#RightToPrivacy

[zenstudy01]

Pegasus Spyware: Tech, Ethics & UPSC Relevance

Pegasus Spyware, developed by Israel's NSO Group, can infiltrate smartphones without user interaction. Used allegedly for surveillance, it sparked major privacy and ethical debates worldwide. Understanding its functioning, constitutional implications, and national security concerns is vital for UPSC aspirants preparing GS2 (Governance) and GS3 (Internal Security). Stay informed and think critically about its societal impact.

🌐 Website: https://zenstudy.in/ 📢 Telegram: https://t.me/Zenstudyltd 📘 Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=61555473406607 📱 Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/zenstudyz/ ▶️ YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/@Zenstudyz 🐦 Twitter: https://twitter.com/ZenStudy_in 💼 LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/company/zenstudy

[bollywooddetective]

Manish Trehan: A Visionary Leader in Media and Consulting

Manish Trehan stands as a distinguished figure in both the media and consulting sectors, bringing over 30 years of rich experience to his roles. As the Chief Executive Officer of PHILOS Consulting, he has demonstrated exceptional leadership and strategic vision, driving significant growth and innovation within the company.

in.linkedin.com

Professional Journey and Achievements

Throughout his illustrious career, Trehan has made notable contributions across various industries, including telecom, retail, consumer services, media, and B2B sales. His extensive experience with blue-chip companies has equipped him with a profound understanding of market dynamics and consumer behavior, enabling him to devise strategies that foster business excellence.

in.linkedin.com

Leadership at PHILOS Consulting

Under Trehan's stewardship, PHILOS Consulting has emerged as a leader in delivering innovative solutions tailored to the unique needs of its clients. His commitment to excellence and his ability to anticipate market trends have been instrumental in positioning the company as a trusted partner in the consulting landscape.

Contributions to Media and Entertainment

In addition to his consulting endeavors, Trehan has ventured into the media and entertainment industry. He is credited as a producer for acclaimed projects such as "Jamtara: Sabka Number Ayega" (2020), "One Friday Night" (2023), and "Line of Descent" (2019).

imdb.com These projects have been well-received, showcasing his versatility and passion for storytelling.

Philanthropic Initiatives

Beyond his professional accomplishments, Trehan is actively involved in philanthropic activities. He supports various initiatives aimed at community development and empowerment, reflecting his dedication to social responsibility and positive societal impact.

Personal Philosophy and Vision

Trehan's approach to leadership is characterized by a commitment to innovation, integrity, and inclusivity. He believes in fostering environments that encourage creativity and collaboration, ensuring that diverse perspectives are valued and integrated into organizational strategies.

Conclusion

Manish Trehan's multifaceted career serves as an inspiring testament to the impact of visionary leadership and dedication. His contributions to consulting and media continue to influence and inspire, underscoring the importance of adaptability and passion in achieving sustained success.

[intimeimmigration]

Everyone has the fundamental right to respect for their home, private and family life, and correspondence. Public authorities cannot infringe upon this right unless it concerns national security, public safety, crime prevention, or the economic well-being of the nation. Protecting these rights is crucial for maintaining freedom and justice in society. Visit our Website : https://intimeimmigration.co.uk/private-life-application/

[mco-legals]

🔍 Knowledge Bank Series by MCO Legals 📚 Cyber Law: Series 2, Issue 9

🚨 Illegally Recorded Telephone Conversations as Evidence Infringes Right to Privacy Explore the case of Dharmesh Sharma vs. Tanisha Sharma (CMPMO No. 665 of 2022) and understand how illegally obtained evidence impacts privacy rights under Indian law.

✨ Stay informed with MCO Legals’ Knowledge Bank, where we simplify legal insights for you.

📖 Read more: https://www.mcolegals.in

[ecospacerealtors]

Article 21 of the Indian Constitution

https://www.ecospacerealtors.in/post/article-21-of-the-indian-constitution

Article 21 of the Indian Constitution: A Detailed Overview

Article 21 of the Indian Constitution is one of the most significant provisions safeguarding individual rights in India. It provides a fundamental right that ensures every citizen the right to life and personal liberty. Over the years, the Supreme Court has interpreted Article 21 expansively, transforming it into a powerful legal tool that encompasses a wide range of rights essential to living a dignified life.

Text of Article 21:

"No person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty except according to the procedure established by law."

While this seems concise, its scope has expanded significantly through judicial interpretations to include various facets of human life and personal freedom.

Key Components of Article 21:

Right to Life: The "right to life" does not merely mean the right to survive. The Supreme Court has interpreted this to include the right to live with dignity, which covers basic human necessities such as food, shelter, education, and healthcare.

