OBSERVARE
Universidade Autónoma de Lisboa
e-ISSN: 1647-7251
Vol. 13, Nº. 2 (November 2022-April 2023)
201
PRIVACY AND SURVEILLANCE CONFLICT:
A COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF THE LAWS IN THE USA AND INDIA
VAIBHAV CHADHA
vchadha@jgu.edu.in
Assistant Professor of Law at Jindal Global Law School, O.P. Jindal Global University (India). He
holds a master’s degree in law from Queen Mary University of London on a Chevening
Scholarship. Vaibhav also has a bachelor’s degree in law as well as commerce from the University
of Delhi and a diploma in International Law and Diplomacy from Indian Society of International
Law. In the past he has written international articles on anticipatory bail law in India, copyright
law, freedom of speech and expression, privacy and surveillance, and on laws enacted to curb
the practice of child marriage. Before moving to academia, Vaibhav worked at the Office of
Advocate General of State of Nagaland, India, and Additional Solicitor General of India. His areas
of interest include free speech, media law, and criminal law.
THAJASWINI COIMBATORE BALASUBRAMANIAN
thajaswini.cb@gmail.com
A qualified lawyer, who is currently pursuing her Masters of Law at the University of Cambridge.
She holds a Bachelor of Arts and a Bachelor of Law (BA.,LLB (Hons.)) degree from the School of
Law, SASTRA Deemed University (India). She was assisting a Senior Advocate at the Hon’ble
Supreme Court of India for over a year, before pursuing her Masters. She is keenly interested in
subject matters like Constitutional Law, Public Law, Commercial Taxation, Intellectual Property
and Privacy Laws.
ANSHUL BHUWALKA
anshul.bhuwalka@induslaw.com
Associate (Transactions), IndusLaw, Mumbai, India. He holds a bachelor's degree in Law as well
as Business Administration from Symbiosis Law School, Hyderabad (India) - Symbiosis
International (Deemed University). He has written articles on constitutional law and contractual
law, with specific reference to the corporate domain. His areas of interest are constitutional law,
corporate and commercial laws
Abstract
The Right to Privacy and the need for Surveillance has always remained a contentious issue
between citizens and law enforcement agencies. This paper attempts to analyse the various
laws relating to Surveillance in the largest and oldest democracies of the world, India and the
United States of America. Regardless of vast variances in socio-economic and political
realities, these two countries qualify as intriguing focuses for study. Though the Right to
Privacy is generally accepted as a fundamental right throughout the nations of the world, the
primacy given to ‘National Security’ and simultaneously balancing it with individual liberties
seems to be a recognised phenomenon in both these jurisdictions.
Keywords
Privacy; Surveillance; Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act 1967; National Security; Kharak
Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh; Telegraph Act; Terrorism and PATRIOT Act.
Resumo
O Direito à Privacidade e a necessidade de Vigilância têm permanecido sempre como uma
questão controversa entre os cidadãos e as agências de aplicação da lei. Este documento
tenta analisar as várias leis relativas à Vigilância nas maiores e mais antigas democracias do
mundo, a Índia e os Estados Unidos da América. Independentemente das grandes variações
nas realidades socioeconómicas e políticas, estes dois países qualificam-se como intrigantes
focos de estudo. Embora o Direito à Privacidade seja geralmente aceite como um direito
fundamental em todas as nações do mundo, a primazia dada à "Segurança Nacional" e,
JANUS.NET, e-journal of International Relations
e-ISSN: 1647-7251
Vol. 13, Nº. 2 (November 2022-April 2023), pp. 201-219
Privacy and surveillance conflict: a comparative analysis of the laws in the USA and India
Vaibhav Chadha, Thajaswini Coimbatore Balasubramanian, Anshul Bhuwalka
202
simultaneamente, o seu equilíbrio com as liberdades individuais, parece ser um fenómeno
reconhecido em ambas as jurisdições.
