PROTECTING HUMAN RIGHTS IN THE DIGITAL AGE: THE ROLE OF THE CONSTITUTION

This article has been written by Rakesh, PhD Scholar in Kurukshetra University.

***This article has been selected for LegalOnus Law Journal (LLJ) Volume 1, Issue 7, 2025.

---

The advent of the digital age has catalysed a fundamental redefinition of human rights—reshaping their meaning, scope, enforcement mechanisms, and underlying philosophical foundations. Digitalisation, in its expansive influence across legal, political, economic, social, and cultural spheres, has blurred the boundaries between public and private domains, transforming the traditional vertical model of human rights enforcement into a complex, horizontal landscape involving powerful non-state actors such as multinational corporations and algorithm-driven platforms. As emerging technologies—particularly artificial intelligence, biometric surveillance, and data analytics—reshape governance and daily life, they simultaneously challenge the adequacy of existing human rights protections, prompting the articulation of new frameworks such as “digital rights” and “fourth-generation rights,” including rights to bio-information and algorithmic transparency.

This research delves into the intricate interplay between technological advancement and constitutional safeguards, focusing on the Indian context. It critically evaluates how the Indian Constitution, grounded in the principles of liberty, dignity, and justice, responds to digital-era threats such as mass data surveillance, algorithmic bias, and digital exclusion. Through a detailed analysis of constitutional provisions, evolving judicial doctrines (particularly under Articles 14, 19, and 21), and landmark judgments such as Puttaswamy v. Union of India, this paper investigates whether the existing legal architecture is robust enough to address the asymmetry of power between individuals and data-centric institutions. The paper also interrogates the role of constitutional interpretation in shaping a future-ready rights framework and explores comparative insights from international jurisdictions and instruments such as the GDPR, the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights, and the UN’s digital rights initiatives.

Ultimately, this study argues that constitutionalism in the digital age must go beyond reactive legal reform. It must proactively anticipate rights-based implications of emerging technologies, rearticulate the boundaries of state and corporate accountability, and reimagine human rights in a manner that preserves autonomy, equality, and dignity in an increasingly digitized world.

Keywords

Human rights, Digital age, Constitutional rights, Freedom of expression, right to privacy, Digital surveillance, Cybersecurity and human rights, Press freedom, Data protection, Surveillance technology, Artificial intelligence and rights, Pegasus spyware, UN Human Rights Council, National security vs. privacy, Civil society, multi-stakeholder governance, Legal frameworks in the digital era

Literature Review

The intersection of human rights and digital technology has sparked a growing body of interdisciplinary literature, reflecting legal, philosophical, sociological, and technological perspectives. Scholars have increasingly acknowledged that while digitalisation promises empowerment and innovation, it simultaneously amplifies risks to autonomy, privacy, and equality. The literature surrounding this discourse broadly covers three interconnected domains: the evolution of digital rights, the constitutional response to technological disruptions, and the emergence of fourth-generation rights.

Digital Rights and the Reconfiguration of Human Rights

Digital rights, though not universally codified, are increasingly understood as an extension of traditional human rights into the online sphere. Scholars such as Luciano Floridi (2013) have conceptualized the “infosphere” as a new environment in which humans and digital entities coexist, necessitating new ethical and legal paradigms. Similarly, Julie Cohen (2012) highlights how surveillance capitalism and algorithmic governance fundamentally alter the notion of autonomy, making data privacy a prerequisite for meaningful freedom. Works by Jack Balkin and Tim Wu further emphasize the “information fiduciary” role of private tech companies and call for regulatory frameworks that hold them accountable as quasi-governors of digital space.

The Constitutional Response in India and Beyond

In the Indian context, legal scholars have focused on the transformative role of constitutional interpretation in adapting to digital realities. The landmark case Justice K.S. Puttaswamy (Retd.) v. Union of India (2017) marked a jurisprudential leap by recognizing the right to privacy as a fundamental right under Article 21 of the Indian Constitution. Scholars such as Gautam Bhatia and Justice B.N. Srikrishna argue that this decision laid the groundwork for a more robust digital rights framework, particularly concerning data protection and state surveillance. However, others critique the slow pace of legislative follow-up, pointing to gaps in the enforcement and accountability mechanisms, especially in the context of the Aadhaar project and the Digital Personal Data Protection Act (2023).