Right to Personal Liberty: This aspect protects individual freedom from illegal detention or interference. Any deprivation of personal liberty must follow proper legal procedures.

Evolution of Article 21 through Judicial Interpretation

The scope of Article 21 has broadened significantly, largely due to judicial activism and progressive interpretation by the Supreme Court. Here are some critical rights that fall under the umbrella of Article 21:

Right to Privacy: In the landmark Puttaswamy v. Union of India (2017) judgment, the Supreme Court ruled that the right to privacy is a fundamental right under Article 21. This protects citizens from unwarranted state surveillance and intrusion into personal matters.

Right to a Pollution-Free Environment: In the case of Subhash Kumar v. State of Bihar (1991), the Supreme Court declared that the right to life includes the right to live in a clean and pollution-free environment, emphasizing environmental protection as a crucial component of human dignity.

Right to Livelihood: In the Olga Tellis v. Bombay Municipal Corporation (1985) case, the Court recognized that the right to life under Article 21 includes the right to livelihood, ensuring that citizens are protected from arbitrary evictions that may strip them of their means of living.

Right to Health: The Supreme Court has also recognized the right to health as part of the right to life, as seen in the Paschim Banga Khet Mazdoor Samity v. State of West Bengal (1996) case, which mandated the government to provide adequate healthcare facilities.

Right to Education: The Unnikrishnan v. State of Andhra Pradesh (1993) judgment led to the recognition of the right to education as a fundamental part of Article 21. This later resulted in the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009, ensuring education for children between the ages of 6 and 14.

Right to Die with Dignity: In Common Cause v. Union of India (2018), the Supreme Court upheld passive euthanasia, recognizing the right to die with dignity as a part of the right to life.

Right to Speedy Trial: In the Hussainara Khatoon v. State of Bihar (1979) case, the Court ruled that speedy trials are an essential component of personal liberty, highlighting the right of every individual to receive timely justice.

Article 21 and Environmental Protection

Article 21 has been instrumental in cases concerning environmental protection. The courts have ruled that the right to a healthy environment is intrinsic to the right to life. Some landmark cases include:

M.C. Mehta v. Union of India (1987): Known as the Ganga Pollution Case, the Supreme Court ruled that pollution of the Ganges river violated the citizens' right to a clean and safe environment.

Vellore Citizens Welfare Forum v. Union of India (1996): The Court recognized the Precautionary Principle and Polluter Pays Principle as essential to safeguarding the right to a healthy environment under Article 21.

Article 21 and the Noble M Paikada v. Union of India Case

In Noble M Paikada v. Union of India [2024 INSC 241], Article 21 played a pivotal role. The Supreme Court struck down a notification exempting linear projects (such as roads and pipelines) from obtaining environmental clearances. The Court held that bypassing public consultation and environmental safeguards violated citizens' right to a pollution-free environment under Article 21. This case reinforces that any decision impacting the environment must prioritize public health and environmental well-being.

Conclusion

Article 21 of the Indian Constitution has evolved into a dynamic and expansive right that encompasses several aspects of human life and dignity. Through judicial interpretation, it has grown to include rights such as the right to privacy, right to a clean environment, right to education, and right to health, among others. The broad interpretation of this article highlights the importance of ensuring that both life and personal liberty are protected in the fullest sense, making it one of the most far-reaching constitutional provisions in India.

Disclaimer

This information is provided for educational purposes and should not be construed as legal advice. For legal interpretations or to understand how Article 21 applies to specific circumstances, it is recommended to consult a qualified legal professional.

Reach Us: 📞: +91 9900984444 📩 : ecospacerealtors.in@gmail.com 🌐 : www.ecospacerealtors.in @ Your One-Stop Shop for Property Needs.

[talktomeguy]

EFF believe's police should know how surveillance tech works before unleashing it.

[usnewsper-politics]

Landmark Supreme Court Ruling Protects Women's Right to Choose: The Roe v. Wade Decision #abortionrights #controversy #FourteenthAmendment #HenryWade #JaneRoe #landmarkSupremeCourtdecision #legallandscape #NormaMcCorvey #righttoprivacy #Roev.Wade #SupremeCourtruling #Texasabortionlaw #viability #womensreproductiverights

[legalupanishad]

Phone Search by Police without Warrant: Know Your Rights

This article on 'Phone Search by Police without Warrant: Know Your Rights' was written by Toya Sen, an intern at Legal Upanishad.