Palavras-chave
Privacidade; Vigilância; Lei das Actividades Ilícitas (Prevenção) de 1967; Segurança Nacional;
Kharak Singh v. Estado de Uttar Pradesh; Lei do Telégrafo; Lei do Terrorismo e Lei PATRIOT.
How to cite this article
Chadha, Vaibhav; Balasubramanian, Thajaswini Coimbatore; Bhuwalka, Anshul (2022). Privacy
and Surveillance Conflict: A Comparative Analysis of the laws in the USA and India. Janus.net, e-
journal of international relations, Vol13 N2, November 2022-April 2023. Consulted [online] in date
of last visit, https://doi.org/10.26619/1647-7251.13.2.8
Article received on 17 April 2021, accepted for publication on 6 October 2022
JANUS.NET, e-journal of International Relations
e-ISSN: 1647-7251
Vol. 13, Nº. 2 (November 2022-April 2023), pp. 201-219
Privacy and surveillance conflict: a comparative analysis of the laws in the USA and India
Vaibhav Chadha, Thajaswini Coimbatore Balasubramanian, Anshul Bhuwalka
203
PRIVACY AND SURVEILLANCE CONFLICT:
A COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF THE LAWS IN THE USA AND INDIA
VAIBHAV CHADHA
THAJASWINI COIMBATORE BALASUBRAMANIAN
ANSHUL BHUWALKA
1. Introduction and Background
“States are utilizing technology in the most imaginative ways particularly in view of increasing
global terrorist attacks and heightened public safety concerns.
1
Surveillance typically means to closely observe an individual or a group of individuals,
especially ones who are suspected by law enforcement agencies.
2
Currently, there exist
various types of mechanisms for the government for surveillance. An efficacious
government surveillance regime necessitates the assortment and handling of large scale
personal data which includes sensitive and crucial information as well. Such laws and
programmes raise vital concerns relating to data protection and privacy of millions of
citizens which would be at stake. An effective government policy is one which efficiently
lays a foundational balance between National Security through strategic surveillance and
individual and collective privacy without compromising the rights Constitution provides.
While the United States of America considers Electronic Surveillance as search under the
Fourth Amendment which provides protection to individuals from unreasonable search
and seizure, in India, it is still a growing concern.
3
It is seen that majority of the people do not deter surveillance, stating they do not
particularly have anything to hide. It is the very ideology behind this argument that is
typically flawed, considering there is no rational assessment of how surveillance
influences the behavior of a human. It is due to this that the “chilling effect” is induced,
which makes people behave differently due to the apprehension of being watched,
intercepted, or surveilled in any other way.
4
The chilling effect is said to occur when
people seek to engage in activities that are well within their rights but are deterred due
1
Justice K. S. Puttaswamy (Retd.) and Anr. v. Union of India and Others [2017] 10 SCC 1 503, [585]
2
SAHRDC, ‘Architecture of Surveillance’ [2014] 49 EPW 10, 12
3
Chinmayi Arun, ‘Paper-thin Safeguards and Mass Surveillance in India’ [2014] 26 NLSIR 105, 114
4
Solove, Daniel J, ‘The First Amendment as Criminal Procedure’ [2007] 82 NYU L Rev 112, 15459
JANUS.NET, e-journal of International Relations
e-ISSN: 1647-7251
Vol. 13, Nº. 2 (November 2022-April 2023), pp. 201-219
Privacy and surveillance conflict: a comparative analysis of the laws in the USA and India
Vaibhav Chadha, Thajaswini Coimbatore Balasubramanian, Anshul Bhuwalka
204
to governmental restrictions.
5
Therefore, surveillance directly affects an individuals’
rights of essential liberties, like their right to privacy and freedom of speech or
expression. Surveillance by the government can lead to curbing legitimate activities and
restrain disagreement.
6
Concerns like these tend to startle public peace and must not be
allowed in a country like India, which has vibrant democratic ethos.
