The purpose of elevating certain rights to the stature of guaranteed fundamental rights is to insulate their exercise from the disdain of majorities, whether legislative or popular. The guarantee of constitutional rights does not depend upon their exercise being favourably regarded by majoritarian opinion. The test of popular acceptance does not furnish a valid basis to disregard rights which are conferred with the sanctity of constitutional protection

narrow tailoring of the regulation to meet the needs of a compelling interest

The view about the absenceof a right to privacy is an isolated observation which cannot coexist with the essential determination rendered on the first aspect of the regulation. Subsequent Benches of this Court in the last five decades and more, have attempted to make coherent doctrine out of the uneasy coexistence between the first and the second parts of the decision in Kharak Singh

The observation in regard to the absence of the right to privacy in our Constitution was strictly speaking, not necessary for the decision of the Court in M PSharmaand the observation itself is no more than a passing observation.

adverted to international conventions acceded to by India including the UDHR and ICCPR. Provisions in these conventions which confer a protection against arbitrary and unlawful interference with a person’s privacy, family and home would, it was held, be read in a manner which harmonizes the fundamental rights contained in Articles 14, 15, 19 and 21 with India’s international obligations

our considered opinion that subjecting a person to the impugned techniques in an involuntary manner violates the prescribed boundaries of privacy. Forcible interference with a person's mental processes is not provided for under any statute and it most certainly comes into conflict with the “right against self-incrimination”

The crucial consideration is that a woman's right to privacy, dignity and bodily integrity should be respected

Also, a large number of people are non-vegetarian and they cannot be compelled to become vegetarian for a long period. What one eats is one's personal affair and it is a part of his right to privacy which is included in Article 21 of our Constitution as held by several decisions of this Court.

reasonable expectation that it will be utilised

access to bank records to the Collectordoes not permit a delegation of those powers by the Collector to a private individual. Hence even when the power to inspect and search is validly exercisable by an organ of the state, necessary safeguards would be required to ensure that the information does not travel to unauthorised private hands.

India’s international commitments under the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) and International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights(ICCPR)

The significance of the judgment in Canara Banklies first in its reaffirmation of the right to privacy as emanating from the liberties guaranteed by Article 19 and from the protection of life and personal liberty under Article 21

Court repudiated the notion that a person who places documents with a bank would, as a result, forsake an expectation of confidentiality. In the view of the Court, even if the documents cease to be at a place other than in the custody and control of the customer, privacy attaches to persons and not places and hence the protection of privacy is not diluted

penumbras created by the Bill of Rights resulting in a zone of privacy101leading up eventually to a “reasonable expectation of privacy”

The need to read the fundamental constitutional guarantees with a purpose illuminated by India’s commitment to the international regime of human rights’ protection also weighed in the decision

Article 21, in the view of the Court, has to be interpreted in conformity with international law

While it is true that in Rajagopalit is a private publisher who was seeking to publish an article about a death row convict, itis equally true that the Court dealt with a prior restraint on publication imposed by the

The right to privacy is implicit in the right to life and liberty guaranteed to the citizens of this country by Article 21

bodily integrity of a woman, as an incident of her privacy.

observations in Malak Singhon the issue of privacy indicate that an encroachment on privacy infringes personal liberty under Article 21 and the right to the freedom of movement under Article 19(1)(d). Without specifically holding that privacy is a protected constitutional value under Article 19 or Article 21, the judgment of this Court indicates that serious encroachments on privacy impinge upon personal liberty and the freedom of movement

This analysis of the decision in Gobindassumes significance because subsequent decisions of smaller Benches have proceeded on the basis that Gobinddoes indeed recognise a right to privacy

implicit in the concept of ordered liberty

Yet a close reading of the decision in Gobindwould indicate that the Court eventually did not enter a specific finding on the existence of a right to privacy under the Constitution

he personal intimacies of the home, the family, marriage, motherhood, procreation and child rearing

Gobind