Globally, the European Union’s General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) has been hailed as a pioneering legal instrument that foregrounds consent, transparency, and user control—concepts that many constitutions are yet to integrate meaningfully. Comparative studies also highlight constitutional innovations in countries like Brazil, which enacted its “Internet Bill of Rights” (Marco Civil da Internet), and Germany, where the Constitutional Court has been proactive in safeguarding digital liberties.

Fourth-Generation Rights and Emerging Norms

Building on Karel Vasak’s three-generational model of human rights, several recent works propose the existence of a “fourth generation” of rights, comprising rights related to digital identity, bio-information, and cognitive liberty. Scholars like Mireille Hildebrandt and Shoshana Zuboff argue that these emerging rights demand a rethinking of the anthropological basis of constitutional law—shifting from a liberal-humanist model toward one that accounts for hybrid human-machine interactions. These debates are particularly relevant in the context of algorithmic bias, predictive policing, and AI-based governance, where existing rights frameworks fall short in addressing non-human agency and systemic opacity.

Gaps and Research Imperatives

Despite the rich academic discourse, significant gaps remain in operationalizing digital rights within constitutional frameworks. Much of the existing literature is either normative or reactive, focusing on specific judicial interventions or legislative developments rather than offering holistic models of digital constitutionalism. There is also limited scholarship on the intersectionality of digital rights—how digital exclusion disproportionately affects marginalized communities in terms of access, representation, and redress.

This paper seeks to bridge these gaps by synthesizing constitutional theory, human rights law, and digital ethics. It contributes to the literature by offering an India-centric analysis with global resonance, advocating for a proactive, rights-based constitutional framework that is responsive to the evolving realities of the digital world.

Research Methodology

This study adopts a qualitative, doctrinal, and analytical research methodology to explore the evolving relationship between human rights and constitutional safeguards in the digital era. Given the legal-constitutional nature of the subject, the research is grounded in a normative framework and relies on the interpretive analysis of legal texts, judicial pronouncements, policy documents, and academic commentary.

1. Doctrinal Legal Research

The primary method used in this study is doctrinal research, involving an in-depth examination of constitutional provisions, statutory enactments, and landmark judgments relevant to digital rights in India. Core constitutional articles—particularly Articles 14, 19, and 21—are analyzed in the context of digital governance, privacy, surveillance, and freedom of expression. Seminal cases such as Justice K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India (2017), Shreya Singhal v. Union of India (2015), and Anuradha Bhasin v. Union of India (2020) are examined to evaluate how constitutional interpretation is evolving in response to technological disruption.

2. Comparative and Cross-Jurisdictional Analysis

To contextualize India’s constitutional approach within global developments, a comparative methodology is employed. This involves examining digital rights frameworks and constitutional jurisprudence from select jurisdictions, including the European Union (GDPR and the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights), Brazil (Marco Civil da Internet), and Germany (digital privacy under the Basic Law). These comparative insights help identify best practices, emerging norms, and potential directions for India’s constitutional adaptation.

3. Interdisciplinary Approach

The research draws from interdisciplinary sources—particularly in the fields of digital ethics, technology policy, and human rights theory. Academic writings by legal scholars, philosophers, data ethicists, and policy think tanks are used to build a conceptual understanding of digital rights and fourth-generation rights. This holistic approach helps illuminate the social and technological dimensions often overlooked in legal analysis alone.

4. Secondary Sources and Literature Review

The methodology includes an extensive review of secondary sources such as scholarly books, peer-reviewed journals, law commission reports, government white papers (e.g., the Justice Srikrishna Committee Report on Data Protection), and international human rights declarations (e.g., UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights). These sources are critically evaluated to synthesize existing knowledge and identify gaps that this paper seeks to address.

5. Analytical Framework

The research employs a critical-analytical lens, questioning not only how the Constitution currently responds to digital challenges but also how it ought to evolve to preserve its foundational values in a technology-driven society. The analysis is framed around the key constitutional principles of liberty, equality, and justice, applied to contemporary digital issues such as algorithmic discrimination, biometric surveillance, digital exclusion, and the privatization of public discourse.