2. Existing Surveillance Laws in India
One of the gravest breaches and threats to one’s right to privacy is by having an
individual surveilled. This surveillance can be of different forms, involving physical
surveillance, telephonic surveillance, digital surveillance, or any other way to know
everything about a person. As correctly pointed out by George Orwell, it leads to situation
where the mere fact that an individual is aware of their activities being surveilled by
another would cause them to change their conduct.
The two main laws that govern and regulate digital and telephonic surveillance in India
are the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885 and the Information Technology Act, 2000. The Indian
Telegraph Act, 1885 deals with interception of calls wherein under section 5, the act
empowers the Central or the State government to order for interception of messages in
case of occurrence of any public emergency or in the interest of public safety. Rule 419
B was included to the Indian Telegraph Rules, 1951 in the year 2007 which authorised
an officer (not below the rank of a Joint Secretary to the Government of India) to pass
an order for interception in unavoidable circumstances.
The interception of data is dealt with in the Information Technology Act, 2000. Section
69 of the Act empowers the government to intercept, monitor or decrypt any data or
information stored on any computer resources for the reason of public safety, public
order etc. The Information Technology (Procedures and Safeguards for Interception,
Monitoring and Decryption of Information) Rules framed under section 69 of the Act in
2009 explicitly states that only the competent authority can issue an order for
interception, monitoring or decryption of any information generated, transmitted,
received, or stored in any computer resource which include mobile phones as well.
Section 69A of the Act provides the authority to the government to issue directions to
block public access of any information through a computer resource. Section 69B gives
the Central government the power to monitor and collect traffic information or data
through any resource from the computer.
7
One of the noteworthy amendments to the
Information Technology (Amendment) Act, 2008 was the removal of the preconditions of
“public emergency” and “public safety” which are laid down in the Indian Telegraph Act,
1885, and extended the Government’s power to order the interception of communications
for the “investigation of any offense”.
8
The Information Technology (Procedures and
Safeguards for blocking for access of Information by Public) Rules 2009 prohibits
5
Frederick Schauer, ‘Fear, Risk and the First Amendment: Unraveling the “Chilling Effect”‘ [1978] 58 BU L
Rev 693
6
Solove, Daniel J, ‘I’ve Got Nothing to Hide and Other Misunderstandings of Privacy’ (2007) 44 SD L Rev 771
7
Ashok Kumar Kasaudhan, ‘Surveillance and right to privacy: Issues and challenges’ [2017] 3 IJL 73, 81
8
The Information Technology (Amendment) Act 2008
JANUS.NET, e-journal of International Relations
e-ISSN: 1647-7251
Vol. 13, Nº. 2 (November 2022-April 2023), pp. 201-219
Privacy and surveillance conflict: a comparative analysis of the laws in the USA and India
Vaibhav Chadha, Thajaswini Coimbatore Balasubramanian, Anshul Bhuwalka
205
interception or monitoring or decryption of information without authorisation. However,
under both these laws, only the government is authorized to conduct surveillance.
9
Apart from the above major laws on surveillance, there are other statutes which provides
for interception of communication and lays grounds upon their usage. The Unlawful
Activities Prevention Act, 1967 (UAPA),
10
the prominent anti-terror law in India, proved
to be a departure from some of the traditional criminal justice administration system and
allowed legally intercepted information as an admissible evidence for an offence under
the Act.
11
The Act has tried to strengthen anti-terrorism measures by redefining the term
‘Terrorism Act’ and providing stringent punishments for the same under sections 15 to18.
The Act also conferred special powers for arrest, search, and seizure under sections 43A
to 43D.
Section 26 of the Indian Post Office Act, 1898 also authorises the Central and State
government to intercept postal articles in case of public emergency or for the interest of
public tranquillity; Section 91 of the Indian Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 monitors
targeted access to stored data and information. Under rule 4(2) of the Information
Technology Guidelines for Cyber Cafes Rules 2011, cyber cafes are required to retain
copies of user identification for a period of one year and rule 5 mandates that the cyber
cafes must retain logs of user information and browsing history for a period of one year.
