitted by a jury, the verdict was overturned by the Bombay High Court under Section 307 CrPC for being perverse. The High Court convicted him of murder, and the Supreme Court upheld the conviction.

Key Judgement:

• The Supreme Court held that the defence of “grave and sudden provocation” is valid only when the reaction is immediate and made in the heat of the moment.
• The Court emphasized that delayed or premeditated actions do not qualify for Exception 1 to Section 300 of the IPC.
• The jury’s verdict was considered misdirected and unreasonable, justifying the High Court’s intervention.

Impact on Criminal Law:

• Clarified the legal distinction between murder and culpable homicide based on the immediacy of provocation.
• Led to the abolition of jury trials in India due to concerns about media influence and public opinion affecting verdicts.
• Established the “reasonable man” test to evaluate claims of provocation, shaping future homicide jurisprudence.

 

• D.K. Basu v. State of West Bengal (1997)

Citation: AIR 1997 SC 610

Case Brief:

D.K. Basu, the Executive Chairman of the Legal Aid Services, West Bengal, wrote a letter to the Supreme Court highlighting instances of custodial deaths and police torture. The letter was treated as a writ petition under Article 32 of the Constitution. The case involved multiple incidents of police brutality, arbitrary arrests, and deaths in custody, prompting the Court to lay down guidelines to prevent such human rights violations.

Key Judgements:

• The Supreme Court held that custodial torture is a naked violation of human dignity and human rights and goes against the basic tenets of a democratic polity.
• It declared that “custodial violence” infringes upon Article 21 (Right to Life and Personal Liberty) and Article 22 of the Constitution.
• The Court laid down specific guidelines to be followed during arrest and detention to safeguard the rights of the accused, which included:
• Identification and name tags of arresting officers.
• Preparation of an arrest memo signed by a witness.
• Information to family or friends about the arrest.
• Medical examination of the arrestee is required every 48 hours.
• Legal rights to consult a lawyer during interrogation. 

Impact on Criminal Law:

• Established binding procedural safeguards for arrest and detention, enhancing transparency and accountability in law enforcement.
• Reinforced the constitutional protection against arbitrary arrest and custodial abuse.
• The guidelines were later incorporated into statutory law through amendments in the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC) in 2009.
• The case became a cornerstone of Indian human rights jurisprudence, frequently cited in cases involving police excesses and unlawful detention.

 

• Bachan Singh v. State of Punjab (1980) 

Citation: AIR 1980 SC 898

Case Brief:

Bachan Singh, a security guard, was convicted of murdering a relative while on parole and sentenced to death and initially sentenced to death under Section 302 IPC. Upon appeal, a five-judge Bench of the Supreme Court reviewed the constitutional validity of the death penalty and the sentencing process under Section 354(3) CrPC.

 

Key Judgement:

• The Court unanimously held that the death penalty is constitutional under Section 302 IPC and does not violate Article 21.
• It introduced the “rarest of rare” doctrine, stipulating that capital punishment should be applied only in exceptional cases where no alternative punishment is adequate.

 

Impact on Criminal Law:

• Established the “rarest of rare” doctrine, which continues to be the guiding principle for death penalty cases.
• Shifted sentencing focus to individualized justice, ensuring capital punishment is reserved for truly exceptional circumstances.

 

• Lalita Kumari v. Govt. of Uttar Pradesh (2014)

 

Citation: (2014) 2 SCC 1

Case Brief:

Lalita Kumari’s father filed a writ petition after the police refused to register an FIR when her minor daughter went missing. He alleged infringement of her rights due to police inaction.

 

Key Judgement:

• The Supreme Court held that registration of an FIR is mandatory under Section 154 CrPC whenever information discloses a cognizable offence and no preliminary inquiry is allowed. 
• A preliminary inquiry is permitted only if the information does not indicate a cognizable offence; then it must be limited to 7 days (later revised to 15 days). 

 

Impact on Criminal Law: 

• Reinforced that police must not refuse FIRs, thereby strengthening police accountability. 
• Improved prompt access to justice in cases involving women and children, and standardized FIR registration procedures.

Conclusion

These landmark judgments have not only interpreted existing provisions of criminal law but also filled critical gaps, ensuring that the law evolves with changing societal needs. From protecting individual rights against coercive investigation, reaffirming the right to life and dignity, to strengthening accountability in the justice delivery system, each case has left an enduring impact. They reaffirm the judiciary’s role in upholding justice and constitutional values. As new challenges like cybercrime and custodial violence emerge, these judgments offer a strong foundation for a fair and humane interpretation of criminal law.