INTRODUCTION: WHAT IS ANONYMITY?
Digital law is a spectrum that needs constant pondering and revision due to the dynamic nature of its jurisdiction. In such scenarios, deliberation on the right to anonymity is necessary and has gained newfound significance. Anonymity is when an individual’s name is not given or known[1]. It prevents traceability or verification of an individual and can include pseudonymity, where an alternate identity is made for engaging in online forums.
The right to anonymity is a contentious subject due to the rise of technology and artificial intelligence, enabling individuals to conduct varied activities from the ease of their homes. This is because traceability is a primary concern for the state and other specialised authorities due to the operations of various cybercrimes, misinformation and online abuse.
However, contradictory opinions state that anonymity is indispensable for exercising the Right to Privacy and Free Speech.
To assess whether the right deserves legal recognition in India, factors encompassing the holistic nature of the right, the stakeholders present and its practicality in daily matters, must be evaluated.
THE HIDDEN LAYER OF PRIVACY
In both theoretical and practical terms, anonymity cannot meaningfully exist without privacy, as a functional relationship exists between the two. Anonymity is a derivation of the Right to Privacy that strengthens it by making it more comprehensive. Privacy provides the foundational basis for anonymity in various contexts. It offers the legal and moral boundaries within which individuals can decide whether to remain anonymous.
The Right to Privacy is a recent phenomenon, unanimously recognised by a nine-judge bench of the Supreme Court as a fundamental right under Article 21 and Part III of the Constitution. The Supreme Court held privacy to be constitutionally protected and an essential facet of liberty, dignity, and individual autonomy. It is a core right, holding significant relevance in contemporary times and established in the landmark judgment of Justice K.S. Puttaswamy (Retd.) v. Union of India, decided on August 24, 2017, which overruled previous decisions in M.P. Sharma v. Satish Chandra and Kharak Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh. Privacy was under the broader ambit of Articles 14, 19 and 21.[2]
Generally, the right to privacy expresses our control over our personal lives. In the digital context, it promotes control over their online presence. The right aims to protect individuals from arbitrary government interference and promote free expression.
The Supreme Court held it to be a multidimensional right, including the right to informational privacy. Thus, in this context, anonymity can be understood in a broader sense as an essential tool for securing the latter by enabling people to express themselves without fear, reinforcing the right to privacy. [3]
CASE FOR ANONYMITY IN INDIA
Anonymity is not recognised as a fundamental right in the Indian legal system or explicitly established in landmark judgements. Contradictorily, certain governmental statements and legislations serve to eliminate anonymity.
In 2022, during a case in the Karnataka High Court, the Union Government iterated and denied the recognition of anonymity as a fundamental right under Part III of the Constitution in response to Twitter’s challenge of account blocking orders under Section 69A [4]
The government justified their action of blocking unverified, untraceable and anonymous Twitter accounts on the grounds of preventing fake news and the spread of deliberate misinformation concerning sovereignty, integrity, national security or public order. According to the Centre, the only right guaranteed was the ‘Right to Remain Silent’, available only to an identified citizen of India.[5] Identification is viable and necessary, yet the invasive and repetitive examination of the same, affecting one’s routines and rights, is grossly unjustified.
Alongside, under the revised IT Rules, 2021, Rule 4(2) of the Intermediary Rules[6] states that a significant social media intermediary providing services primarily like messaging shall enable the identification of the first originator of the information on its computer resource as may be required by a judicial order or an order passed by a competent authority under the Information and Technology (IT) Act 2000.[7] Various petitions against this provision were raised, contending that the government was overreaching and curbing free expression.
The state’s contention is to prevent criminal activities from taking place and views these as appropriate legal methods. The problem that the government fails to realise is that this supports blanket regulation without considering proportionality.
The three-fold test, established in the Puttaswamy judgement, mentions that any restriction on the Right to Privacy must withstand three criteria[8]:
- Legality
- Legitimacy
- Proportionality
In light of these instances, anonymity is argued for as citizens are concerned that these rules are outside the ambit of government regulation and law enforcement and are approaching intense surveillance tactics. It is a severe threat to the freedom of speech and expression, a hallmark of democratic societies and as mentioned in Article 19(1)(a) under Part III of the Constitution.