Scope and Limitations

While the study focuses primarily on the Indian constitutional framework, its findings and arguments have broader implications due to the global nature of digital rights discourse. However, the research does not include empirical fieldwork or statistical analysis, as it is primarily theoretical and doctrinal in orientation.

Hypothesis

The core hypothesis of this research is that the existing constitutional framework in India, though fundamentally robust, requires dynamic reinterpretation and structural augmentation to effectively protect and promote human rights in the digital age.

The study rests on the assumption that digital technologies—especially artificial intelligence, data surveillance, algorithmic governance, and the privatization of public spaces—pose novel threats to civil liberties that were not envisioned by the framers of the Constitution. These developments challenge the traditional understanding of rights and demand a re-examination of constitutional principles such as privacy, equality, freedom of speech, and due process.

The research further hypothesizes that:

1. Traditional legal tools and interpretations are inadequate to fully address the complexities introduced by digital technologies, particularly in the absence of strong legislative safeguards and regulatory mechanisms.
2. Judicial activism and constitutional interpretation have played a significant role in filling this gap, especially through the expansion of Article 21, but remain inconsistent and reactive.
3. A fourth generation of human rights is emerging, focused on digital autonomy, informational privacy, algorithmic accountability, and the right to digital inclusion—requiring constitutional recognition, either explicitly or through evolved jurisprudence.
4. A rights-based, constitutional approach is essential for ensuring that technological development does not outpace the legal and ethical frameworks that safeguard human dignity, autonomy, and justice.

Introduction

The 21st century has ushered in a digital revolution that has irrevocably altered the architecture of human interaction, governance, and individual autonomy[1]. From the widespread use of social media platforms and algorithmic decision-making to the deployment of facial recognition systems and biometric databases, the contours of personal freedom and civil liberties are increasingly shaped—and sometimes constrained—by digital technologies.[2] While these innovations have undeniably enhanced efficiency and connectivity, they have also generated unprecedented risks to core human rights, including privacy, freedom of expression, equality, and informational self-determination.[3]

Against this backdrop, the question arises: can traditional constitutional frameworks adequately safeguard human dignity and autonomy in an environment governed by code, data, and artificial intelligence? In India, this challenge is particularly critical. As the world’s largest democracy and a rapidly digitizing society, India stands at the intersection of opportunity and vulnerability. The Indian Constitution, drafted in an analog era, was envisioned as a dynamic document capable of adapting to evolving societal contexts. Its embedded values—liberty, equality, and justice—are now being tested in new terrains where algorithmic logic often supersedes legislative reasoning, and corporate terms of service rival constitutional guarantees in influence.[4]

This paper aims to explore the dynamic interaction between human rights and the digital age through the lens of constitutionalism. It investigates how the Indian constitutional framework has responded to, and must continue to evolve in response to, emerging digital threats and opportunities. Specifically, the study considers issues such as data privacy, surveillance, algorithmic discrimination, and the rights of digital citizenship. By analyzing key constitutional provisions, judicial pronouncements, and policy developments, the paper seeks to determine whether the Constitution’s current interpretive and institutional apparatus is sufficient—or whether a paradigm shift in legal thinking is required.[5]

Furthermore, the introduction of concepts such as the “right to be forgotten,” “informational privacy,” and “algorithmic accountability” reflect the urgency of expanding our legal imagination to include new dimensions of rights. This paper also examines the normative debates around the fourth generation of rights—those rooted in bio-information, digital identity, and cyber autonomy—and how these can be embedded within constitutional jurisprudence. In doing so, the study situates the Indian experience within a broader global context, offering a comparative perspective on how nations and international bodies are addressing the human rights implications of rapid digitalisation.[6]

In essence, the digital age challenges us not only to protect rights in new domains but to rethink what it means to be human, free, and equal in a world mediated by machines.[7] The Constitution, as the supreme legal and moral compass of the nation, must rise to this occasion—not merely as a safeguard, but as an active force in shaping a just and inclusive digital future.[8]

Constitutional Law in the Digital Age: Protecting Privacy Rights Online

The advent of the digital age has fundamentally reshaped human interaction, governance, and communication.[9] With the exponential rise of digital technologies, we have seen a profound transformation in how information is exchanged, privacy is perceived, and human rights are protected. However, these advancements bring with them a unique set of challenges, particularly in the realm of constitutional law and privacy rights. As technology continues to evolve, constitutional frameworks are required to adapt and safeguard individual liberties, which were not foreseen by the framers of most constitutions.[10] This section explores the implications of digital technologies on privacy rights and the role of constitutional law in balancing technological progress with fundamental human rights protections.

