Before we learn into an entire argument about the Right to Privacy first, we bear to endure what the term Privacy means. "Right to be left alone; the right of a person to be free from any unwarranted publicity; the right to live without any unwarranted interference by the public in matters with which the public is not necessarily concerned," as per Black's Law Dictionary. Data privacy is an accomplished affair of concern currently.

People are affected by and addicted to this internet, we all like more online deals and deals. And why not? It is simple and makes life smoother. But then's the deal, every logical thing has a harsh verity. Then, we may learn a fluent way to guide a sophisticated life through this internet, but clearly at the charge of our privacy. According to Article 21 of the Indian Constitution, "no person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty except by the procedure established by law."

The tenure" life" refers to all sides of life that contribute to a man's life being expressive, complete, and worthwhile. MP Sharma's case was bonded to the hunt for documents in the fate of examinations into Dalmia Jain Airways Ltd.’s business. The judges were to decide whether the government's right to search and seizure was subject to constitutional limitations and whether this would violate the right to privacy. The eight-judge panel, which included then-Chief Justice Mehar Chand Mahajan, said in its decision that "there is no justification for importing a completely different fundamental right into it through some strained construction."

The court ruled that" privacy wasn't a naturally warranted right." still, it held that Article 21(right to life) was the depository of residual rights and honored the common law right to privacy. still, the condition of having domiciliary visits was supposed unconstitutional. Many governments regard privacy to be a basic human right, and data protection regulations exist to preserve that right. Individuals must trust that their data will be managed carefully to engage in online activities.

The decision by the Supreme Court has given a much-needed boost to the protection of our privacy but it is in the end, inadequate. Privacy is a person's right to be left alone in matters that are not necessarily of public concern.

Introduction
Anybody can enjoy the freedom of movement anywhere but if the moment is Being tracked then how free is it?

Aadhar card, Paytm, Namo app, Cambridge Analytica There is one thing that is very common among the controversy that has risen about all of these apps in recent times it is alleged that all of these apps are trying to steal your data so what's in your data the Cambridge Analytica controversy was in the entire world this had shocked the government so it's high time now we need data privacy right in our country

Understanding Privacy

Before we begin a comprehensive study of the Right to Privacy, we must first define the term Privacy. "Right to be left alone; the right of a person to be free from any unwarranted publicity; the right to live without any unwarranted interference by the public in matters with which the public is not necessarily concerned," as per Black's Law Dictionary.

According to Article 21 of the Indian Constitution, "No person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty except according to procedure established by law". After reading Article 21, it was determined that the term "life" encompasses all parts of existence that contribute to a man's life being meaningful, full, and worth living.

Issues
A few years ago, potato farmers in Uttar Pradesh wanted to protest what was happening to their fallen potatoes outside the homes of government officials. The Uttar Pradesh administration was enraged by this and set out to find out who was responsible.

Can you imagine it being 10 or 20 individuals who must have discarded it, but 9980 people phone all their discussions, whatever they must be talking about, being heard? In another instance, the Andhra Pradesh government's website openly revealed people's personal information. They did not want to do it, but because the website was so unsafe, they had little choice. This material was about a government medical shop and included information about people, phone numbers, and medication specifics.

Nowadays, data privacy is a major problem. People are fond of and addicted to the internet; we all desire more online transactions and trades. So why not? It makes life easier and more enjoyable. But here is the point: every wonderful thing has a dark side. Through the internet, we may be able to live a more convenient existence, but at the expense of our privacy. Yes, your personal, confidential information is not protected, and now is not the time to relax. It is, undoubtedly, cause for alarm.

Case Laws:
The MP Sharma vs Satish Chandra case (15 March 1954)
MP Sharma's case was connected to the examination of Dalmia group firms' records in the aftermath of inquiries into Dalmia Jain Airways Ltd.’s company. The group was founded in July 1946 and dissolved in June 1952. A probe showed business malpractices, as well as shareholders, trying to conceal genuine information by filing phony balance sheets. An FIR was filed on November 19, 1953, and the district magistrate of Delhi received a request for search warrants.

The key issue was whether such methods infringed Articles 19 (1) (f) (property right) and 20 (3) of the Constitution (right against self-incrimination). The judges were to decide whether the government's ability to search and seizure was limited by the constitution and if it violated the right to privacy in any manner. Because the idea of privacy was still in its infancy, the bench avoided getting into specifics. The notion expanded in breadth throughout the years that followed.

