Professional Documents
Culture Documents
ISSUE - I
Petitioner Respondent
In the instant case, the discriminatory The varying needs of different classes or
classification is not reasonable and is sections of people require differential and
arbitrary as there are no particular and separate treatment. Legislature therefore has
justified reasons that have been given for the power to make laws to attain particular
such discrimination between Indostani based objects and for that purpose selecting and
taxi service providers and the others. It must classifying persons upon things laws are to
be borne in mind that Rules imposes operate. The principle of equality of law,
restriction, where in Hola is unable to take thus, means not that the same law should
advantage of a guaranteed right. It is sufficed apply to everyone but that a law should deal
to say that, conclusive finding as to fairness alike with all in one class; that there should
or unfairness can be arrived at this juncture. be an equality of treatment under equal
On the Rules laid down, it prima facie circumstances. It means “that equals should
appears that the same can prejudicially affect not be treated unlike and unlikes should not
the others app based taxi drivers and there is be treated alike. Likes should be treated
no reasonable classification as the effect of alike. Article 14 forbids class legislation; it
the Rules is different from what it appears to does not forbid reasonable classification of
be. persons, objects and transactions by the
In the case of Binoy Vishwam v. Union of Legislature for the purpose of achieving
India [(2017) 7 SCC 59] it was held that the specific ends. Classification to be reasonable
state must have the power of making laws to should fulfil the following two tests:
attain particular objectives. The principle of
i. It should not be arbitrary, artificial or
equality thus means not that the same law
evasive. It should be based on an
should apply to everyone but that a law
intelligible differentia, some real and
should deal alike with all in one class. In the
substantial distinction, which
instant case, all app-based taxi service distinguishes persons or things grouped
providers are in one class and hence there is together in the class from others left out
no legally founded reason to discriminate of it.
against Indostani app-based providers and
ii. The differentia adopted as the basis of
favour the others.
classification must have a rational or
As held in the case of Laxmi Khandsari v. reasonable nexus with the object sought
State of Uttar Pradesh[AIR 1981 SC 87]in to be achieved by the statute in question.
order for a law to be reasonable, the
following conditions have to be satisfied: Reasonable Classification
In the case of Grih Kalyan Kendra from the facts of the case that, Indostan
Worker’s Union v. Union of India[AIR completely being dependent on private
1991 SC 1173] the doctrine of Equal Pay for players including local taxis who are
Equal Work was highlighted as a part of governed by self-regulated unions.
Article 14. In order to apply this doctrine,
a. Due to lack of government intervention,
there must be reasonable similarity in the
the local taxi unions had become
nature of work, performance of duties and
extremely powerful and were
equality of work performed. In the instant,
overcharging customers for the rides;
case it’s observed that all app based taxi
service providers have reasonable similarity b. Refusal of taxi drivers to carry
and hence Rule 6.9 violates the above passengers, i.e., over powering by taxi
mentioned doctrine. unions;
In order to understand Rule 6.10 shall be object to the provision and predict
bifurcated into two parts- discrimination on that basis. Therefore, no
third ground was available to any of the
(a) That prescribes a penalty of Rs. 3lakhs for petitioners to challenge the constitutional
first contravention of Rule 6.9; and validity of a legislative enactment. The
(b) Cancellation of license to do business for principle of equality necessarily does not
subsequent contravention of this Rule. mean that every law must have a universal
application for all persons, often the varying
Rule of Proportionality
needs of different classes of people require
Article 19 (1) (g) states: “to practise any separate treatment and it is permissible for
profession, or to carry on any occupation, the State to do so for legitimate purposes.
trade or business.” Rule 6.10 restricts this
fundamental right. When the state imposes In the present scenario, the impugned rules
restrictions on any fundamental right, the has creates two classes i.e. one class is taxi
Judiciary becomes obligated to test whether drivers and other class of those persons who
such restrictions are arbitrary or not. The are app based cab drivers. Therefore, this
Principle of Proportionality comes into play provision is applicable only to those who use
here. This principle implies therefore that the app based cab services. The question that
Court has to necessarily go into the pros and arises is whether this classification is
cons of any administrative action called into reasonable or not. Article 14 prohibits class
question. Unless the impugned administrative legislation and not reasonable classification
action is advantageous and in public interest for the purpose of legislation. All app based
such an action cannot be upheld. At the core cab drivers constitute one class and they are
of this principle is the scrutiny of the to be treated alike by the Rules.
