SPECIAL COLLECTION OF THE CASE LAW ON FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION vulnerable to intimidation and other harassment by the public. Further, the Court held that such disclosure of confidential data was not only a clear breach of the applicant’s privacy, but also defeated the purpose of the Right to Information Act, 2005 by deterring future applicants from filing applications due to fear of public disclosure of sensitive information. More info here. In the case of Banners Placed on Roadside in the City of Lucknow v. State of Uttar Pradesh (2020), the Allahabad High Court ruled that the posting of banners by State officials publicizing personal details of individuals accused of vandalism was a violation of the fundamental right to privacy. The Chief Justice of the Allahabad High Court invoked its public interest jurisdiction and initiated suo moto proceedings against the Lucknow District administration and the Police administration (State Executive) for posting the large-scale banners at major roadside areas in response to damage done during a protest against the Citizenship Amendment Act in December 2019. The Court held that the displaying of photographs, names The disproportionate and addresses of certain persons publicly by the State Executive was an “unwarranted interference with measures used to enforce [their] privacy.” Publication of such personal details the Act, the lack of necessary by the State failed to satisfy the three-part test of leand a legitimate purpose, gality, legitimacy and proportionality. Accordingly, the Court directed the State to take down the banners and absence of safeguards and prohibited the public placement of any additional against misuse of the data banners containing personal data of individuals withcollected under the Act were out authority of law. More info here. the primary grounds on which xiv. Compulsory registration in databases6 the Court declared the Act to Jamaica: In the case of Robinson v. Attorney Genbe unconstitutional. eral (2019), a three-judge bench of the Supreme Court of Judicature of Jamaica held the National Identification and Registration Act (“NIRA” or the “Act”), in its entirety, to be unconstitutional on the grounds of violating the right to privacy and equality. The Act required Jamaican citizens and residents of more than six months to mandatorily enroll in the database and provide biographic and core biometric data. To ensure enforcement of the Act, criminal sanctions were provided for individuals who failed to enroll themselves. The Court, while giving an extensive interpretation of the right to privacy held the mandatory nature of the Act and the criminal sanctions to be in violation of informational privacy and liberty of the individuals. The disproportionate measures used to enforce the Act, the lack of necessary and a legitimate purpose, and absence of safeguards against misuse of the data collected under the Act were the primary grounds on which the Court declared the Act to be unconstitutional. In this decision the Court does not analyze the right to freedom of expression when considering 6 Decisions regarding registration in COVID-related databases can be found on section x. COVID-19 Pandemic surveillance and data protection. 22