The Calcutta High Court in the case Sujit Kumar Datta v The State of West Bengal & Ors observed and has dismissed the PIL calling upon it to decide the issue of the right of individual to privacy being allegedly violated by spyware such as Pegasus, which is being said to be installed on people’s personal electronic devices without the knowledge of them.
The bench comprising of Chief Justice T.S. Sivagnaman and Justice Hiranmay Bhattacharya in the case observed and has opined that such blanket directions which are issued against the use of modern technology for allegedly being violative of the fundamental right to privacy of individuals could not be passed in the case. Thus, it has also been stated that as per the Chief Justice, due to the vague nature of the submissions and prayers of the petitioner, the said court could not arrive at the specific questions of law involved.
In the present case, the petitioner named Sujit Kumar Datta in the case observed and claimed to be a social worker and alleged that during his travel for work, wherein he discovered that many people whom he was assisting were facing problems of infringement of privacy which being due to forms of technology such as Pegasus amongst other. Therefore, in the case it has also been claimed that his representations to concerned authorities went unheard, which led him to filing of a PIL.
Further, the court observed that he booked upon a nine-judge bench decision of the Supreme Court in the case (Retd.) Justice K. S. Puttaswamy & Anr. vs. Union Of India And Ors., wherein the court declared the Right to Privacy to be a fundamental right as stated under the Right to life and liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.
He in the case also faced due to the impugned technology that the Datta claims he has been facing threats and is unable to carry out his daily tasks due to the ‘mental agony’
Therefore, the said court in the case observed and has granted him leave in order to approach the appropriate authorities as he believed that his fundamental right to privacy was being interfered with by any third parties.
Chief Justice T.S. Sivagnaman and Justice Hiranmay Bhattacharya: Coram