administrative action to examine whether the
Judicial Review
power conferred is exercised in proportion to
the purpose for which it has been conferred. The Supreme Court is vested with the power
Thus, any administrative authority while of judicial review under Article 32 as well as
exercising a discretionary power will have to 136 of the Constitution. The parameters on
necessarily establish that its decision is which the power of judicial review of
balanced and in proportion to the object of administrative act is to be undertaken are
the power conferred. This is so as different from the parameters on which a
administrative decisions can often have validity of a legislative enactment is to be
profound implications on the day-to-day lives examined.
of our citizens, their rights, liberties, and
The contours of judicial review have been
legitimate pursuits.
clearly stated in State of M.P. v. Rakesh
Om Kumar v. Union of India [AIR 2000 Kohli [(2012) 6 SCC 312: (2012) 3 SCC
SC 3689] inter alia, the Supreme Court noted (Civ) 481]. SCC pp. 321-22 & 325-27, para
that while dealing with the validity of state 16-17, 26-28 & 30)
framed laws infringing fundamental freedoms
The Statute enacted by the Parliament or a
enumerated in Article 19 (1) of the
State Legislature can only be declared
Constitution of India, the issue of whether
unconstitutional, when able to hold beyond
restrictions imposed by the laws were
the iota of doubt that the violation of the
disproportionate to the situation.
constitutional provisions was so glaring that
The punishments enshrined in Rule 6.10 are the legislative provision under challenge
not proportionate to the offence that may be cannot stand.(para 16)
committed by the private app-based taxi
The legislative enactment can only be struck
drivers. A fine of Rs 3 lakh is a heavy amount
down on two grounds, namely
and a blanket ban on the taxi driver by taking
away the license upon a second violation of (i.) appropriate legislature does not have the
Rule 6.9 is uncalled for and completely competence to make law, and
unjustified. The punishment is not
proportionate to the crime in which case (ii). that it does not violate or abridge the
reduction of the quantum of the crime must fundamental rights enumerated in the
be contemplated by the court of law as done constitution.
in the case of State of U.P. v. Sheo Shanker
Furthermore, it also needs to be specifically
Lal Srivastava and Ors [AIR 2006 SC
noted that apart from the aforesaid two
3548] after application of the proportionality
grounds no third ground is available to
principle.
invalidate any piece of legislation. In Mohd.
The doctrine of reasonableness gives way to Hanif Quareshi v State of Bihar,[AIR
application of principle of proportionality. 1958 SC 731] (AIR pp. 740-41 para 15), the
The heavy fine and cancellation of license Constitution Bench further observed that
principle in Rule 6.10 is unreasonable and there was always a presumption in favour of
hence the quantum of punishment must be constitutionality of an enactment and the
decided in proportion to the offence. burden is upon him, who attacks it, to show
Therefore, these restrictions placed by Rule that there has been a clear violation of the
6.10 are in violation of Article 19 (1) (g) as constitutional principles.
they infringe, unreasonably, upon the right of
It is also necessary to understand that
app-based taxi drivers to freely profess their
legislation cannot be declared
trade and profession.
unconstitutional on the ground that it is
‘arbitrary’ inasmuch as examining as to
whether a particular Act is arbitrary or not
implies a value judgment and the courts do
not examine the wisdom of legislative
choices and, therefore, cannot undertake this
exercise. In Rajbala &Ors. v State of
Haryana & Ors.[(2016) 2 SCC 445] (SCC
p. 481 para 64, 65), the court held, from
State of A.P. v. Mc.Dowell & Co. [(1996) 3
SCC 709] that courts in our county do not
undertake to declare a piece of legislation on
the ground that it is arbitrary.
Doctrine of proportionality
In the case of Modern Dental College &
Research Centre v. State of M.P,[(2016) 7
SCC 353: 7 SCEC 1], (SCC pp. 412-416,
para 59-65), the application of doctrine of
proportionality could be applied has been
explained. It has been explained that the
Article 19 (1) (g) is not an “absolute right”
and is subject to limitations i.e. “reasonable
restrictions” that can be imposed by law. The
restrictions that are imposed however, have
to be reasonable “in the interest of general
public”. (para 59)
Petitioner Respondent
The rules framed by MORTH and pertaining Right to Privacy enshrined as a Fundamental
to installation of CCTV cameras inside the Right under the Constitution of Indostan can
cabs are in contravention of the right to be subject to reasonable restrictions.
privacy that the citizens of Indostan are
A. Right to Privacy does not fall within
entitled to as a Fundamental Right.
the ambit of Fundamental Right
A. Right to Privacy falls within the
Right to privacy is a fundamental right but it
ambit of a Fundamental Right
is subject to limitations and restrictions.In the
enshrined under the Constitution of
caseof Govind v. State of Madhya
Indostan.
