Introduction For decades, Indian constitutional law wrestled with a single unresolved question: does the right to privacy truly exist within the Constitution? From Kharak Singh to Govind to PUCL , privacy had slowly evolved from denial to cautious recognition. But it was Justice K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India (2017) that finally forced the Supreme Court to settle the debate once and for all. The case arose in the shadow of the Aadhaar scheme, but it ultimately became so

Introduction In a rapidly modernising India of the 1990s, where communication was shifting from letters to telephones, a new constitutional anxiety emerged, can the State listen in to private conversations in the name of security? PUCL v. Union of India (1997) brought this question before the Supreme Court, challenging the unchecked power of telephone tapping under the Telegraph Act. For the first time, privacy was tested not in physical surveillance, but in the invisible re

Introduction In a constitutional landscape still hesitant to explicitly recognize privacy as a fundamental right, Govind v. State of Madhya Pradesh (1975) emerged as a quiet but decisive shift in judicial thinking. The case dealt with police surveillance of individuals labelled as habitual offenders, raising a deeply unsettling question: Can the State continuously monitor a citizen’s life in the name of preventive policing, without violating constitutional liberty? For the f

Introduction In 1962, Kharak Singh, though never convicted of any crime, became the subject of continuous police surveillance under Uttar Pradesh regulations. The case arose at a time when the Indian Constitution had not explicitly recognized privacy, yet individuals were already facing intrusions that touched the very essence of personal liberty. Singh challenged these measures, raising fundamental questions: Can the State monitor a citizen without explicit legal sanction? D

Introduction Before privacy entered India’s constitutional imagination, the State’s power of search and seizure was tested in its earliest form in M.P. Sharma v. Satish Chandra (1954) . Arising in the context of criminal investigation and document seizure, the case presented a foundational question: does the Constitution implicitly protect a citizen from state searches, or is such power unrestricted once procedure is followed? At a time when privacy was not yet a recognised c