Latest news with #RighttoLifeandPersonalLiberty
India Today
4 days ago
- Entertainment
- India Today
Candid camera or creepy crew: What is 'breach of privacy'?
Shraddha Kapoor's viral video sparks outrage. When does a harmless video turn into a full-blown privacy nosedive? Just because someone's in the skies doesn't mean their boundaries should disappear into thin air. Welcome aboard the not-so-friendly skies of secret DOES BREACH OF PRIVACY MEAN IN LEGAL TERMS?Breach of privacy in India refers to any unauthorised interference with an individual's personal life, space, communications, or information without their explicit includes actions such as secretly recording someone, sharing personal photos or messages without permission, or accessing private data like phone records, emails, or CCTV footage unlawfully. Under Indian law, the right to privacy is recognised as a fundamental right under Article 21 of the Constitution (Right to Life and Personal Liberty), as affirmed by the Supreme Court in the Puttaswamy judgment (2017).SMILE YOU'RE IN A CABIN CAMERAHere's what happened, Shraddha Kapoor, Bollywood's doe-eyed darling, was flying through the clouds with her rumoured boyfriend Rahul instead of being left in peace to sip her complimentary beverage, she was secretly filmed by a member of the cabin crew, who thought leaking a private moment was somehow part of the in-flight Tandon with a virtual chappal of justice, slammed the airline for breaching Shraddha's privacy. And rightly so. But let's unpack this, because whether you're a national heartthrob or just a sweaty commuter on the Delhi Metro, privacy isn't a privilege. It's a PRIVACY MID-AIR: MORE TURBULENT THAN IT LOOKS?Here's a little nugget for the legally curious. The moment you board a flight, you're not in a surveillance jungle just because the clouds are watching. Airlines operate under strict rules, particularly under the Aircraft Rules, 1937 and Civil Aviation Requirements (CAR), Section 3, Series M, boring and binding stuff, but it's all true.A flight attendant is not allowed to secretly film passengers. Period. Even if the passenger is flipping their hair like it's a shampoo ad. This act can be interpreted under Section 66E of the IT Act, which criminalises the capture or transmission of images of a person's private area without consent, even more so if it's intrusive and shared most airlines have internal conduct rules for crew members that explicitly prohibit using personal phones for such purposes. So yes, a breach of trust, policy, and possibly the VS GROUND: IS PRIVACY ALTITUDE SENSITIVE?Short answer? Nope. Whether you're at 30,000 feet or walking your dog in a Park, your privacy remains your fundamental right. The Supreme Court in Justice K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India (2017) affirmed that privacy is a constitutional right under Article 21, the right to life and personal context matters though. On-ground breaches are easier to pursue legally because:There are clearer jurisdictional or public/private space distinctions are more can actually walk into a police station and file a the air? Trickier. You may need to file with the DGCA (Directorate General of Civil Aviation) or take it up with the airline's internal grievance redressal system before it CAN I NEVER TAKE A PICTURE AGAIN? IT'S ALL ABOUT THE CONSENTTaking a selfie with a celeb at a public event? Cool, if they nod or recording someone (anyone!) in a personal moment without consent, on land, air, or Mars? That's a legal make one thing clear. No consent? No camera.- EndsMust Watch
Hindustan Times
07-05-2025
- Politics
- Hindustan Times
Allahabad HC issues notices to Centre, state on PIL over monkey menace
The Allahabad high court on Tuesday issued notices to the animal welfare board of India, ministry of environment, forest and climate change, the Uttar Pradesh government, and others in response to a PIL highlighting the rising monkey population, increasing man-monkey conflict, and the starvation and inhumane conditions faced by monkeys. Allahabad HC (File) The court also directed the Centre, the UP government and local municipal bodies to inform it about any action plans implemented or proposed to address the issue. A division bench comprising Chief Justice Arun Bhansali and Justice Kshitij Shailendra also issued notices to the UP state animal welfare board, district magistrate of Ghaziabad, Ghaziabad Nagar Nigam, Nagar Palika Parishads of Loni, Modi Nagar, Murad Nagar, Khoda Makanpur, the society for prevention of cruelty to animals and the Ghaziabad development authority (GDA). The court asked these authorities to respond by July 10, detailing the steps taken and future strategies to control the monkey menace. The PIL was filed by Vineet Sharma, a BJP leader and social worker and Prajakta Singhal, a BTech student—both residents of Ghaziabad. They expressed concern over the growing human-monkey conflict and the suffering of monkeys due to lack of food and shelter across several districts of the state. The petition seeks directions for the preparation of an urgent action plan, establishment of infirmaries and veterinary care centres, provision of rescue vans, relocation of monkeys to forest areas, arrangement of adequate food supplies, and the setting up of a 24x7 grievance redressal helpline. Appearing for the petitioners, counsels Akash Vashishtha and Pawan Kumar Tiwari informed the court that the issue had reached a critical level, affecting every section of society—especially the elderly, women and school children. Schools were reportedly struggling to ensure student safety. 'The animal welfare board of India, as the apex advisory and expert body under the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, is mandated to devise an action plan. However, it currently has no strategy in place despite the gravity of the situation,' submitted Vashishtha. He further argued that municipalities, under the Municipal Corporation and Municipalities Acts, are also legally obligated to manage animal-related nuisances, confine dangerous animals, and ensure public safety. 'This petition seeks a balance between the rights under Article 21 (Right to Life and Personal Liberty) and the rights of animals, particularly their right to food,' Vashishtha added.