Privacy Rights and Constitutional Protections

In many modern constitutional frameworks, privacy rights are not always explicitly outlined but are instead inferred from a broader commitment to protecting individual freedoms.[11] In the case of the U.S. Constitution, for instance, privacy is often linked to the Fourth Amendment’s protection against unreasonable searches and seizures, as well as the broader interpretations of rights derived from the Bill of Rights. Similarly, in India, while privacy was not initially recognized as an explicit fundamental right, the landmark Puttaswamy case (2017) recognized the right to privacy under Article 21, broadening the scope of protection in response to the digital age.

However, the expansion of digital technologies has created new challenges regarding what constitutes an “invasion of privacy.” In an era dominated by smartphones, data mining, and ubiquitous surveillance, what was once a straightforward understanding of privacy now requires reevaluation. As personal data is increasingly collected and used by both state and private actors, questions arise about how constitutional principles can continue to safeguard individual freedoms in these new contexts.[12]

The Role of Constitutional Provisions in Addressing Digital Privacy Concerns

In India, the Puttaswamy case affirmed the constitutional right to privacy, emphasizing the need for a framework that addresses the complex digital realities individuals face today. Despite this, the legal framework for digital privacy remains in development, with significant gaps in regulation and enforcement, especially regarding private tech companies and their role in data collection and processing.[13] Digital technologies like biometric identification and social media platforms have brought new complexities, such as algorithmic discrimination, data exploitation, and surveillance, which were not foreseen when the Constitution was written.[14]

The constitutional response to these developments remains a work in progress. While the Indian legal system has addressed issues like surveillance and data protection through judicial interpretations, there is still a lack of robust legislative safeguards that comprehensively protect digital privacy. The recently introduced Personal Data Protection Bill (2023) is a step in the right direction but has faced criticism for not going far enough to protect citizens’ data from state overreach and corporate misuse.[15]

Balancing Privacy with National Security

The digital age has complicated the balance between privacy rights and national security interests. Constitutional protections against unwarranted surveillance often clash with government powers to monitor and protect citizens in the face of security threats. This is particularly evident in post-9/11 surveillance laws, such as the USA PATRIOT Act in the U.S.[16], and India’s various counter-terrorism measures, which grant expansive powers to state agencies for monitoring and data collection.[17]

However, the tension between privacy and national security is not confined to national borders. The revelations from whistleblower Edward Snowden in 2013 shed light on the extensive global surveillance programs of the U.S. National Security Agency (NSA). These disclosures triggered a global conversation about the rights of individuals versus the security needs of the state, highlighting the need for clearer constitutional frameworks and legal standards to protect citizens’ rights while maintaining national security.

In India, while the government has argued for expansive powers to monitor digital communications for national security reasons, critics have raised concerns about the lack of clear limits on state surveillance. The right to privacy must be safeguarded not only from state abuse but also from private corporations that may collect and sell personal data without adequate oversight.

The Role of Technology Companies in Protecting Digital Rights

An emerging challenge in the digital age is the growing power of technology companies, which play a central role in the collection, storage, and sharing of personal data. While governments regulate state surveillance, they often lack the power to directly oversee how private companies handle personal information. This has created a scenario where private actors control vast quantities of data, often without transparency or accountability.

The role of companies like Facebook, Google, and Amazon in data collection has raised significant concerns about consent and privacy. Users often “agree” to data collection practices through lengthy terms and conditions that they seldom read, which weakens their ability to exercise control over their own data. In recent years, courts have begun to address these issues, with landmark decisions such as Carpenter v. United States (2018), which ruled that data shared with third parties—such as location data—should still be subject to Fourth Amendment protections, requiring law enforcement to obtain a warrant before accessing this sensitive information.