The Personal Data Protection Bill 2019,
12
(PDP Bill) which was introduced in the Lok Sabha
on 11th of December 2019 aims at striking a reasonable balance between security and
privacy. Section 35 of the PDP Bill assures for an exemption for carrying out surveillance
activities by government agencies for the reasons of national security, public order,
friendly relations with foreign states, integrity and sovereignty, and for preventing any
cognizable criminal offences.
13
2.1. Analysis of the Indian Laws
Although it has been established that the authority to intercept a telephonic
communication is provided under Section 5 of the Telegraph Act, in pursuance to the
prescribed procedure, Rule 419A of the Telegraph Rules, 1951 restricts such authority to
the Union Home Secretary in case of the Central law enforcement agencies, and the
Home Secretary to the State Government, in case of the State law enforcement agencies.
However, in unavoidable circumstances, the concerned law enforcement agencies with
the permission of its head or the second highest ranking officer who is not below the rank
of an Inspector General are permitted to carry out emergency interception. In such cases,
9
Maria Xynou, ‘Policy Recommendations for Surveillance Law in India and an Analysis of Legal Provisions on
Surveillance in India and the Necessary & Proportionate Principles’ [2015] CIS <https://cis-
india.org/internet-governance/blog/policy-recommendations-for-surveillance-law-in-india-and-analysis-of-
legal-provisions-on-surveillance-in-india-and-the-necessary-and-proportionate-principles.pdf> accessed
06 March 2021
10
The Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act 1967
11
The Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act 1967, s 46
12
Personal Data Protection Bill 2019
13
Kazim Rizvi, ‘Personal Data Protection Bill 2019 and Surveillance: Balancing Security and Privacy’, [2020]
INC42 <https://inc42.com/resources/personal-data-protection-bill-2019-and-surveillance-balancing-
security-and-privacy/> accessed 06 March 2021
JANUS.NET, e-journal of International Relations
e-ISSN: 1647-7251
Vol. 13, Nº. 2 (November 2022-April 2023), pp. 201-219
Privacy and surveillance conflict: a comparative analysis of the laws in the USA and India
Vaibhav Chadha, Thajaswini Coimbatore Balasubramanian, Anshul Bhuwalka
206
the said law enforcement agencies are bound to notify the Home Secretary in not more
than three days to explain their quick action.
14
Considering possible loopholes in the procedure, which may lead to breaching multiple
fundamental rights of another, the Telegraph Rules 1951 also prescribe for a review
mechanism
15
. The said review committee is headed by the Cabinet Secretary, Law
Secretary, and the Secretary Telecommunications in case of Central law enforcement
agencies and the Chief Secretary, Law Secretary, and another member other than the
Home Secretary, appointed by the State Government in case of the State law
enforcement agencies
16
. This committee is entrusted to review the copies of every
authorisation of interception as received from the concerned Home Secretary within
seven days. In case the review committee finds any authorization unreasonable or
wanting, the respective interception is to cease with immediate effect.
On the face of it, these Rules followed by the stringent laws and protections seem
comprehensive, having sufficient safeguards. However, on the basis of the Central
government’s response to various Right to Information (RTI) applications dated back in
2014, the Union Home Ministry annually approves about one lakh (one hundred
thousand) requests of interceptions of telecommunications.
17
In this case, if we were to
assume an average of about 8,000 requests per month, it would sum up to over 250
requests per day. It is important to note that while considering and reviewing such
requests by the law enforcement agencies, the respective authority is to lay emphasis on
a possibility to acquire the said information by alternate means, and if not, only then the
reasons for such interception shall be recorded in the Order allowing it.
18
It is apparent that law contemplates a quasi-judicial application of mind while deciding
the request of interception and surveillance, and not a mere clerical process of
ambiguously rejecting or approving such requests. It is however pertinent to note that
the matters allowing jurisdiction to the Union Home Ministry include internal security,
border management, affairs pertaining to Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh,
administration of union territories, Centre-State relations, national language, police,
human rights, prison management and pensions.
