Authored By: Mansi Yadav
Maharshi Dayanand University (mdu-cpas)
Abstract
The digital transformation of society has radically shifted the balance between the individual, the corporation, and the handling of personal data. In the current state of society, where the primary players are social media, e-commerce, fintech, and AI-based technology, personal data has become one of the most precious assets. Although the innovation agenda for the better efficiency and profitability of the corporation is based on the use of data, the uncontrolled collection, processing, and commercial use of personal data have led to the violation of privacy on a large scale. This has led to the rise of the phenomenon of surveillance and large-scale data breaches by the corporation, which has endangered the freedom and dignity of the citizen. The constitutional courts in various countries have increasingly supported the right to digital privacy, not only against the State, but also against the corporation.
This paper traces the history of digital privacy as a basic right, assesses corporate offenses within the digital landscape, and critically examines the growing role of judicial institutions within this context. Through an evaluation of judiciary trends within Indian and global frameworks, this paper will show that the absolute necessity of judicial safeguarding exists within a new age order characterized by corporate dominance of digital spaces.
Introduction
The twenty-first century has seen an unparalleled growth of digital technologies. From smartphones and cloud computing to artificial intelligence and algorithmic governance, the contours of nearly every aspect of human life are getting shaped by digital systems. More and more, communication, education, commerce, healthcare, banking, and governance take place through digital platforms. In this process of transformation, while convenience and access have been greatly increased, the very core of what privacy is has been altered.
Unlike the older forms of privacy violation, which were out in the open and locally confined, the new intrusion into privacy is invisible and consists of constant data extraction. Any digital interaction generates personal data: location, browsing behavior, biometric markers, communication patterns, and psychographic-economic profiles. These are combined by companies to provide high-definition profiles of people, usually without their true understanding.
Understanding Digital Privacy
Digital Privacy signifies the individual’s concept for managing the collection, use, retention, and transmission of personal information in a digital setting. Digital Privacy comprises a variety of closely interconnected aspects:
- Informational privacy: Privacy over personal information
- Communications privacy: Protecting digital communication
- Decisional autonomy: freedom from algorithmic influence
- Behavioral Privacy: Protection against Tracking & Profiling
- Data Security: Data Security against Breaches and Unauthorized Access
In the online world, the relationship between online privacy and identity is a natural one. Data about people is not simply descriptive; it is used to create online personas with offline implications in terms of employment, insurance, political communication, and community involvement.
The Right to Privacy: Evolution
Global Recognition
The Right to Privacy has its place in International Human Rights Law. It was given protection through Article 12 of Universal Declaration of Human Rights and through Article 17 of International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.
However, these paradigms were developed at a time when the greatest challenge to privacy came from the State. The increase in multinational corporations as major data controllers required an expanded understanding of rights enforcement.
Digital Privacy as a Fundamental Right in India
The development of privacy jurisprudence reached its height with the historic case of Justice K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India in 2017.
Importance of the Puttaswamy Verdict
The nine judges of the Supreme Court unanimously held in the case that privacy is a fundamental right under Article 21 of the Constitution. The court defined privacy as being inherent in:
- Human dignity
- Personal freedom
- Individual autonomy
- Freedom of thought and expression
Notably, the Court has ruled that the protection of privacy is not limited to action taken by the state. The Court recognized that other actors, such as corporations, also pose serious threats to privacy in the digital era.
This decision established the philosophical basis for current data protection laws in the affirmation that personal information is an extension of the individual.
Corporate Power and the Digital Ecosystem
Large firms in today’s world thrive on a data-driven economy. Their business models rely on the:
- Continuous monitoring
- Behavioral analysis
- Predictive algorithms
- Monetizing personal data
The economic structure has been referred to as surveillance capitalism, where human experience itself is treated as a raw material for profit.
Corporations commonly operate as guardians of critical digital infrastructure. Social media platforms are powerful shapers of public discourse, search engines determine the very accessibility of information, and payment platforms control who may financially participate. Such dominance compels increased legal accountability.
Forms of Corporate Violations of Digital Privacy
- Excessive and Non-Transparent Data Collection: Many corporations harvest data not related to the service. The principle of purpose limitation is thus not adhered to, and user autonomy is impacted.
- Illusory Consent Mechanisms: Consent often serves as a mere formality. Lengthy, jargon-heavy policies limit real choice. Users must consent to tracking or forgo services.
- Data Sharing and Monetization: User data is shared with third-party entities, advertisers, and data brokers without the need for user consent. The user is no longer in control of the information flow.
- Data Breaches and Negligence: There have been many incidents of violation that involve sensitive information such as financial, biographic, biometric, and health-related data. These incidents carry irreparable long-term effects.