Protecting Digital Privacy in the Future

As the digital landscape continues to evolve, there is an increasing need for robust constitutional protections to ensure privacy rights in the digital age. Legal scholars and privacy advocates argue for the establishment of comprehensive privacy laws that set clear standards for data collection, storage, and sharing. The European Union’s General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) serves as a model for such legislation, demonstrating how privacy rights can be safeguarded through strong legal frameworks that limit data collection and give individuals greater control over their personal information.[18]

Moreover, courts must continue to build a body of case law that addresses digital privacy concerns. By setting clear precedents, courts can provide guidance on how constitutional principles should be applied in the context of modern digital challenges. Public awareness campaigns are also crucial in educating citizens about their digital rights and the risks of online data sharing.[19]

Surveillance and its Threat to Human Rights

Surveillance has become one of the most significant threats to individual freedoms in the digital age. As technological advancements have allowed for more sophisticated and pervasive surveillance tools, such as facial recognition, biometric data collection, and algorithmic monitoring, the protection of human rights—particularly privacy—has become increasingly precarious. The evolution of surveillance technologies often outpaces the development of laws that protect citizens’ rights, leaving gaps in legal protections and enabling government overreach without adequate checks and balances.

For instance, the case of Big Brother Watch and Others v. the UK[20] raised concerns about breaches of Articles 8 and 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), which protect the rights to privacy and freedom of expression. The case highlighted the tension between security measures and individual freedoms, and sparked debates on the need to reassess existing frameworks for determining whether mass surveillance constitutes a violation of human rights in light of modern technological advancements.

In response to these concerns, advocates for privacy rights call for stronger legal protections, transparency, and oversight mechanisms to ensure that surveillance operations are aligned with human rights norms. Moreover, preventing surveillance is not enough; educating the public on the consequences of digital surveillance and enabling individuals to assert their right to privacy are also crucial steps in protecting fundamental freedoms.[21]

Freedom of Expression and Censorship in the Digital Age

The digital age has revolutionized public discourse, enabling individuals to express their opinions and participate in global conversations through social media, online forums, and digital news platforms. This democratization of information has empowered citizens to advocate for social change and hold institutions accountable in ways never before possible. However, the digital public sphere also presents significant challenges, including the spread of misinformation, online harassment, and manipulation of public opinion.[22]

A key challenge is finding a balance between regulating harmful content and safeguarding the right to freedom of expression. Certain content, such as hate speech and incitement to violence, clearly poses a threat to public order and safety, but blanket censorship may inadvertently stifle legitimate discourse. The global nature of the internet complicates content governance further, as differing legal and cultural standards across regions make it difficult to regulate content uniformly.[23]

In this complex landscape, it is essential to protect freedom of expression while simultaneously addressing issues like online abuse, misinformation, and disinformation. To strike this balance, countries need to develop clear and consistent frameworks that respect both free speech and the need to protect individuals from harmful content online.[24]

Privacy in the Digital Era

Privacy, once considered a cornerstone of human rights, is under significant threat in the digital era. The collection and storage of personal data by both technology companies and governments pose substantial risks to individual privacy. Data breaches, cyberattacks, and the improper handling of personal information have led to identity theft, financial loss, and psychological harm.

The 2013 revelations by Edward Snowden regarding the NSA’s global surveillance programs brought global attention to the erosion of privacy rights in the digital era. Snowden’s disclosures underscored the extent to which governments could compromise individual privacy in the name of national security, highlighting the urgent need for stronger privacy protections.

To protect privacy in the digital age, a multi-faceted approach is required. Governments must enact robust privacy laws that hold data collectors accountable for breaches and abuses. Furthermore, technological solutions such as encryption, anonymization, and secure data storage must be utilized to protect individuals from digital surveillance and data exploitation.

Steps Towards Right to Privacy in the Digital Age

In recent years, there have been significant steps taken at the international level to recognize and protect the right to privacy in the digital age. The United Nations has played a pivotal role in this process.[25] In March 2015, the UN Human Rights Council created a Special Rapporteur on the Right to Privacy, an essential step toward monitoring and advocating for digital privacy rights globally. The UN General Assembly’s resolution on “The Right to Privacy in the Digital Age,” passed in December 2013, further reinforced the importance of this issue, calling for greater legal frameworks and protection against mass surveillance.[26]

In addition, the development of a multi-stakeholder approach to internet governance is critical in addressing the global nature of digital rights. As the internet operates without regard to national borders, countries must collaborate and ensure that the free flow of information does not infringe upon individual rights[27]. However, some countries, like China, have pursued “internet sovereignty,” asserting control over data, content, and governance within their borders, which resists the more open, decentralized model favored by international human rights organizations.

