Abstract This paper examines the role of judicial oversight in regulating state access to personal data in the digital age, where rapid technological advancements and data-driven governance have intensified concerns surrounding privacy and informational autonomy. It argues that while data protection frameworks have evolved to address the growing capabilities of both state and non-state actors, their effectiveness depends significantly on robust judicial intervention. Judicial oversight functions as a critical safeguard against executive overreach, ensuring that surveillance and data collection practices comply with constitutional principles such as legality, necessity, and proportionality. The paper develops a conceptual framework linking the right to privacy with judicial review, emphasizing its recognition as a fundamental right, particularly in the Indian context following Justice K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India. It further explores the theoretical foundations of judicial review in surveillance, grounded in the doctrines of separation of powers, rule of law, and limited government. The analysis highlights the importance of both ex ante authorization and ex post accountability as essential components of effective oversight. Through a comparative perspective, the paper evaluates different models of judicial oversight across jurisdictions, including the European Union, the United States, India, and Singapore, demonstrating varying degrees of judicial engagement and effectiveness. It also identifies key challenges such as secrecy in surveillance operations, technological complexity, executive dominance, and the “mosaic effect” of data aggregation, all of which limit the efficacy of judicial scrutiny. Despite these constraints, the judiciary has played a transformative role in shaping privacy jurisprudence by recognizing fundamental rights, applying proportionality standards, and invalidating unconstitutional surveillance practices. The paper concludes by proposing reforms, including mandatory judicial authorization for surveillance and the strengthening of remedial mechanisms, to enhance accountability and protect privacy in an increasingly data-driven society. Ultimately, it argues that judicial oversight remains indispensable to maintaining the balance between state power and individual freedoms in contemporary democratic governance.
Janani Shivamani (Thu,) studied this question.