Published Paper Details:

Any critical and nuanced analysis of what contours this discourse - security versus liberty - must begin by placing it within the legal and socio-political context of India. Inspired by the evolutionary laws of Great Britain, India inherited a complex regime of surveillance through the Information Technology Act 2000, and the Indian Telegraph Act 1885. The advent of the technological revolution has led to the use of various surveillance architecture like Aadhaar (unique biometric ID), centralized monitoring systems (CMS), air traffic surveillance (NETRA) and national intelligence grid (NATGRID), all of which have in turn, like everywhere else in the world, created concerns about safety and security on the one hand, and the right to privacy on the other. The recent judgment by the Supreme Court in the Aadhaar case, Justice K S Puttaswamy (Retd) v. Union of India, recognized privacy as a fundamental right. The judgment talks about the need for 'proportionality, legality and necessity of state action' that can be bring used to bring about a violation to an individual's right to privacy. Thus, the discourse of surveillance oscillates across time, across evolving legal regimes, and is situated squarely on the idea of the tension between surveillance to ensure freedom and surveillance to ensure guardedness. The fluidity with which India intends to keep changing and creating laws related to privacy and data protection can be seen in the passage and discussion of the personal data protection bill, which acknowledges the tension between the demand for the need to ensure security and surveillance and the need to also uphold the right to privacy within the democratic legal framework.