Pradesh[(1975) 2 SCC 148], Mathew, J.
In the case of R Rajagopal v State of
accepted the right to privacy as an emanation
Tamil Nadu [AIR 1995 SC 264] and
from Art. 19(a), (d) and 21, but right to
People’s Union for Civil Liberties v
privacy is not absolute right and must be
Union of India [AIR 1991 SC 207, 211],
subject to restriction on the basis of
it was held that right to privacy is a part
compelling public interest. In the case of Mr.
of right to life and personal liberty
‘X’ v. Hospital ‘Z’ [AIR 1995 SC 495]the
enshrined under Article 21 of the Indian
Supreme Court held that although the right to
constitution. The apex court in the recent
privacy is a Fundamental Right under Art. 21
case of Justice K. S. Puttaswamy(Retd.)
of the Constitution it is not an absolute right
& Anr v. Union of India & Ors.
and restrictions can be imposed on it for the
[W.P.(Civil) No. 494 of 2012]has cleared
prevention of crime, disorder and protection
the position with regards to the question
of rights and freedoms of others. Sincethe
of privacy being a part of Article 21. The
CCTV was being used was for public safety
court in this case has upheld that privacy
so it overtakes the right to privacy and falls
is a constitutionally protected right which
within an extended understanding of Article
emerges primarily from the guarantee of
21 of the Constitution of Indostan, the
life and personal liberty in Article 21 of
counsel for the respondents are claiming that
the Constitution.Since right to privacy is there was no violation of this fundamental
an extended understanding within article right in this case.
21, the counsel for the petitioners are
Invasion of privacy is in
claiming that there was violation of this
accordance with restrictions on the
fundamental right in this case.
right to privacy.
B. Privacy- Scope extended to even
public spaces.
The right to privacy is too subject to
Can the insides of a cab be considered
limitations and is not absolute, like
as a private space of a passenger or
any other fundamental right.
should it be held as public space.
Therefore, a person’s privacy can be
Does the right to privacy apply
infringed only when such
equally when private and public
infringement falls within the valid
spaces are concerned?The term
restrictions upon the right to privacy.
privacy has been explained by judges
The case of Gobind v State of
in the various precedents as “the
Madhya Pradesh [(1975) 2 SCC 148]
right to be left alone”. The question
and Mr. X v Hospital Z [(1998) 8
is whether this privacy as a right is to
SCC 296] has held that only in cases
be available to people only in their
where there are compelling state
private sphere and not be extended to
interests, can a privacy right be
public spaces. This question has been
beached. Also in the case of Peoples
answered by a nine judge bench of the
Union for Civil Liberties v. Union
Supreme Court in the case of Justice
of India[AIR 1991 SC 1378]it was
K. S. Puttaswamy(Retd.) & Anr v.
held that Right to Privacy under
Union of India & Ors. [W.P.(Civil)
Article 21 cannot be curtailed ‘except
No. 494 of 2012]. The referred case
according to a procedure established
has held that privacy should not be
by law.’ In this case the rules were
limited to non-intrusion in people’s
framed by the state for providing
private space only but must be
public safety and hence there was a
provided even in public places
reasonable restriction on the right to
(subject to limitations on the
privacy as it was through a procedure
right).“… privacy is not lost or
established by law.
surrendered merely because the
individual is in a public place”. This
essentially means that a person is Scope of privacy under Art. 21
entitled to the protection of his
It is contested that the existence of a
privacy irrespective of private or
fundamental right of privacy is in doubt
public space. Hence, the any
in view of two decisions: the first - M P
contention based on the fact that a
Sharma v Satish Chandra , District
passenger seated inside a cab has no
Magistrate , Delhi [(1954) S.C.R.
right to privacy as such, the cab
1077]was rendered by a Bench of eight
essentially being in public domain
judges and the second, in Kharak Singh
does not possess merit owing to the
v State of Uttar Pradesh[AIR 1963 SC
extended application of privacy to
1295]was rendered by a Bench of six
even in public spaces.
judges. Each of these decisions, in the
contained observations that the Indian
C. Unlawful use of stored data- Gross
Constitution does not specifically protect
Violation of Private Interest.
the right to privacy.
