Right to Life and Freedom From Unjust Confinement: A Constitutional Perspective
In August 2023, the Digital Personal Data Protection (DPDP) Act was enacted, marking a significant step towards regulating the processing of digital personal data in India. The comprehensive law, yet to come into force, aims to balance individual rights with lawful data use.
The DPDP Act mandates obtaining explicit consent from individuals before processing their personal data, establishing clear grounds for data use. Entities processing personal data must appoint Data Protection Officers, maintain detailed audit logs of processing activities, and implement grievance redressal mechanisms for data subjects.
The law applies to any entity processing personal data of Indian residents, regardless of the entity's location, affecting cross-border data processing and transfer. The Act authorizes transfers of personal data abroad, subject to restrictions imposed by the Central Government. However, these restrictions lack objective criteria, granting the government expansive discretionary power.
The forthcoming finalized Rules will operationalize the Act’s framework and set enforceable standards for data protection across India. Parallel to the Act, the government runs training and public awareness programs to build cybersecurity skills and promote safe digital practices.
Meanwhile, the judiciary has been active in addressing end-of-life issues. The "right to die" was recognized in the case of Rathinam v. Union of India (1994), and the process for making living wills and withdrawing life-sustaining treatment has been simplified in the case of Common Cause v. Union of India & Ors. (2023).
Passive euthanasia, or intentionally letting a patient die by withholding artificial life support, was allowed under strict guidelines in the case of Aruna Ramchandra Shanbaug v. Union of India & Ors. (2011). The act of ending someone's life to eliminate pain or suffering, known as euthanasia, can be of two types: active (intentionally doing something to end a person's life, such as injecting a drug) and passive (letting a patient die by withholding artificial life support).
The innovative interpretation of Article 21 of the Indian Constitution has promoted socio-economic justice, strengthened fundamental rights, and resulted in more rights being accorded status as Fundamental rights. However, this interpretation has also led to unjusticiable rights restricting justiciable rights.
Emphasis on constitutional morality is crucial, and the judiciary should be more cautious while declaring new rights as fundamental rights. Adherence to the golden triangle (Article 14, 19, and 21) should be the main focus.
As India navigates the complexities of data privacy and end-of-life decisions, the DPDP Act and the evolving court rulings underscore the country's commitment to upholding individual rights while addressing national security and regulatory oversight priorities. The forthcoming Rules and future court decisions will further shape these developments.
In light of the DPDP Act, forthcoming Rules, and judicial decisions, India's commitment to individual rights extends beyond data privacy to end-of-life issues. The Act imposes data protection standards, requires consent for personal data processing, and restricts cross-border data transfer, albeit with expansive government discretion. Simultaneously, the judiciary has recognized the "right to die" and advanced passive euthanasia under strict guidelines, while the government runs programs promoting cybersecurity and safe digital practices. These developments underscore India's dedication to striking a balance between individual rights, national security, and regulatory oversight.