Introduction

The Police are the very first authority we go to when a crime or wrong has been done against us, this is done by registering an FIR (First Information Report). The Police have the responsibility of maintaining the public peace and order. The Police Act of 1861 is an important law that highlights the duties and powers a police officer can exercise.  The Preamble to this Act states, “It is expedient to reorganize the police and to make it a more efficient instrument for the prevention and detection of crime”. Thus, another way to define a ‘Police’ is to say, a Police is an instrument whose aim is to prevent and detect crimes taking place in the country. We are all aware of the fact that police have the authority to search our private property in case of suspicion of wrong, but do the police have the power to go through our phones? Mobile phones are a fairly new concept in society. Nowadays, all of our private data are stored in our hand devices. This begs the question in our minds whether an officer can search our phones without a warrant or not. This article attempts to answer this question.

Warrant: Meaning and Concept

As per the National Crime Investigation Bureau, a warrant is defined as a written document issued by the court to a police officer to arrest and make an appearance in front of the court of law or search the premises of an offender for a particular thing. A warrant gives official permission to an officer to commit an act that would have been illegal when performed by a layman. For example, entering a person’s house to search would be an offense of trespass and violating the fundamental right of privacy of a person, but police having a search warrant would be able to commit such an act. Under Criminal Law, Section 2 defines a case that requires a warrant as an offense that can be punishable by a term exceeding 2 years, imprisonment of life, and the death penalty. Under Civil Law, Section 32 states that a court may issue a warrant against the accused if the accused fails to appear in front of the court after being summoned. A warrant does not have territorial boundaries in India, it can be executed at any place without any restrictions. 

Types of Warrant:

In India, two types of warrants can be issued in criminal cases: - Arrest Warrant - Search Warrant Arrest Warrant: An arrest warrant is issued by a judicial magistrate to a police officer or any other authority to arrest a person and take them into custody. It is issued when there is a reasonable belief that a person has committed a crime and has a high chance to abscond. This is further divided into two types: Bailable and Non-bailable. Search Warrant: A search warrant is issued by a court to a police officer, authorizing the said officer to search for a person, the house of the accused, their premises, vehicles, or other belongings that are in the possession of the accused. This is done to confiscate any suspicious thing which might have been used while committing an offense and may be used as a piece of evidence. Section 93, 94, 95, and 97 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 mainly deals with the provisions related to search warrant. - Section 93 of the Act: deals with the circumstances as to when a search warrant can be issued. - Section 94 of the Act: deals with the procedure required for the search of places that might have stolen property, forged documents, etc.  Kalinga Tubes Ltd and Ors v. D. Suri: In the above-mentioned case, the court held that the police officer who has been authorized to search, should take precautions and care while searching and refrain from abusing their power and authority.

Power of Police under Indian Laws

The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPc) confers important powers on police officers. The power to investigate, search, and arrest are some of the powers mentioned in the law. The powers relating to the search and seizure of property are outlined in Section 102 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. As per this section, any police officer can seize the property that is known or has been suspected to have been stolen or found under instances that raise suspicion of a crime being committed.  When an officer seizes property, they are required to report the said seizure to their senior officer, if they are a subordinate to that officer then they have to report it to the magistrate with jurisdiction. In certain situations, the police may perform a search without a warrant. For example, if they suspect that you have hidden illegal items like narcotics in your house or office, they can search without a warrant. However, in a shared house, they can search shared areas without a warrant but cannot search your private belongings if you are not present. Additionally, the police have the authority to search a towed or confiscated car without permission. It's important to note that while the police have these powers, they should exercise them within the limits prescribed by law. Violations of individual rights by the police can and should be challenged through legal means.

Misuse of Power by Police

While the powers that have been outlined above are designed to enable police to carry out their duties effectively, there is always the scope of it being misused or abusing these powers. This may be done in: - Illegal searches and seizures: A police officer may conduct searches or seize property without reasonable grounds or without following proper orders. They may use their authority to target individuals or groups based on personal bias, discrimination, or harassment rather than legitimate law enforcement reasons. - Fabrication of evidence: In some cases, police officers may plant or manipulate evidence to implicate innocent individuals or strengthen a case against someone they suspect to be guilty. This can include the planting of drugs, weapons, or other incriminating items. - Coercion and intimidation: Police officers may use their position of authority to intimidate or coerce individuals into providing self-incriminating statements or confessions. This can involve tactics such as threats, physical abuse, psychological manipulation, or prolonged detention without due process. - Violation of privacy rights: While certain circumstances allow for searches without a warrant, police officers may use this as an opportunity to invade individuals' privacy beyond what is necessary for legitimate law enforcement purposes. They may conduct searches in areas or for items not covered by the law, infringing on the privacy rights of individuals. - Failure to follow legal procedures: Police officers may disregard legal procedures and due process rights when exercising their powers. This can include failing to inform individuals of their rights, conducting searches without proper documentation or authorization, or failing to report seizures to the appropriate authorities as required by law.

