Privacy Rights And Biometric Protection

Summary

The issue involves the violation of privacy rights under Article 21 of the Indian Constitution by a company, M/s Zebra Technologies. The petitioner argues that the company failed to inform users about revised terms and conditions and shared sensitive health data without explicit consent, violating the Digital Personal Data Protection Act, 2023. The case references include Justice K.S. Puttaswamy vs Union of India and R. Rajagopal vs State of Tamil Nadu, emphasizing the need for informed consent and data protection. The relief sought includes a declaration of rights violation, deletion of retained biometric data, and a mandate for explicit consent for data sharing.

Full Conversation

i have to write memorial on it for international moot court competition you have to dreaft agrguments for me
Certainly! Here’s a detailed draft of arguments on behalf of the petitioner, Mr. X, for Issue *, including sub-issues, statutes, facts, points, case laws, judgments, and doctrines:
Issue *: Violation of Mr. X’s Fundamental Right to Privacy under Article * by M/s Zebra Technologies
Sub-issue *: Higher Responsibility for Sensitive Data
Statutes:
- Article * of the Constitution of India: Right to Privacy
- Digital Personal Data Protection (DPDP) Act, *
Facts:
- Mr. X was not informed about the revised terms and conditions in January *.
- Sensitive health data was shared without explicit and informed consent.
Points:
- Companies handling sensitive data have a higher responsibility to protect user privacy.
- Explicit and informed consent is a fundamental requirement under the DPDP Act.
- Failure to notify users about policy changes constitutes a breach of trust and privacy.
Case Laws:
- Justice K.S. Puttaswamy (Retd.) vs Union of India (*): Recognized the right to privacy as a fundamental right under Article *.
- R. Rajagopal vs State of Tamil Nadu (*): Highlighted the need for consent for sharing personal information.
Judgments:
- In Puttaswamy, the Supreme Court emphasized that informational privacy is a crucial aspect of the right to privacy, particularly concerning sensitive personal data.
- In Rajagopal, the court ruled that unauthorized publication of personal information without consent constitutes a violation of privacy.
Doctrine:
- Doctrine of Proportionality: Any intrusion into privacy must be necessary and proportionate to the objective sought.
Sub-issue *: Importance of Biometric Details
Statutes:
- Digital Personal Data Protection (DPDP) Act, *
Facts:
- M/s Zebra Technologies retained biometric data despite Mr. X's withdrawal of consent.
- Biometric data is highly sensitive and requires stringent protection.
Points:
- Biometric data is unique and irreplaceable, making its protection paramount.
- Unauthorized retention and sharing of biometric data can lead to severe privacy breaches and misuse.
Case Laws:
- Puttaswamy (Aadhaar Case) (*): The Supreme Court underscored the importance of securing biometric data and the need for robust safeguards.
- Selvi vs State of Karnataka (*): Highlighted the sensitive nature of biometric data and the need for consent and protection.
Judgments:
- In the Aadhaar Case, the court ruled that the collection and storage of biometric data must be accompanied by adequate security measures and informed consent.
- Selvi emphasized that biometric data collection must be voluntary and with the individual's consent.
Doctrines:
- Doctrine of Informed Consent: Users must be fully aware and consent to the collection and use of their biometric data.
- Doctrine of Data Minimization: Only the minimum necessary data should be collected and retained.
Relief Sought:
- Declaration: That M/s Zebra Technologies violated Mr. X's right to privacy.
- Order: For the deletion of all retained biometric data.
- Mandate: Explicit consent for any further data sharing.
These points comprehensively address the issues raised by Mr. X regarding the higher responsibility for sensitive data and the importance of biometric details.
i am law student , participating in international moot court competition , you have to draft memorial for me
Certainly! Here's a detailed draft of arguments on behalf of the petitioner, Mr. X, for Issue *, including sub-issues, statutes, facts, points, case laws, judgments, and doctrines:
Issue *: Violation of Mr. X’s Fundamental Right to Privacy under Article * by M/s Zebra Technologies
Sub-issue *: Higher Responsibility for Sensitive Data
Statutes:
- Article * of the Constitution of India: Right to Privacy
- Digital Personal Data Protection (DPDP) Act, *
Facts:
- Mr. X was not informed about the revised terms and conditions in January *.
- Sensitive health data was shared without explicit and informed consent.
Points:
- Companies handling sensitive data have a higher responsibility to protect user privacy.
- Explicit and informed consent is a fundamental requirement under the DPDP Act.
- Failure to notify users about policy changes constitutes a breach of trust and privacy.
Case Laws:
- Justice K.S. Puttaswamy (Retd.) vs Union of India (*): Recognized the right to privacy as a fundamental right under Article *.
- R. Rajagopal vs State of Tamil Nadu (*): Highlighted the need for consent for sharing personal information.
Judgments:
- In Puttaswamy, the Supreme Court emphasized that informational privacy is a crucial aspect of the right to privacy, particularly concerning sensitive personal data.
- In Rajagopal, the court ruled that unauthorized publication of personal information without consent constitutes a violation of privacy.
Doctrine:
- Doctrine of Proportionality: Any intrusion into privacy must be necessary and proportionate to the objective sought.
---
Sub-issue *: Importance of Biometric Details
Statutes:
- Digital Personal Data Protection (DPDP) Act, *
Facts:
- M/s Zebra Technologies retained biometric data despite Mr. X's withdrawal of consent.
- Biometric data is highly sensitive and requires stringent protection.
Points:
- Biometric data is unique and irreplaceable, making its protection paramount.
- Unauthorized retention and sharing of biometric data can lead to severe privacy breaches and misuse.
Case Laws:
- Puttaswamy (Aadhaar Case) (*): The Supreme Court underscored the importance of securing biometric data and the need for robust safeguards.
- Selvi vs State of Karnataka (*): Highlighted the sensitive nature of biometric data and the need for consent and protection.
Judgments:
- In the Aadhaar Case, the court ruled that the collection and storage of biometric data must be accompanied by adequate security measures and informed consent.
- Selvi emphasized that biometric data collection must be voluntary and with the individual's consent.
Doctrines:
- Doctrine of Informed Consent: Users must be fully aware and consent to the collection and use of their biometric data.
- Doctrine of Data Minimization: Only the minimum necessary data should be collected and retained.
---
Relief Sought:
- Declaration: That M/s Zebra Technologies violated Mr. X's right to privacy.
- Order: For the deletion of all retained biometric data.
- Mandate: Explicit consent for any further data sharing.
These points comprehensively address the issues raised by Mr. X regarding the higher responsibility for sensitive data and the importance of biometric details.