19
However, it is far from imagination
as to how one can do justice to all applications requesting to infringe the citizens’
essential fundamental rights, considering the large number of such applications along
with the variety of affairs of the Home Secretary, on an everyday basis. Furthermore,
the fact that how many Home Secretaries have previously had technical competence or
legal training to make such important decisions, has also been neglected.
Home Secretaries for the Union and the State are selected from the Indian Administrative
Service. Although the extreme intelligence and the level of intellectual experience in
14
Stakeholder Report, ‘The Right to Privacy in India’ [2016] UPR CIS India and Privacy International,
<https://www.upr-info.org/sites/default/files/document/india/session_27_-
_may_2017/js35_upr27_ind_e_main.pdf> accessed 08 March 2021
15
Indian Telegraph Rules 1951, Rule 419A
16
Indian Telegraph Rules 1951, Rule 419A (16)
17
Zubin Dash, ‘Do Our Wiretapping Laws Adequately Protect the Right to Privacy?’ [2018] 53(6) E&PW
<https://www.epw.in/engage/article/can-government-continue-unhindered-wiretapping-without-flouting-
right-privacy> accessed 06 October 2020> accessed 16 February 2021
18
SFLC, ‘India’s Surveillance State: Communications Surveillance in India’ [2014] SFLC <http://sflc.in/wp-
content/uploads/2014/09/SFLC-FINAL-SURVEILLANCE-REPORT.pdf.> accessed 22 September 2020
19
Ministry of Home Affairs, Government of India, 2020 <https://www.mha.gov.in/departments-of-mha>
accessed 06 October 2020
JANUS.NET, e-journal of International Relations
e-ISSN: 1647-7251
Vol. 13, Nº. 2 (November 2022-April 2023), pp. 201-219
Privacy and surveillance conflict: a comparative analysis of the laws in the USA and India
Vaibhav Chadha, Thajaswini Coimbatore Balasubramanian, Anshul Bhuwalka
207
matters pertaining to Home and State pertain in the said candidates, the judicial
application of mind while considering requests for interception or surveillance remains
missing. The decisions regarding fit cases for interception are not made by the judicial
officers, but by a generalist bureaucrat with little to no experience in law enforcement
and intelligence gathering. This may not only result in serious violation of rights of the
citizens, when taken from the citizens’ point of view, but may also result in serious
ramifications for the State. For instance, if an officer entrusted with such duty being
bereft legal, technical, and judicial training, scared of repercussions like being pulled for
sanctioning too many requests for surveillance then chooses to reject other set of
applications en masse, it can have grave implication on the security and integrity of the
State.
3. Right to Privacy in the Indian Legal Framework
India’s journey towards finally having the ‘right to privacy’ as a recognized fundamental
right has rather been a long one. Starting from the roots of the Kharak Singh case,
20
which was decided in 1962, to the 2017 Justice K. Puttaswamy judgment,
21
the right to
privacy has finally been declared as an inclusive part of Article 21 of the Indian
Constitution.
22
The right to privacy in its full context was considered by the bench for the
very first time, in the Kharak Singh case, although it was not recognized to be a right
guaranteed by the Constitution.
23
The bench had connected the effect of law enforcement
agencies’ surveillance mechanisms on the petitioner’s right to privacy. However, the
bench in the PUCL case
24
pronounced the judgment in support of Justice Subba Rao’s
dissenting opinion in the Kharak Singh case, which lead to the expansion of the scope of
Article 21, to include “right of an individual to be free from restrictions or encroachments
on his person”.
25
The Kharak Singh judgment further went on to relate physical restraint with physical
encroachment, stating, if the former affects one’s personal liberty, the latter is equally
set to affect their private life. It clarified that nothing remains more important to an
individual holding a calculated interference with their privacy. And in this context, the
bench had declared,
“we would, therefore, define the right of personal liberty in Art. 21 as a right
of an individual to be free from restrictions or encroachments on his person,
whether those restrictions or encroachments are directly imposed or indirectly
brought about by calculated measures.