Phone Search by Police without warrant: A violation of the right to privacy?

The right to privacy is an important fundamental right of every individual in our country. Protected under Article 21 of the Indian Constitution, it is one of the rights which can be exercised in various forms be it in our homes or simply through our mobile phones. Police might breach this right when they need to investigate and extract data that establish a lead against the accused. This can be done in two instances. - Searching the device: When an officer seizes your phone, they are allowed to access your data on the device. However, there needs to be a procedure to ensure the authenticity of the data. This is done through a cryptographic tool called ‘hashing.’ Hashing generates a unique value based on the data, and any changes to the data will result in a different hash value. By comparing hash values, it can be determined if the data has been tampered with. Ideally, the police should clone the data on the device to another system and generate a hash of that system to preserve the integrity of the original data. Unfortunately, there have been instances where police officers have violated this process. - Compelling the accused to provide credentials: A police officer may ask the accused for the passcode to unlock their device, but it is ultimately up to the accused whether they want to provide this information or not. Various judicial interpretations have been set in place in case the accused refuses to give his biometrics. To legally compel the accused to share their credentials, a search warrant under Section 93 may be issued.

Conclusion

Smartphones are considered to be an important instrument in this day and age. We all have become extremely dependent on our phones entrusting all our data to them. Similarly, phones have become an important source of evidence to police. The law based on this topic is quite one-sided and more laws and guidelines need to be set in force to answer the question that is, whether the power of seizing our phones constitutes to violation of our fundamental rights or not. 

References:

- “Know your Right if you Arrested by NIB”, National Crime Investigation Bureau,  available at : https://www.ncib.in/know_your_right.php#:~:text=Itisawrittenorder,shallshowhimthewarrant (last visited on 4 July 2023) - Ritika Sharma, “Who is police? What are powers & duties of police?”, Law Times Journal, 27 December 2019, available at: https://lawtimesjournal.in/who-is-police-what-are-powers-duties-of-police/ (last visited on 4 July 2023) - “Summons And Warrant – Meaning, Types, Modes And Differences”, Law Corner, 25 November 2020, available at: https://lawcorner.in/summons-and-warrant-meaning-types-modes-and-differences/ (last visited on 4 July 2023) Read the full article

[thedivorcelawfirm]

The Delhi High Court held that a wife's demand for a separate residence to ensure privacy does not amount to cruelty. It reaffirmed that the right to privacy is a fundamental right and a newly married woman is entitled to expect privacy in her matrimonial home. The husband, who abandoned the wife and children after briefly shifting them, cannot take advantage of his own wrongs.

👉 Read the blog here: https://www.thedivorcelawfirm.in/demand-privacy-spouse-not-valid-ground-divorce/

DelhiHighCourt #RightToPrivacy #MatrimonialRights #FamilyLaw #CrueltyInMarriage #LegalUpdate #WomenRights #IndianJudiciary #MarriageLaw

[wramirezch]

#DerechoaLaPrivacidad #RightToPrivacy

.

#WillyRamírezChávarry

#PERÚ🇵🇪

[liberalsarecool]

Abortion was a legal decision based on the rights and health of the pregnant child/woman/person. #RightToPrivacy #ReproductiveRights

Overturning abortion was the opinion of men.

This is not abut being Pro-life. Women dying from illegal abortions is becanot being Por-life. Making young girls carry a baby to term that is the result of incest is not pro-life.

This is a violation of women's human rights and Republicans don't care.

Biden has my vote because women deserve better.

[aaronjhill]

IN AN ERA OF PARANOIA AND FEARMONGERING No matter what the bureaucrats and their supporters claim, your medical information, including whether or not you have been vaccinated, is private. It is up to you whether or not you disclose that. No one can demand you show a vaccination card. “It is imperative to remember the intent behind HIPAA, ‘In HIPAA, Congress directed the Secretary to promulgate rules and regulations designed to ensure the privacy of patients' medical information.’” “There can be no doubt of HIPAA’s intent, it is self-proclaimed in the very first line: ‘This regulation…[is] to protect and enhance the rights of consumers by providing them access to their health information and controlling the inappropriate use of that information.’” “Preventing states from undermining provisions of HIPAA, the preemption provision makes HIPAA a blanket rule providing a minimum level of privacy for patients in all states.”

