The Hindu: - Published on 20 December 2025
Why in News:
Supreme Court recently made headlines in the Telangana phone-tapping case when Justice Nagarathna remarked: "Nothing to hide, so why fear surveillance?" The Telangana government countered, citing privacy as a fundamental right under Article 21. The case revolves around the police custody extension of former SIB chief T. Prabhakar Rao, amid allegations of illegal phone tapping during the BRS government.
Background
The scandal revolves around accusations that Rao, during the BRS regime, conducted unauthorized surveillance on opposition leaders and journalists. The current hearing focuses on extending police custody in connection to these investigations. The Telangana government argues that illegal surveillance violates citizens’ constitutional rights and undermines democratic principles.
Article 21 – Protection of Life and Personal Liberty
Article 21 of the Indian Constitution states that no person shall be deprived of life or personal liberty except according to the procedure established by law. This fundamental right applies to all persons, including citizens and foreigners, and covers two aspects:
- Right to Life – not just survival, but living with dignity and meaning.
- Right to Personal Liberty – freedom from arbitrary state action.
The Supreme Court calls it the “heart of fundamental rights,” protecting individuals against the State, including government bodies, legislatures, and local authorities.
Key Cases:
- A.K. Gopalan v. State (1950): Narrow interpretation; procedure established by law = British concept of liberty.
- Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India (1978): Expanded scope; personal liberty includes rights under Article 19; deprivation must not be unfair, unreasonable, or arbitrary.
Courtroom Debate: Open Society vs Legality
Justice Nagarathna suggested that individuals with a clear conscience in an open society should not fear surveillance. Countering this, Telangana’s Solicitor Mehta argued that the debate is about legality, not fear. The state cited the Puttaswamy judgment (2017), which recognized privacy as a fundamental right, asserting that routine surveillance cannot override constitutional protections.
Balancing National Security and Individual Privacy
The case highlights the tension between national security and individual privacy in India. While the Supreme Court’s remarks could normalize certain surveillance methods, such as CCTV monitoring, there is a serious risk of misuse, particularly for political targeting. Incidents like the Pegasus spyware controversy and WhatsApp snooping exemplify the dangers of unchecked digital surveillance.
Implications for Citizens
For citizens, the Telangana case underscores the need to balance security measures with personal privacy. Surveillance can aid law enforcement, but strict safeguards are necessary to protect fundamental rights. For UPSC aspirants, this case is relevant for Prelims (Telangana phone-tapping context), Mains GS-2 (digital surveillance and democratic freedoms), and essay writing on topics like “Privacy in the Age of Surveillance.” Legal frameworks such as IT Act Section 69 and the pending Data Protection Bill play a key role in addressing these challenges.
Telangana Government’s Stand on Legality
The Telangana government clarified that the issue is not about an open or closed society but about protecting citizens from illegal state actions. Even the President cannot authorize unlawful snooping, highlighting the Supreme Court’s role as the guardian of fundamental rights. Clear legislative and judicial guidelines are needed to protect privacy while maintaining national security, and citizens should actively use RTI and legal channels to challenge misuse.
Way Forward
There is a need for clear and comprehensive laws to regulate state actions affecting life and personal liberty, including surveillance and data use. All procedures must follow due process, ensuring fairness, reasonableness, and accountability. Strengthening judicial oversight, speedy justice, and awareness of constitutional rights will help prevent misuse of power by the State.
Conclusion
Article 21 remains the cornerstone of Indian democracy, safeguarding dignity, liberty, and the rule of law. Through progressive judicial interpretation, especially after Maneka Gandhi, it has evolved into a dynamic right that adapts to changing times. Protecting Article 21 is essential to ensure that state power does not override individual freedom, preserving the constitutional balance between authority and liberty.
