Right to Privacy is a fundamental right, but technology often outpaces law. Critically analyse in the context of AI-enabled surveillance devices.

In Justice K.S. Puttaswamy (2017), a nine-judge Bench unanimously held privacy to be a fundamental right under Article 21 [2]. Yet AI-enabled wearables — smart glasses combining cameras, microphones and facial recognition — reveal that while the constitutional promise is settled, statutory design trails technological capability.

Where the legal framework holds firm

• Constitutional anchor: Puttaswamy laid down a proportionality test — legality, legitimate aim, necessity — applicable to any privacy intrusion, including surveillance [2].
• Statutory architecture: the DPDP Act, 2023 imposes notice, purpose limitation and consent obligations on data fiduciaries, with penalties up to ₹250 crore [1][5].
• Policy response: MeitY's India AI Governance Guidelines (November 2025) create an AI Governance Group, Technology & Policy Expert Committee and AI Safety Institute, applying transparency and accountability principles across sectors [3].

Where technology outpaces the law

• The bystander gap: the DPDP Act rests on a two-party fiduciary–principal model; a person incidentally recorded in public is party to no consent relationship, and thus largely outside its protection [1][5].
• No device-design mandate: nothing compels a visible recording indicator, defeating the "notice" principle that consent regimes presume.
• Regulatory vacuum on facial recognition: India lacks a dedicated statute for FRT, even as real-time identification of strangers becomes technically feasible.
• Soft law limits: the AI Guidelines are largely voluntary and recommendatory, not enforceable obligations [3].
• Comparative lag: the EU AI Act expressly prohibits real-time remote biometric identification in public spaces, barring narrow exceptions [4].

Thus the deficit is not of rights but of enforceable design and third-party safeguards. Extending DPDP obligations to device manufacturers, mandating tamper-proof recording indicators, and framing FRT rules consistent with the proportionality test would let regulation move with innovation rather than behind it — realising Article 21's guarantee that anonymity in public spaces is not surrendered by default.