26
The Kharak Singh case closely followed the examination of the American Fifth and
Fourteenth Amendments, which guarantees life, liberty and property, and is followed by
the examination of the Fourth Amendment, which protects a person from unreasonable
20
Kharak Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh [1964] 1 SCR 332
21
Justice K. S. Puttaswamy (Retd.) and Anr. v. Union of India and Others [2017] 10 SCC 1 503
22
Constitution of India 1950, a 21
23
Kharak Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh [1964] 1 SCR 332, [15]
24
People’s Union for Civil Liberties v. Union of India [1997] 1 SCC 301, [18]
25
Kharak Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh [1964] 1 SCR 332, [28]
26
Ibid 28.
JANUS.NET, e-journal of International Relations
e-ISSN: 1647-7251
Vol. 13, Nº. 2 (November 2022-April 2023), pp. 201-219
Privacy and surveillance conflict: a comparative analysis of the laws in the USA and India
Vaibhav Chadha, Thajaswini Coimbatore Balasubramanian, Anshul Bhuwalka
208
searches and seizures. The Fourth Amendment ambiguously admits that the Constitution
contains no like guarantee,
27
but holds nonetheless that
an unauthorised intrusion into a person’s home or the disturbance caused to
him thereby, is as it were the violation of a common law right of a man - an
ultimate essential of ordered liberty.
28
This jurisprudence, however, has been based on the common law of trespass, where a
person’s property was held sacrosanct, and not open to be trespassed against. Almost
four years after the Kharak Singh case was decided, in Katz,
29
the US Supreme Court
shifted its own jurisprudence to hold that the Fourth Amendment protected zones where
persons had a reasonable expectation of privacy", as opposed to simply protecting listed
items. Kharak Singh case was handed down before Katz, yet it expressly showed that
the rulings in Katz were well anticipated in expressly grounding article 21’s personal
liberty right within the meaning of dignity.
In the coming decades, the PUCL case then highlighted the issue of the right to privacy
in the context of elevating it to a Constitutional status. The bench, therefore, relied on
the decision in R. Rajagopal v. State of Tamil Nadu (‘Rajagopal’),
30
which held that the
right to privacy was an implicit aspect under the right to life and liberty, as was
guaranteed to all the citizens of the country, under Article 21.
31
The Court in Rajagopal’s
case also went a step forward to expand the concept of the right to privacy, and included
the “right to be let alone” and “safeguarding the privacy of another”.
32
The PUCL case, hence, succeeded in showing the evolution of the Supreme Court’s
conception of privacy. In this way, the ‘right to privacy’ was expanded beyond the
physical realm to include personal communications. It was held that an individual’s right
to have a telephonic conversation in the privacy of their home or office without any
interference could be claimed as their right to privacy.
33
However, in the contemporary
context, it can rightfully be understood that this evolving paradigm of privacy equally
encompasses online communications under its bracket.
3.1. Indian Judiciary and Surveillance
Indian Judiciary in its various judgements has dealt with surveillance issues, which have
been highly prominent in determining the privacy landscape in India. The Indian Supreme
Court in Hukam Chand Shyam Lal v. Union of India interpreted the scope of section 5 of
the Telegraph Act and held that the existence of emergency”, which is a prerequisite for
the exercise of power to take possession of any telegraphs must be a “public emergency”
and not any other kind of emergency. The court further clarified that the scope of “public
emergency” relates to the situations contemplated under the sub-section pertaining to
sovereignty and integrity of India, the security of the State, friendly relations with
27
Wolf v. Colorado [1949] 338 US 25, [2]
28
Kharak Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh [1964] 1 SCR 332, [15]
29
Katz v. United States [1967] 389 US 347
30
R. Rajagopal v. State of Tamil Nadu [1994] 6 SCC 632
31
R. Rajagopal v. State of Tamil Nadu [1994] 6 SCC 632, [28]
32
R. Rajagopal v. State of Tamil Nadu [1994] 6 SCC 632, [26]
33
People’s Union for Civil Liberties v. Union of India [1997] 1 SCC 301, [18]
JANUS.NET, e-journal of International Relations
e-ISSN: 1647-7251
Vol. 13, Nº. 2 (November 2022-April 2023), pp. 201-219
Privacy and surveillance conflict: a comparative analysis of the laws in the USA and India
Vaibhav Chadha, Thajaswini Coimbatore Balasubramanian, Anshul Bhuwalka
209
foreign States or public order or for preventing incitement to the commission of an
offence”.
