Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
SASHIKANTA MISHRA
Rohit Anand Das – Appellant
Versus
State of Odisha – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. right to privacy and consent implications. (Para 2 , 3 , 4) |
| 2. nature and role of educational authorities. (Para 5 , 6 , 7) |
| 3. procedural compliance in issuing notices. (Para 8 , 9) |
| 4. debate on voluntary vs. mandatory nature of consent. (Para 10 , 11 , 12 , 13) |
| 5. court analysis on consent form shortcomings. (Para 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18) |
| 6. order for consent form amendment. (Para 19) |
JUDGMENT :
'Privacy is an inherent human right, and a requirement for maintaining a human condition with dignity and respect’- said Bruise Schneier in his book, ‘Schneier on Security’. It is a fundamental human right that protects an individual’s personal information, choices, dignity and freedom from unwarranted surveillance. It is recognized as a fundamental right under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. A Five- Judge Bench of the Supreme Court in the case of K.S. Puttaswamy vs. Union of India, (2019) 1 SCC 1 held in no uncertain terms that right to privacy being an important fundamental right encompasses various aspects of life. Though not absolute, it can be subject to reasonable restrictions only. The present Writ Petition involves the question of interference with the Petitione
Consent forms for educational initiatives must include opt-out provisions to protect individuals' right to privacy under Article 21 of the Constitution.
Mandatory Aadhar-based facial recognition attendance is unconstitutional as it violates the right to privacy under Articles 14, 19, and 21 and must be voluntary as per the Aadhar Act.
Point of law : If a student omits or fails to pay the fees and contributions due to a school together with the fine due thereon by the last working day of the month in which they are due, his name sh....
The court affirmed that public health measures can limit individual rights if justified by legality, necessity, and proportionality, especially during emergencies like a pandemic.
The court held that under Section 33 of the Aadhaar Act, UIDAI must provide Aadhaar details to aid in tracing missing trafficking victims, balancing privacy with the need for substantive justice.
Article 25 of the Constitution guarantees freedom of conscience, including the right to declare non-belief in any religion, but requires quantifiable evidence for public interest claims.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