1. Violation of privacy- Leak of
CCTV footage on social media Violation of privacy- Leak of
platform CCTV footage on social media
The meaning of privacy includes platform.
privacy even in the online media There were reasonable security
forum. Hence, no person’s privacy measures taken up by SOBER.
should be breached by displaying Handling sensitive personal data with
his or her video or photographs on proper and reasonable protection, it
social networking platforms or the can be observed that there were
internet without their consent. reasonable procedures in places by
Para 10 of the facts in the present SOBER as they were already in
case show that in order to curb compliance with Rule 7 of the draft
increased instances of harassment, bill of Reasonable Security Practices
molestation and rape of of Indostan, 2011. It can also be
passengers by the drivers of apps contested that the rules mandated the
based cab service providers, preservation of the recordings of the
MORTH formulated certain rules. CCTV footage for one year to
These rules prescribed that the app maintain a balance between public
based cab service providers safety and privacy as there were
needed to install cameras in the many complains of harassment and
cab that would continuously video rape in the cabs.
record the inside of the cab. Also,
such footage recorded required to The case of footage leak is not
be preserved for at least one year. intentional
Sober readily installed the Attraction of liability in the instant
cameras (Hola failed due to case for the material that has been
economic constraints).However, it uploaded is justified and cannot
soon came to light that certain attract any offence it was committed
footages were being sold on an without the knowledge of the Sober
online selling platform operating and offence has not be committed by
in Indostan. One such video the company or due to neglect of the
footage that was leaked on social company director, manager, secretary
media captured a famous actress or other officers.
sitting in a revealing position Hence, it can be contended though
inside a cab. Therefore, there has CCTV were installed to provide
been a violation of privacy as safety and security to passengers and
video footage of persons has been there has been no breach of right to
released online without their privacy in this case.
consent. In the case of Ram Das v. State of
2. Invasion of privacy not in Bengal [AIR 1954 SC 711], though
accordance with restrictions on the assault was there but the intention
the right to privacy to outrage the modesty could not be
Agreeably this right is too subject proved the High Court upheld the
to limitations and not absolute. acquittal.
Therefore, a person’s privacy can The facts of the present case, it can be
be infringed only when such seen that the passengers were aware
infringement falls within the valid of the presence of CCTVs in cabs
restrictions upon the right to owing to the rules published by
privacy. Justice K. S. MORTH. The loss of such data was
Puttaswamy(Retd.) & Anr v. not intentional, with knowledge and
Union of India & Ors. there is no reason to believe that it
[W.P.(Civil) No. 494 of 2012] has was due to the negligence of the
held that a law which encroaches party. The installation of cameras in
upon privacy will have to the taxis was expressed in good faith
withstand the touchstone of in an opinion respecting the merits of
permissible restrictions on the increased sexual harassment,
fundamental rights. Hence, only a molestation and rape by drivers.
procedure or an action which is Here the act of leaking footage of
fair, just and reasonable can cause persons was not done with a malafide
an invasion of one’s privacy. The intention or to hamper thee interests
breach of privacy can only happen of those persons whose video has
for the greater interests or lawful been leaked.
purposes which would include
breach for protecting national
security, preventing and
investigating crime, encouraging
innovation and the spread of
knowledge, and preventing the
dissipation of social welfare
benefits. In this case, the CCTV
footage leak did not lead to
preservation of any such greater,
beneficial interest of the country.
Contrarily, the act of leaking
footage of persons in revealing
positions was thoroughly foul and
done with malafide intention to
hamper the private interests of
those persons whose video had
been leaked.
3. The case of footage leak is not
accidental but intentional
If the footage were to be leaked by
accident, then footage of all
passengers would be on display,
however, the case is not so here.
The fact sheet in para 10 clearly
states that the footage of CCTVs
installed in the cabs were being
sold on online selling platform
operating in Indostan. The same
were being put up on social media
as well. Only selective footage
where any passenger was seen
sitting in a revealing position (the
case of the actress for instance)
were being sold. This shows that
the people having access to such
footage were misusing the same.