Furthermore, the issue of digital rights must be treated as a matter of national and global security. Mass surveillance programs, such as those exposed by Snowden, have raised alarms about the security risks associated with compromised privacy. States must prioritize digital security to protect both individual freedoms and national interests, ensuring that practices like hacking into networks or mandating back doors to encrypted services do not weaken global encryption standards or violate human rights.[28]

Digital Rights in India

India has taken significant steps toward protecting digital rights within its constitutional framework. The Supreme Court of India has recognized that digital rights, including the right to privacy, are integral to the Fundamental Rights guaranteed by the Constitution. Notably, the 2017 Puttaswamy ruling affirmed the right to privacy as a fundamental right under Article 21, marking a milestone in the legal recognition of digital privacy.

In response to growing concerns over data privacy, India enacted the Digital Personal Data Protection (DPDP) Act in August 2023. This legislation defines the duties of Data Fiduciaries and the rights of Data Principals, ensuring that individuals have control over their personal data. The Act mandates financial penalties for violations, empowering citizens to hold corporations accountable for mishandling data.[29]

While the DPDP Act represents progress, India’s regulatory framework for digital platforms, data privacy, and AI-related issues remains fragmented, with laws like the Information Technology Act (2000) and the Consumer Protection Act (2019) providing some protections but requiring further harmonization to address new challenges in the digital era.

Navigating New Frontiers: The Future of Digital Rights

As we continue to navigate the digital age, it is clear that the exercise and safeguarding of human rights require new frameworks and approaches. The rapid development of digital communication and technology demands that human rights policy evolve to address the new realities of the online world. This means integrating digital rights into national and international human rights agendas to ensure that the digital transformation remains human-centric and rights-oriented.[30]

Governments, international organizations, and civil society must work together to ensure that the internet remains a space where human rights are protected, and individuals are empowered to exercise their rights. This includes recognizing that online activities are as significant as offline actions and ensuring that legal frameworks reflect this interconnectedness.

The Protection of Human Rights in the Digital Age

In the 21st century, the rapid advancement of digital technology has transformed the way human rights are both exercised and violated. The Internet has become an indispensable tool for realizing a broad range of human rights and fostering economic development. However, as digital technologies evolve, they also present new challenges to the protection of fundamental freedoms. Surveillance, censorship, privacy breaches, and online harassment are among the many threats to human rights in the digital sphere.[31]

The digital age has introduced a dual-edged reality—while technology can empower individuals, it also has the potential to undermine rights. For instance, issues such as mass surveillance by governments, the regulation of online speech, and the manipulation of information online raise profound human rights concerns. These issues call for urgent action to ensure that human rights principles are applied effectively in the digital context.

To safeguard human rights in the digital age, three essential steps must be taken:

1. Establishing a Special Rapporteur Mandate on the Right to Privacy
   The United Nations must appoint a Special Rapporteur on the right to privacy, dedicated to addressing global concerns regarding mass surveillance and the erosion of privacy in the digital era. This mandate would be crucial in providing guidance on the implications of digital communications technology for human rights and privacy. Such a position would help ensure that privacy rights are respected, and that legal frameworks governing surveillance are in line with international human rights norms.
2. Advocating for Multi-Stakeholder Internet Governance
   The multi-stakeholder model for Internet governance, which includes technologists, governments, civil society organizations, and the private sector, must be reinforced. This collaborative approach ensures that the internet remains an open and interoperable space that respects human rights globally. Governments that pursue internet sovereignty, such as China’s control over internet infrastructure and data, risk undermining the global, decentralized nature of the internet, which could jeopardize the free flow of information and individual freedoms.
3. Reconceptualizing Human Rights Protection as a National Security Priority
   There is a need to reframe the relationship between national security and human rights in the digital context. The post-Snowden era has shown that digital security is fundamental not only to the protection of individuals’ privacy but also to national and global security. The weakening of encryption standards and the surveillance of digital communications, often justified by national security concerns, can undermine both security and human rights. Strengthening digital security for individuals and networks should be prioritized as a national security imperative, ensuring that human rights protections are not compromised in the name of security.