Judicial Responses to Corporate Privacy Violations
Facebook-Cambridge Analytica Scandal
Unauthorized harvesting of 87 million users’ data for political targeting highlighted corporate misuse risks. Regulators like the US FTC imposed $5 billion fines and settlements, with courts upholding liability.
Vidal-Hall v Google EWCA Civ 311
The UK Court of Appeal established misuse of private information as an independent tort for unauthorized browser tracking via cookies, rejecting the need for pecuniary loss.
Google and the Right to Be Forgotten
The European Court of Justice (Google Spain, 2014) upheld individuals’ privacy rights to delist inaccurate digital footprints, balanced against freedom of expression.
WhatsApp Privacy Policy Litigation (India)
The Supreme Court stayed CCI’s INR 213 crore penalty (upheld by NCLAT 2025) against Meta for privacy-violative policy updates mandating data sharing, balancing privacy, antitrust, and consumer rights.
Recent Developments (2024-2026):
- Bombay HC (2025): Ex parte injunction barred ex-employee from using client/pricing data as privacy breach, with commissioner for seizure.
- Delhi HC (2025): Dynamic injunctions for deepfake/NCII takedowns, enforcing intermediary privacy duties.
Judicial Development of Corporate Liability
Horizontal Application of Fundamental Rights
Courts have been recognizing that if private entities wield significant power, especially if they perform state-like functions, they need to be governed by the principle of human rights. Digital platforms have significant impact similar to that produced by state institutions today.
Doctrine of Proportionality:
Judicial review also emphasizes that the gathering of the data has to be necessary and proportionate. Excessive surveillance will fail judicial review.
Informational Self-Determination
This principle was adopted from German constitutional case law, claiming a right of an individual to control the handling of personal information.
Statutory Protection of Digital Privacy in India
Information Technology Act, 2000
- Section 43A provides civil liability for failing to protect sensitive information.
- Section 72A relates to making disclosures of information in contravention of lawful contracts.
But such provisions were not sufficient for modern data environments.
Digital Personal Data Protection Act, 2023
The DPDP Act shifts to a rights-based regime post-Puttaswamy:
- Data fiduciaries’ obligations.
- Consent-driven processing
- Purpose limitation
- Fines up to 4% global turnover
- Rights of access, correction, erasure, grievance redressal
- Children’s data safeguards (parental consent, tracking bans)
- Phased enforcement (rules notified 2025, full by 2027)
The Act institutionalizes the judicial vision delineated in the case of Puttaswamy.
Comparative International Frameworks
European Union – GDPR
The GDPR is still the worldwide benchmark. This law emphasizes the principles of accountability, clarity, data minimization. Failure to comply carries heavy penalties.
United States
Though there is no privacy legislation on the federal level, state privacy laws, such as the California Consumer Privacy Act, increasingly offer protection.
Impact on Indian Law
The courts in India are increasingly turning to international standards of the right to privacy and thus perpetuating the trend towards greater consistency with global standards.
Obstacles in Enforcing Judicial Protection
Even where laws exist, enforcement faces hurdles:
- Cross-Border Data Transfers: Transnational operations complicate jurisdiction.
- Technological Asymmetry: Judiciary lags rapid tech advances like AI.
- Resource Asymmetry: Individuals lack means to sue giants.
- Algorithmic Opacity: Proprietary systems block transparency.
Contemporary Risks to Digital Privacy
Future Challenges:
- Machine intelligence surveillance
- Facial recognition technology
- Biometric Authentication Systems
- Predictive behavior analytics
Such technologies are likely to turn society into a state of perpetual digital observation.
Role of Judiciary in the Future
Because of numerous anticipated challenges, the judiciary must also carry on in its role:
- Interpret Privacy Dynamically
- Apply Constitutional Morality on Technology
- Strike a balance between innovation and rights
- Ensure accountability of powerful online actors
Courts are required to be the protectors of liberty in algorithmic societies.
Conclusion
Data privacy’s constitutional recognition addresses corporate informational power beyond state threats. This monumental development acknowledges pervasive corporate data power requiring privacy protections beyond state action alone. The judicial system has had a major role to play in incorporating constitutional protection within cyberspace. Through innovative interpretations, courts have asserted that dignity, autonomy, and liberty cannot exist under unfettered corporate surveillance.
Although laws offer a framework, it is the watchful eye of judicial systems that gives meaning to the right to privacy. With advancing technology, judicial systems need to be nimble, committed, and protective of rights.
The fight for privacy in the digital age, in the end, is the fight for human freedom. To maintain privacy in the digital age is not to maintain a principle of data rights but to maintain the human self in a world of invisible domination.