All the above reasons show that
there was unlawful use of the
CCTV footage.
Petitioner Respondent
Violation of Contract
No violation of contract
In this case, the validity of click wrap
agreements as such is not being questioned, A click wrap agreement (also known as a
but the click wrap agreement as entered in "click through" agreement or click wrap
this particular case w.r.t the consent for the license) is a common type of agreement
amendments is being challenged. which is mostly used in connection with
software license. In the facts it has been
A click wrap agreement is a type of contract
clearly mentioned that it was a click wrap
which is widely used with software licenses
agreement where the customer had the
and online transactions wherein a user must
knowledge and had agreed to purchase the
agree to terms and conditions before using
product. This implies that there was consent
the product or service. Sober stated that
from the purchaser in respect to such
while downloading their app-based services,
contract.
the users have agreed to all terms and
conditions, which included giving up any Valid Consent
rights under applicable data privacy and
The issue of shrink-wrap and click-wrap
protection laws. Such a term is invalid and it
contracts first arose in the United States. The
cannot be deemed to have been consented by
US Courts have faced the issue of clickwrap
the users as there is no express mention of
contracts in two ways. In ProCD Inc. v.
the rules as such. Since the consent part is
Zeidenberg [86 F.3d 1447], it was held that
not consensus ad idem, i.e. Since there is no
an enforceable contract emerged as soon as
meeting of the minds on the same subject in
the product was used after the consumer had
the same sense, it cannot be said to have been
had the opportunity to read the terms.It
consented and therefore it is a voidable
upheld the Click wrap contracts/ licenses
contract.
holding that once the software was opened
Invalid Consent for use, the user was given the option to
1. Section 13 of the Indian Contract Act, either accept the terms of use or reject the
1872 defines consent as a situation wherein same. Thus, the contract entered by the
two or more persons agree upon the same customers makes them binding on the all the
thing in the same sense. There is supposed to terms that have been accepted on the usage of
be consensus ad idem, that is meeting of the the application (app).
needs on the same thing in the same way.
In the case of TracFone Wireless, Inc. v.
2. In a click wrap agreement, the users have Pak China Group Co. Ltd.,the Hon’ble
to give their consent for all the terms and court of Florida held that “Contract for sale
conditions in order to be able to use the of goods may be made in any manner
services of the service provider. There is no sufficient to show agreement, including
scope for bargain on the contractual terms conduct by both parties which recognizes the
and conditions. In the case of LIC India v existence of such a Contract, which also
Consumer Education & Research Centre includes ‘Shrink-Wrap and Click Wrap
[AIR 1995 SC 1811], The Supreme Court Contracts”, in which an agreement becomes
rightly noted that “In dotted line contracts effective as soon as a customer accepts the
there would be no occasion for a weaker terms.
party to bargain as to assume to have equal
bargaining power. He has either to accept or In the case of LIC India v. Consumer
leave the service or goods in terms of the Education and Research Centre [AIR 1995
dotted line contract. His option would be SC 1811]it was held by the court that the
either to accept the unreasonable or unfair customer has to either accept or leave the
terms or to forgo the service forever.” This service or goods in terms of Contract. Also
can be observed in the present case too as the he has to prove that the good or product was
users had the option to either give their an absolute necessity and he had no other go
consent to all the terms and conditions of the but to accept the product. In the instant case,
contract or to forgo the cab services offered the customers were not forced to give their
by Sober. personal information and was at their option
of paying for the service either by cash or
In the case of Specht v. Netscape [1995 AIR
through card. It was clear that the customers
1811], it was set out that it is not just the tick
where clear and aware that the personal
box or “I Agree” button that’s important, it is
details should be given in order to make
also that the terms need to be conspicuous,
transactions for the services.
and it needs to be clear that the tick box or
button relates to the agreement to the terms
One of the most high-profile cases on the
(rather than something else). The Court, in
matter was Feldman v. Google, Inc., [513 F.
this case concluded that “plaintiffs’
Supp2 2d 229 (E.D.Pa.2007)], were in
downloading of smartdownload did not
Feldman & Associates purchased advertising
constitute acceptance of defendants’ license
from Google’s “AdWords” Program. The
terms. Reasonably conspicuous notice of the
dispute in this case was the forum selection
existence of contract terms and unambiguous
clause, wherein dispute resolution would take
manifestation of assent to those terms by
place. It was similarly contended by them
consumers are essential if electronic
that the Agreement “was neither signed nor
bargaining is to have integrity and
seen and negotiated by Feldman &
credibility.”