The eight-judge panel, which included then-Chief Justice Mehar Chand Mahajan and Justices B Jagannatha, BK Mukherjea, Natwarlal H Bhagwati, Ghulam Hasan, TL Venkatarama Aiyar, Sudhi Ranjan Das, and Vivian Bose, stated in its decision that "A search and seizure power is a supreme power of the state for the protection of social security that must be regulated by law in any system of jurisprudence.

There is no justification for importing a completely different fundamental right into the Constitution through some process of strained construction when the framers of the Constitution decided not to subject such regulation to constitutional constraints by recognizing the fundamental right to privacy, analogous to the American Fourth Amendment."

Kharak Singh vs State of Uttar Pradesh - 18 December 1962
In the case of Kharak Singh vs. Governmental of Uttar Pradesh, the question of state monitoring was challenged in court as a breach of the right to privacy. Kharak Singh, an accused in a dacoity case, was acquitted owing to a lack of evidence and sued the police for violating his fundamental rights.

Domiciliary visits at night, hidden picketing of Singh's residence, tracking/verifying his movement, and periodic officer inquiries were all permissible under Uttar Pradesh police rules. Singh petitioned the Supreme Court, citing violations of his basic rights. The subject of monitoring and the validity of the Uttar Pradesh police rules was considered by a six-judge bench.

The major question was whether monitoring under Uttar Pradesh police rules violated people’s constitutionally granted fundamental rights. The police said that the rules did not violate basic rights.

Even if they did, they functioned as acceptable limits in the interests of the public and the effective performance of police duties. In an important ruling, the court found that "privacy was not a guaranteed fundamental right." It did, however, recognize the common law right to privacy and held that Article 21 (right to life) was the repository of residual personal rights. However, the section enabling domiciliary visits was declared illegal. It stressed the reciprocal exclusivity and self-contained nature of fundamental privacy rights.

Challenges Faced
How may it be dangerously abused? I would want to use Cambridge Analytica as an illustration of how voting manipulation may be conducted using your data. Cambridge Analytica exploited Facebook likes to distribute political party propaganda. How many of us like one or more Facebook pages? Each of us has a particular preference, such as whether you prefer comedy or Bollywood.

Your week point can be specified, such as humor, Bollywood, and so on. Your weak point can be revealed based on your specific Facebook likes, such as if you like comedy pages, you will be given comedy propaganda such as government blunders, or if there is a comedy page, comedy halt south will be presented.

If you enjoy Bollywood, your favorite Bollywood stars will be paid to perform some propaganda for it; however, not everyone will be shown; only select individuals will be shown based on their preferences, whether comedy or Bollywood.

Suggestions:

• Personal data should only be processed (collected, recorded, analyzed, shown, etc.) for "clear, specific, and lawful" purposes. Only the information required for such processing is to be gathered from anyone.
   
• Only necessary information will be gathered.

Conclusion
Many governments regard privacy to be a basic human right, and data protection regulations exist to preserve that right. Data privacy is also vital because individuals must believe that their data will be treated responsibly for them to interact online. Data protection procedures are used by organizations to show their clients and users that they can be trusted with their data.

As a result, we must exercise caution and safeguard our rights. On the internet, we must distinguish between manipulators and honest suppliers. We need to utilize services by providers like Home that do not trick us into giving away our data but let us own our data and exercise our human rights.

Being a part of society usually takes precedence over the notion that we are, primarily, individuals. Everyone needs their private place for whatever activity they engage in (assuming here that it shall be legal). As a result, the state guarantees everyone the right to spend private time with people they want away from the prying eyes of the rest of the world. Privacy, according to Clinton Rossiter, is the independence that can be interpreted as an endeavor to set up autonomy in at least a few personal and spiritual matters.

The person's autonomy is the most unique thing he or she can have. There, he is truly a free man. This is a right not against the state, but the entire world. The individual does not wish to share his thoughts with the rest of the world, and this right will protect his interests.

Even while the Supreme Court's judgment has supplied a much-needed boost to the protection of our privacy, it is insufficient. All privacy rules are, at best, hazy, making our personal information vulnerable anyplace. Until strict privacy regulations are in place, our only alternative is to preserve our confidential information in areas that we legally control, rather than on platforms where we are continually asked to share our data with others.

Written By Srija Singh, A Second-Year Student At Amity Law School, Noida.