ABSTRACT
Digital infrastructure alongside technological surveillance in India has created a need to determine how rights of individuals match with overall security needs. National defense falls within valid state parameters but excessive surveillance threatens the rights guaranteed by the Constitution. The article examines how state monitoring practices interfere with fundamental constitutional rights and specifically protect privacy. This article studies both executive and statutory surveillance mechanisms of India along with the identified obstacles to provide suggestions about enhanced surveillance practices.
Keywords: Technology, Surveillance, Constitution, Privacy, Digital Infrastructure
INTRODUCTION
The country has experienced quick implementation of surveillance technologies throughout the past years as part of efforts to strengthen both security and government management. Public spaces have become surveillance targets through facial recognition deployments while crowds receive drone surveillance and journalists and activists face spyware operations from Pegasus making state surveillance more comprehensive and deft. Surveillance developments now drive arguments that aim to determine appropriate relations between security initiatives and constitutional rights of citizens. The practice of surveillance requires enforcement of constitutional parameters when officials claim law enforcement needs as the primary motivation for such practices. This article investigates the legal basis of individual rights in India by studying present surveillance methods and determining how they affect democratic freedoms.
CONSTITUTIONAL FRAMEWORK
The Fundamental Rights section of the Indian Constitution gives full protection to individual freedoms. Article 14 of the Indian Constitution safeguards both legal equality and prevents ungrounded governmental actions. Freedom of speech and expression alongside peaceful assembly with association rights appear in Article 19 as essential rights for maintaining a democracy. The right to privacy was established under Article 21 when the Indian courts expanded their interpretation of personal freedom and life protection. The milestone judgment occurred in 2017 through Justice K.S. Puttaswamy (Retd.) v. Union of India when the Supreme Court affirmed privacy rights within life and liberty. When the state intrudes upon this right the Court established three fundamental requirements which state action must fulfill: the right must be valid according to law and necessary for a legitimate state function and the measures taken must be the least invasive ones possible. The established framework functions as a vital restriction process against unreasonably excessive and random state surveillance however government agencies still need to fully embrace it.
SURVEILLANCE LAWS AND PRACTICES IN INDIA
Indian surveillance law contains both historical legislation and contemporary digital monitoring systems that exist without systematic protection measures. The Indian Telegraph Act from 1885 provides authorities the power to listen to phone calls although executive officials maintain total control with insufficient external checks. Section 69 of India’s Information Technology Act 2000 grants the government authority to perform digital surveillance of communications although no judicial examination is required. Section 165 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 provides authority to access communication records through summons though it maintains insufficient procedural safeguards during this process.
Various technological developments together with existing laws enhanced state surveillance capabilities throughout the nation. Governments have gained unrestricted connection to telecom infrastructure through the Central Monitoring System (CMS) which bypasses routine telecom networks. Through NATGRID, the state accesses multiple databases containing travel information and bank records as well as tax-related information which helps build intricate profiles of citizens. The Crime and Criminal Tracking Network and Systems (CCTNS) operates throughout India by collecting police data which creates issues concerning data management and data utilization. The Indian state monitors citizens using the Aadhaar system for biometric identification even though it remains officially restricted; however public services frequently require linking Aadhaar to welfare benefits and financial resources and phone registration. The systems run in a narrow manner with weak oversight mechanisms alongside minimum public discussion thus increasing the opportunities for improper activities.
CHALLENGES AND CONCERNS
Developing rights-protecting surveillance methods remains difficult because there is no complete data protection enforcement system. The Personal Data Protection Bill which debuted in 2019 underwent different amendments before its current unresolved status. A legal framework that manages data collection and processing operations alongside retention has specific aspects to protect individual rights from vulnerabilities. While the government holds responsibility for surveillance authorization decisions these powers operate from hidden rooms without any involvement from courts or parliamentary bodies. Such concentrated power structure weakens democratic answerability to the people.
Surveillance decision secrecy hinders the ability to determine whether surveillance practitioners follow principles of legality and necessity and proportionality. people whose data gets monitored or accessed should receive alerts under principles of natural justice. The practice of surveillance creates an atmosphere that reduces freedom of speech and opposition expression. News providers along with human rights watchdogs and political opposition members have experienced direct surveillance attacks which triggered self-restriction methods and reduced democratic discussion platforms. Technological advances have moved faster than Indian lawmakers can create associated legislation. The application of artificial intelligence-based facial recognition and predictive policing systems already functions in India while the country remains without dedicated legislation to regulate their implementation along with protecting against discriminatory practices and abuses.
COMPARATIVE PERSPECTIVES
India upholds an opposite surveillance strategy compared to democratic nations globally. The Investigatory Powers Act from 2016 in the United Kingdom brings judicial oversight and establishes regulatory oversight through the Investigatory Powers Commissioner’s Office although it remains controversial. Under FISA the United States government implements a systematic protected surveillance system that needs FISA court approval for both incoming and outgoing target monitoring. Through its GDPR framework the EU established definite standards about how data should be processed and how users need to approve data collection and access to redress. The protection of privacy through European courts has been significant since their decisions such as the Schrems II ruling dismantled data-sharing protocols that did not meet EU privacy requirements.
These countries give useful lessons for India to build security measures that protect civil rights through enhanced oversight mechanisms and transparent procedures and public monitoring systems.
THE WAY FORWARD: RECOMMENDATIONS
The protection of constitutional freedoms requires India to establish strong data protection laws which support legitimate surveillance efforts. A comprehensive data protection law should outline subject rights together with processor duties to provide proper redress after data violations. An autonomous authority must supervise private and public data handling activities. Surveillance laws require judicial monitoring systems that validate all intrusions into privacy and identify cases that fulfill adequacy requirements and serve vital needs.
All surveillance programs need to function openly and clearly. Each surveillance operation should be transparent through yearly reporting to the public and legislative audit and by granting individuals post-surveillance disclosure of investigations in non-sensitive situations. New technologies must follow two fundamental guidelines as data minimization and privacy by design in their development and implementation. Law enforcement agencies together with intelligence organizations need to receive human rights standards training that will help them avoid improper use of surveillance powers. The general public requires educational efforts about digital knowledge to help them assert their rights alongside maintaining government accountability.
CONCLUSION
India faces an important democratic situation where technological opportunities need to be integrated harmoniously with constitutional principles. The practice of surveillance requires preservation of fundamental freedoms even when it serves necessary purposes. Freedom remains the essential life force because privacy together with dignity and expression maintain their absolute status in establishing societies based on freedom. The expanding technological capabilities require parallel growth of protecting measures which defend citizens from surveillance overreach. The
oversight of surveillance operations must remain transparent while being proportionate and accountable because this represents both a constitutional requirement and a democratic principle. The development of an Indian surveillance architecture that fulfills both national security requirements and maintains citizen freedoms can be achieved through alignment with constitutional principles along with global leading practices.
“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal falls into the category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”
WRITTEN BY RIMPLEPREET KAUR