These legislative measures propose a surveillance state targeting all users rather than the harmful ones, converting state regulation into state control and hampering the equilibrium of rights between the state and the citizens.
NECESSITY NOT A LUXURY
According to an empirical study conducted by the Fraunhofer Institute for Secure Information Technology, 83% of 100 participants preferred the use of anonymised data. A broader psychological and social tendency shows that people value invisibility and a sense of control, which protects and advances privacy, free expression, political accountability and public participation.
In contemporary times, social media and other digital platforms are embedded and omnipresent in all daily routines. From expressions, ideas, content, sale of goods, and trading, a massive portion of our activities is conducted online.
Social media provides a platform to raise awareness of political, social and economic topics. Fundraisers for individuals and social movements depict true solidarity from different corners of the world. Social media is a medium to connect with the vast world
without physical interaction. Anonymity is a crucial tool for activism, community building and public dissent. Famous platforms like Twitter engage in profound discussions, review policies, and expose bureaucratic corruption, making it a powerful medium for free speech and expression. Anonymous expressions serve as the voice of the silenced. In contexts where public opinion and dissent are criminalised, anonymity becomes not a luxury but a necessity for safeguarding pluralistic dialogue. Thus, anonymity facilitates participation in controversial and sensitive topics.[9]
Concerns from the other side are regarding the decreased accountability and adherence to rules and regulations. Misusing digital anonymity to spread hate, misinformation, or defamation is detrimental to everyone and is a valid concern raised by the government. Thus, linking the harmful content to the user becomes increasingly difficult due to anonymity and can turn out to be a major security threat.
However, the government needs to remember that this should be done while maintaining proportionality and not stripping away anonymity from every area. Due to no formal recognition of anonymity, the government has complete authority to impose rules for traceability. Additionally, the statutory interpretation of misinformation can be inaccurate or biased, leading to penalties faced by individuals. It cannot be considered a luxury but a necessity due to the increase in novel inventions and technology.
CONCLUSION
In brief, the main contention that the blog aims to examine is viewing the right to anonymity as a critical facet of privacy and free speech in India’s digital landscape. The absence of formal recognition and the state’s constant pursuit of traceability stand as a significant concern in present times. Anonymity is a fundamental part of Articles 19 and 21, supporting an individual’s participation in the expression of opinions and dissent.
The main issue of the state is the traceability and accountability of notorious actors; however, this cannot be the main reason for compromising individual rights. Thus, a nuanced and proportional approach is immediately needed to balance individual rights and the issue of accountability. Providing clear definitions to define the scope and individual rights is one of the methods that should be exercised to prevent abuse and preserve anonymity.
India has a long road of evolution for integrating anonymity as a fundamental digital right amidst the technology-driven era. One must understand that opposite aspects have the potential to become complementary concepts, co-existing and aiding each other for a digitally free India.
Author(s) Name: Tanishka Peri (Government Law College, Mumbai)
References:
[1] ‘Anonymity’, Cambridge Dictionary | English Dictionary, Translations & Thesaurus <https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/anonymity#google_vignette> accessed 13 June 2025.
[2] K.S. Puttaswamy v Union of India (2017) 10 SCC 1 [248], [297] (SC)
[3] ‘Fundamental Right to Privacy – Supreme Court Observer’ (Supreme Court Observer, 14 April 2025) <www.scobserver.in/cases/puttaswamy-v-union-of-india-fundamental-right-to-privacy-case-background/> accessed 13 June 2025.
[4] Twitter Inc. v Union of India, WP No. 13710/2022 (Karnataka HC, 30 June 2023)
[5] Utkarsh Anand, ‘Anonymity Not a Fundamental Right, Says Centre in Twitter Case’ (Hindustan Times, 2 September 2022) <www.hindustantimes.com/india-news/anonymity-not-a-fundamental-right-says-centre-in-twitter-case-101662055715365.html> accessed 12 June 2025.
[6] Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules 2021, r 4(2)
[7] Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules 2021 (India)
[8] ‘Constitutionality of Aadhaar Act: Judgment Summary – Supreme Court Observer’ (Supreme Court Observer, 26 September 2018) <www.scobserver.in/reports/constitutionality-of-aadhaar-justice-k-s-puttaswamy-union-of-india-judgment-in-plain-english/> accessed 12 June 2025.
[9] Ibid
