Answer:

Introduction            

Right to privacy is a fundamental right, as per the K. S. Puttaswamy case, protected under Article 21 of the Constitution, which safeguards individual autonomy, dignity, and personal liberty from unwarranted interference by the state or others. Contrastingly, national security surveillance requires data collection by agencies to prevent threats, creating a conflict between individual privacy and security needs and demanding a balanced and practical reconciliation solution.

Body 

Dichotomy between the right to privacy and surveillance for national security:

• Constitutional Conflict: The right to privacy is protected under Article 21 of the Indian Constitution. Conversely, national security surveillance often involves invasive data collection, creating a conflict with the constitutional guarantee of privacy. Eg: The Aadhaar scheme’s debate on biometric data collection versus individual privacy.
• Preventive vs. Intrusive Measures: Surveillance is essential for pre-empting and mitigating national security threats. However, this often leads to intrusive measures like phone tapping or internet monitoring, clashing with the right to privacy. Eg: Central Monitoring System (CMS) enables government agencies to intercept digital communications. 
• Individual Autonomy vs. Collective Security: The right to privacy emphasizes individual autonomy and personal liberty, as seen in the Aadhaar verdict limiting data usage. In contrast, surveillance, like the U.S. NSA’s PRISM program, prioritizes collective security over individual rights.
• Data Protection vs. Data Access: The European Union’s General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) champions privacy, limiting data access without consent. However, surveillance initiatives like China’s Social Credit System rely on extensive data access for national security, often at the cost of personal privacy.
• Transparency vs. Secrecy: The right to privacy advocates for transparency in data handling, as exemplified by India’s Personal Data Protection Bill. Meanwhile, surveillance programs often operate under secrecy, as revealed by Edward Snowden’s leaks about global surveillance practices.
  • Consent vs. Coercion: Privacy rights are based on consent and choice, evident in the (General Data Protection Regulation) GDPR’s consent mechanism. Surveillance, such as Russia’s SORM system, often involves non-consensual data collection, highlighting the dichotomy of consent versus coercion.
  • Global vs. National Perspectives: Different countries balance privacy and surveillance differently, influenced by their socio-political contexts. Eg: The GDPR in the European Union emphasizes individual privacy rights more strongly compared to surveillance-heavy approaches in countries like China.
• Ethical Considerations: The ethical dilemma in surveillance for national security involves justifying the infringement of individual rights for the greater good. Example: The ethical debate in India over mass surveillance for counter-terrorism versus individual privacy rights.
• Transparency and Oversight: Lack of transparency and insufficient oversight in surveillance operations can lead to misuse of power, infringing upon privacy rights. Eg: The alleged use of Pegasus spyware by governments worldwide, including India, for surveillance underscores the need for transparent and accountable surveillance practices.
• Data Protection and Security: While surveillance collects data to safeguard national security, this collection raises concerns about data protection and potential misuse. Eg: Concerns were raised about the security of collected data under India’s National Intelligence Grid (NATGRID) project.
• Right to Information vs. Information Control: The right to information, a facet of privacy, is seen in India’s RTI Act, enabling transparency. This contrasts with information control in surveillance, such as Pakistan’s Prevention of Electronic Crimes Act, which grants extensive surveillance powers to the government.

Conclusion 

Overall, by adopting a balanced approach that respects privacy while ensuring national security, India can set a global standard for harmonizing these crucial aspects. This equilibrium promises a future where individual rights and collective safety coexist, fostering a resilient and democratic society.