These steps highlight the urgent need for an integrated approach that considers the evolving nature of human rights in the digital sphere. Governments, international organizations, civil society, and the private sector must work together to ensure that digital transformation remains human-centric and aligned with fundamental rights. Addressing the challenges of digital surveillance, censorship, and privacy breaches is crucial in maintaining the integrity of human rights in an increasingly connected world.

Safeguarding Digital Rights: Press Freedom, Participation, and Privacy in the Online Sphere

In the digital era, human rights face unprecedented threats alongside transformative opportunities. As UN High Commissioner Volker Türk emphasized on World Press Freedom Day, the digital age has accelerated both the flow of information and the spread of disinformation, online hate, and surveillance. Governments and corporations now wield immense power in shaping online spaces, often without sufficient transparency or regard for fundamental freedoms.[32]

Three core principles emerge as vital to preserving democratic values and human rights online:

1. Participation in Digital Governance: Civil society and independent media must be actively engaged in the development of digital policies. Ensuring secure access to online spaces—free from censorship and surveillance—is essential for a healthy democracy. Both states and digital platforms bear responsibility for maintaining an inclusive digital public sphere.[33]
2. Freedom of Expression and Regulation: While digital platforms offer unprecedented opportunities for communication, they have also become vehicles for disinformation and online harassment. Any government or corporate regulations must meet the international human rights standards of legality, necessity, and proportionality. Laws must not become tools of suppression; instead, they must be framed to protect speech and empower individuals.
3. Privacy and Surveillance: The misuse of surveillance technologies like Pegasus spyware has deeply eroded trust in digital communications. Such practices violate the right to privacy and pose direct threats to democratic participation. Türk calls for a moratorium on the sale and use of such intrusive technologies until robust human rights protections are established. Encryption and data protection laws must be strengthened to uphold user rights in the digital domain.

The unchecked proliferation of censorship laws, internet shutdowns, and surveillance tools presents a significant risk of democratic backsliding. Ensuring that digital technologies are used in service of—not against—human rights will require sustained accountability, transparent regulation, and meaningful public participation.

Conclusion

The digital age has reshaped how we exercise, experience, and protect human rights, presenting both unprecedented opportunities and complex threats. As this research has explored, constitutional principles remain central in anchoring human rights in a rapidly evolving technological landscape. However, their application must adapt to new realities—where surveillance, data exploitation, disinformation, and censorship threaten the very freedoms constitutions were designed to uphold.

Key international perspectives, such as those from the United Nations and human rights advocates, stress the urgent need for transparent regulation, protection of privacy, multi-stakeholder governance, and the safeguarding of press freedom. The constitutional right to freedom of expression, privacy, and participation must not be weakened in the name of security or convenience. Instead, they must be reasserted as foundational elements of democracy and justice—online as much as offline.

Moving forward, it is not enough for legal frameworks to be reactive. There must be proactive measures to reinforce digital rights, hold both governments and corporations accountable, and ensure that the digital public sphere remains open, inclusive, and respectful of human dignity. Upholding human rights in the digital age is not merely a legal imperative—it is a democratic necessity.

Bibliography

• Human Rights in the Digital Age – Just Security
  Just Security, ‘Human Rights in the Digital Age’ (22 January 2015)
• Statement by UN High Commissioner Volker Türk
  OHCHR, ‘Türk calls on States to end impunity for crimes against journalists’ (World Press Freedom Day Statement, May 2024)

• UNGA Resolution: The Right to Privacy in the Digital Age
  UN General Assembly, The right to privacy in the digital age (18 December 2013) UN Doc A/RES/68/167

• Digital Services Act and Digital Markets Act – EU
  European Commission, ‘The Digital Services Act package’
• Citizen Lab – Surveillance and Activism
  Citizen Lab, ‘Planet Blue Coat: Mapping Global Censorship and Surveillance Tools’ (2013)