[jsbmarketresearch01]

Aishwarya Rai Responds to Fake YouTube Videos About Aaradhya’s Health After Filing Suit at Delhi High Court on it

Aishwarya Rai has chosen to break her silence and react to the multiple YouTube channels that have reportedly been using photos and videos of Aaradhya Bachchan and their family members in creating and spreading fake news about her 11-year-old daughter’s health. When she was asked at the promotional event of Ponniyin Selvan 2 (Aishwarya’s upcoming film), about how false and irrelevant news hurt people sentimentally and emotionally, the actress responded that it is nice that person from the media itself acknowledges the fact.

And then she went on to thank the media for the support for recognizing that the issue does exist and the negative impact of unnecessary and false writing. So, it gives her great hope that the media will not perpetuate the facts into false news and she thanked them for understanding that false news is insensitive and not required in the first place. She also said that she was thankful that they valued the sentiment she shared, and the wisdom of that media group in recognizing it.

For those who are not aware of the event, Abhishek and Aaradhya moved a suit against the entities on YouTube channels for using images and videos of Bachchan family members to spread false news about the health of Aaradhya. The suit was filed in the Delhi High Court, which stated that the complaint is on accord to violation of the right to privacy of the family members, especially Aaradhya, who is still a minor.

And the suit also said that the young child’s physical and mental well-being is susceptive to grave harm if such content and videos remain accessible to the public. It also claimed that though Aaradhya has not been hospitalized and is in good health, she was in direct presence with her mother at public events when the videos were made and the images were taken.

Visit here for more entertainment news: - https://jsbmarketresearch.com/entertainment

Follow us on social handles: -

Facebook: - https://www.facebook.com/JSBMarketResearchGroup

Instagram: - https://www.instagram.com/reel/Crfbb66oPlv/?utm_source=ig_web_copy_link

Twitter: - https://twitter.com/JSBMarket/status/1651127087099682818?s=20

LinkedIn: - https://www.linkedin.com/posts/jsbmarketresearch_whatsapp-multidevice-update-activity-7056884823541354496-gBNv?utm_source=share&utm_medium=member_desktop

Pinterest: - https://pin.it/1ayvWxO

YouTube: - https://youtube.com/shorts/11oqHvmxHvw?feature=share

[mankavitlawacademy]

The term "Honor Killing or Honour Killing " refers to the homicide of a family member by other family members who believe that the victim violated community norms and has brought shame to the family. Due to this crime, many youths in India have been killed to date. . . . Swipe to know more. #honorkilling #honorkillings #honourkilling #honourkillings #honourkillingismurder #lovemarriage #lovemarriages #izzat #marriage #constitutionofindia #constitution #article19 #article21 #equalitybeforethelaw #righttolife #righttoprivacy #righttodignity #cjichandrachud #50thcji #shaktivahini #khappanchayat #khappanchayats #caste #intercaste #intercastemarriage #intercastemarriageproblem https://www.instagram.com/p/CmDx1Fyvgb1/?igshid=NGJjMDIxMWI=

[gaysnowauthor]

CHURCH : STATE

OIL : WATER The Messiah had Spoken… Get it? Oil and water don’t Mix. Church and State don’t mix. And theMessiah, Ronald Reagan decreed that edict during his two terms in the OvalOffice. As I live and breathe, with my hand upon a bible, the highest court in ourland, the U.S. Supreme Court, has always ruled Separation of Church and Stateis PRECEDENT case law. Period, end of discussion. I was…

[grunkletony]

Right to Privacy

Like many people I am upset about the recent Supreme Court decision to overturn Roe vs. Wade. Not so much about abortion per se as their rejection of the Right to Privacy interpretation of the 14th amendment. I ask that you and your colleges draft a constitutional amendment guaranteeing the Right to Privacy. Given the nature of the current court I think it will be necessary to enumerate the rights protected by the Right to Privacy:

!. Right to an abortion; 2. Right to contraception; 3. Right to sexual intercourse between consenting individuals over the age of consent, regardless of gender.; 4. Right to same sex marriage; 5. Right to choose one's gender identity; 6. Right to interracial marriage.

I wrote the above to my congressman and my senators and reposted on Facebook and Twitter. If anyone out there agrees with me that we need a constitutional amendment to guarantee our right to privacy please write your congressman and senators and let them know you feel the same way.

In "The New Revelations" on page 62 Neale Donald Walsch writes: "You keep trying to solve the world's problems as if it were a political problem, or an economic problem, or even a military problem, and it is none of these. It is a spiritual problem." Okay, so how do we confront the spiritual roots of conservativism? How do we nurture the spiritual roots of the right to privacy? What is the spiritual action plan for this situation?