Associates or anyone at his firm”. The Court
Bargaining potential is another concept in this case cited Baer v. Chase [ 392 F.3d
adopted by courts to understand the context 609], saying
of consent by the parties. In the case of
Henningen v. Bloomfield Motors [32 N.J. “Contracts are ‘express’ when the parties
385, 161 A2d 69 (1960)], the Court paid state their terms and ‘implied’ when the
homage to the principle of freedom of parties do not state their terms. The
contract and also emphasized sized that the distinction is based not on the contracts’
disclaimer was contained in a "standard legal effect but on the way the parties
form." According to the Court, "freedom of manifest their mutual assent. […] To
contract" is most at home when a contract is determine whether a clickwrap agreement is
the result of "free bargaining of parties. . enforceable, courts presented with the issue
.who meet each other on a footing of apply traditional principles of contract law
approximate economic equality" rather than and focus on whether the plaintiffs had
the 'standardized mass contract . . . used reasonable notice of and manifested assent to
primarily by enterprises with strong the clickwrap agreement.”
bargaining power and position" and which is
The court held that Feldman had reasonable
presented to the consumer on a take-it-or-
notice of the terms and manifested assent to
leave-it basis.
the agreement. The Judge noted:
Also, in the case of Bragg v Linden
“The user here [Feldman] had to take
Research Inc. [487 F. Supp. 2d 593
affirmative action and click the “Yes, I agree
(E.D.Penn. 2007)] the Court held that When
to the above terms and conditions” button in
the weaker party has presented the clause and order to proceed to the next step. Clicking
told to ‘take it or leave it’ without the “Continue” without clicking the “Yes”
opportunity for meaningful negotiation, button would have returned the user to the
oppression, and therefore procedural same webpage. If the user did not agree to all
unconscionability, are present. of the terms, he could not have activated his
account, placed ads, or incurred charges”.
Moreover, related to the issue of consent is
Thus, the terms and conditions in the click-
the requirement of transparency which
wrap agreement were held valid.
requires a disclosure by the data recipient of
information pertaining to data transfer and The essence of Click Wrap Contract is that
use.In the present case, there was no express the terms and conditions are disclosed until
disclosure by Sober in this regard with the contract is accepted by the customer. In
respect to transfer of sensitive personal data the instant case the customer is bound by the
to a 3rd country and hence consent cannot be Contract since he/she has accepted the
said to have been obtained. service and that all the terms and conditions
From the cases mentioned above and the including the giving away the rights present
facts of the present case, it can be observed in the Contract.
that the users had not given their consent to
No Violation of data protection
transfer of sensitive personal data to Chunisia
laws
as it was not expressly mentioned in the
contract, and that the users had to give a o Collection of SPDI
blanket consent to all the terms and
According to the Information Technology
conditions of the contract as they had no
(Reasonable Security Practices & Procedures
bargaining power. Since there is no free
and Sensitive Personal Data or Information)
consent and Sober performed out of the
Rules, 2011, the Rules accord to the
contractual terms and conditions, the contract
Protection of Personal Data or Information
is said to be breached.
(SPDI) which essentially consists of personal
Violation of data protection laws information relating to passwords, financial
o Collection of SPDI information such as bank account or credit
State of Tamil Nadu[1995 AIR 264, 1994 present and it was a mere allegation that
SCC (6) 632] and many other cases that had been stated in the fact sheet. This
ii. Use Limitation Priniciple- This principle 1295]andPeople's Union of Civil Liberties
states that the data made available by the v. the Union of India[AIR 2005 SC
users should not be disclosed or made 2419]recognised the “right to privacy” as a
available by the information holder except subset of the larger “right to life and personal
with the consent of the data subject or under liberty” under Article 21 of the Constitution
authority of law. In the present case, Sober of India. However a right under the
failed to take consent of its users in this Constitution can be exercised only against
regard. Their initial acceptance with respect any government action. Non-state initiated
to terms and conditions for usage of the violations of privacy may be dealt with under
services was deemed to be applicable for all principles of torts such as defamation,
other subsequent additions or amendments, trespass and breach of confidence.
which is incorrect and violative of the
principle.