• Snowden Revelations
  Glenn Greenwald, No Place to Hide: Edward Snowden, the NSA, and the US Surveillance State (Hamish Hamilton 2014)
• Pegasus Spyware Reports
  Forbidden Stories and Amnesty International, ‘The Pegasus Project’ (2021)
• “Constitutional Law in the Digital Age: Protecting Privacy Rights Online” (Legal Eye)
• “Drishti Judiciary : Blog Detail” (Drishti Judiciary)
• “Human Rights in the Digital Age” Human Rights Watch (October 28, 2020)

[1]Daniel J Solove, The Digital Person: Technology and Privacy in the Information Age (NYU Press 2004)

[2]Alessandro Mantelero, ‘The Future of Data Protection: Effective Protection or Risk Management?’ (2014) 10(1) International Data Privacy Law 1.

[3]UN General Assembly, ‘The Right to Privacy in the Digital Age’ UN Doc A/RES/68/167 (18 December 2013).

[4]Shreya Singhal v Union of India (2015) 5 SCC 1.

[5] The Digital Personal Data Protection Act 2023 (India).

[6]OECD, ‘OECD Principles on Artificial Intelligence’ (2019)

[7]Julie E Cohen, Configuring the Networked Self: Law, Code, and the Play of Everyday Practice (Yale University Press 2012).

[8]Ibid.

[9]Julie E Cohen, Configuring the Networked Self: Law, Code, and the Play of Everyday Practice (Yale University Press 2012) 3.

[10]Shoshana Zuboff, The Age of Surveillance Capitalism (PublicAffairs 2019).

[11]Samuel D Warren and Louis D Brandeis, ‘The Right to Privacy’ (1890) 4 Harvard Law Review 193.

[12]UN General Assembly, ‘The Right to Privacy in the Digital Age’ UN Doc A/RES/68/167 (18 December 2013)

[13]B N Srikrishna Committee, Report of the Committee of Experts on Data Protection Framework for India (2018)

[14]Rikke Frank Jørgensen (ed), Human Rights in the Age of Platforms (MIT Press 2019).

[15]Digital Personal Data Protection Act 2023 (India).

[16]USA PATRIOT Act 2001, Pub L No 107–56, 115 Stat 272.

[17]Information Technology Act 2000 (India), s 69.

[18]Schwartz, Paul M., & Solove, Daniel J. “Reconciling Personal Information in the United States and European Union,” 102 Calif. L. Rev. 877 (2014)

[19]Westin, Alan F. Privacy and Freedom, 1967

[20]Big Brother Watch and Others v. The United Kingdom, Applications nos. 58170/13, 62322/14 and 24960/15, European Court of Human Rights (2018).

[21]Lyon, David. Surveillance Society: Monitoring Everyday Life, Open University Press, 2001

[22]A/HRC/29/32 (2015)

[23]Tushnet, Mark. “Free Speech and Social Media”, 50 Washburn L.J. 253 (2011)

[24]ARTICLE 19 (NGO). Global Principles on Freedom of Expression and Privacy (2017)

[25]The Right to Privacy in the Digital Age, A/RES/68/167 (Dec. 18, 2013).

[26]Joseph Cannataci, Reports of the UN Special Rapporteur on the Right to Privacy (2015–2022)

[27]DeNardis, Laura. The Global War for Internet Governance. Yale University Press, 2014.

[28]Kaye, David. Report of the Special Rapporteur on the Promotion and Protection of the Right to Freedom of Opinion and Expression, A/HRC/32/38 (2016)

[29]Sharma, Apar Gupta. “India’s DPDP Act: A Missed Opportunity or a First Step?” Internet Freedom Foundation, 2023.

[30]Srivastava, Rishabh Dara. “Internet Freedom and Regulation in India: Between Rights and Control.” Indian Journal of Law and Technology, 2022.

[31]Greenwald, Glenn. No Place to Hide: Edward Snowden, the NSA, and the U.S. Surveillance State. Metropolitan Books, 2014.

[32]Milanovic, Marko. “Human Rights Treaties and Foreign Surveillance: Privacy in the Digital Age.” Harvard International Law Journal, Vol. 56, 2015

[33]Mozilla Foundation, Privacy Not Included Reports, annual evaluations of digital tools and platforms’ privacy standards.