34
Alongside the same, one other major issue with the prevailing laws on surveillance is its
concentration of power exclusively within the executive branch of the government. The
Court in PUCL v. Union of India did not impose the prior requirement of a case-by-case
judicial standing for requests of surveillance, and left this important gatekeeping to the
executive branch.
35
However, the need to revisit this considering it contravenes the very
principle of separation of powers, creating a conflict of interests within the executive, as
the executive itself is responsible for both, surveillance of an individual and deciding
whether intercepting of that individual’s telecommunication would be just in law and
reasonable of his fundamental rights. Therefore, with the most basic rights of lakhs of
citizens being at stake, which was not arguably the case when the PUCL was decided, it
remains important that every application of request of surveillance be evaluated
individually with a broader application of judicial mind, to determine whether the said
application is legitimate towards justifying an infringement of one’s rights or not.
The constitutional validity of Section 69A of the Information Technology Act, 2000 read
with the Information Technology (Procedures and Safeguards for Blocking for Access of
Information by Public) Rules, 2009, which allows blocking of access to information was
upheld by the Supreme Court in the case of Shreya Singhal v. Union of India.
36
In Anuradha Bhasin v. Union of India,
37
the Hon’ble Supreme Court has reiterated and
explained the scope of ban/restriction on Internet imposed by the State and its rationality
and constitutionality. The court also laid emphasis and recognized the fact that modern
terrorism heavily relies on internet and realized the need to be vigilant and careful in
handling such a powerful and effective tool.
38
The Hon’ble Supreme Court has implicitly upheld selective government action and
interception through internet to stop terrorism using the means of internet and its
regulation and surveillance rather than to impose a blanket ban on internet over any area
or to adopt stringent law for counter-terrorism measures. Even though the Indian
Judiciary has felt the importance of imposing reasonable restrictions on the right to
privacy and the importance of the evidentiary values of such information obtained
through Interception and Surveillance, it has still shown reluctance in realizing the raising
need for stringent Surveillance laws in the country to curb the incessant increase in
threats to National Security.
39
34
Hukam Chand Shyam Lal v. Union of India [1976] 2 SCC 128, [13]-[16]
35
People’s Union for Civil Liberties v. Union of India [1997] 1 SCC 301, [35]
36
Shreya Singhal v. Union of India (2015) 5 SCC 1, [116], [119]
37
Anuradha Bhasin v. Union of India (2020) 3 SCC 637 [150]
38
Anuradha Bhasin v. Union of India (2020) 3 SCC 637 [43]
39
Anuradha Bhasin v. Union of India (2020) 3 SCC 637 [45]
JANUS.NET, e-journal of International Relations
e-ISSN: 1647-7251
Vol. 13, Nº. 2 (November 2022-April 2023), pp. 201-219
Privacy and surveillance conflict: a comparative analysis of the laws in the USA and India
Vaibhav Chadha, Thajaswini Coimbatore Balasubramanian, Anshul Bhuwalka
210
4. Surveillance Laws in the US and the role of US Judiciary:
Terrorism is escalating to the point that citizens of the United States may soon have to choose
between civil liberties and more intrusive forms of protection”.
40
Ratified in 1791, the Fourth Amendment of the US Constitution provided the basic
framework for the protection of citizen’s personal communication from intrusion by the
government. Right to Privacy was first recognised as a part within the Fourth Amendment
in 1886 by the US Supreme court in th