Point of Law:
Right to privacy is a part of the right to "life" and "personal liberty" enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution. Once the facts in a given case constitute a right to privacy, Article 21 is attracted. The said right cannot be curtailed "except according to procedure established by law

ORDER

1. Heard Sri Raghvendra Singh, learned Advocate General assisted by Sri Neeraj Tripathi, learned Additional Advocate General, Sri Shashank Shekhar Singh, Additional Chief Standing Counsel and Smt. Archana Singh, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State- respondents.

2. Privacy is a fundamental human right recognized in the United Nations Declaration of Human Rights, the international convenant on civil and political rights and many other international and regional treaties. The privacy underpins human dignity and key values of a democracy. Nearly every country in the world recognizes a right of privacy explicitly in their constitution. In our country, where privacy is not explicitly recognized as fundamental right in the constitution, the Courts have found such right protected as an intrinsic part of life and personal liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. This fundamental right provides lungs to the edifice of our entire constitutional system. A slightest injury to it is impermissible as that may be fatal for our values designed and depicted in the preamble of the constitution.

3. In this public interest writ proceedings, undertaken by the Court at its own, the simple question is the legitimacy of the display of photographs, name and address of certain persons by the district administration and police administration of the city of Lucknow through banners. The banners came up at a major road side with personal details of more than 50 persons those accused of vandalism during protest in the month of December, 2019. The poster is seeking compensation from the accused persons and further to confiscate their property, if they failed to pay compensation.

4. The installation of banners was reported in several newspapers, television and internet channels on 6th and 7th of March, 2020. Noticing injury to the right of privacy, the Chief Justice of this Court directed the Registry to register a petition for writ in public interest and list that before the Bench nominated. By an advance notice, the Commissioner of Police, Lucknow and District Magistrate, Lucknow were called upon to explain the provisions under which the banners were placed on road side. An explanation was also sought about the provisions relating to placement of any banner on road side that causes interference in movement of traffic in crowded areas. Accordingly, the Commissioner of Police and District Magistrate, Lucknow are before us through the Advocate General of the State.

5. Learned Advocate General while accepting absence of any statute permitting executive authorities to put such banners, opposed the petition with all vehemence with following submissions:-

(i) The Court erred in invoking public interest jurisdiction in the instant matter, that being available to under privileged section of the society only. The persons whose personal details are given in the banners are capable enough to agitate their grievance, if any, at their own.

(ii) The cause in the instant matter, if any, that arose at Lucknow, therefore, the petition at Allahabad lacks territorial jurisdiction.

(iii) The cognizance of any issue that is to be adjudicated in public interest litigation jurisdiction could have been taken by a Division Bench and not by a single Bench as taken in the instant matter.

(iv) The object of displaying personal details of the individuals is to deter the mischief mongers from causing damage to public and private property. Such bonafide action taken by the State must not be interfered by the Court in its public interest litigation jurisdiction.

6. To substantiate the first submission, learned Advocate General heavily relied upon the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Uttaranchal Vs. Balwant Singh Chaufal and others, 2010 (3) SCC 402 laying down guidelines for Courts to streamline PIL jurisdiction. The Apex Court while doing so issued following directions:-

“(1) The courts must encourage genuine and bona fide PIL and effectively disc