The exponential proliferation of digital data ecosystems has transformed privacy from a classical negative liberty into a multidimensional legal entitlement encompassing informational autonomy, contextual integrity, and dignitarian protection. Yet contemporary data protection frameworks—including the European Union's General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) [1], India's Digital Personal Data Protection Act, 2023 (DPDPA 2023) [2], and the Indian Supreme Court's landmark ruling in Justice K.S. Puttaswamy (Retd.) v. Union of India [3]—deploy privacy discourse in conceptually imprecise and internally inconsistent ways that obscure the true structure of legal relationships among data principals, data fiduciaries, regulatory authorities, and the state. This paper applies Wesley Newcomb Hohfeld's analytical jurisprudence [4]—specifically the four correlative pairs of rights-duty, privilege-no-right, power-liability, and immunity-disability—as a reconstructive theoretical lens to map the normative architecture of digital privacy across these three frameworks. Through doctrinal analysis and comparative legal method, the paper demonstrates that Hohfeldian disaggregation exposes structural asymmetries, accountability deficits, and constitutional tensions that surface-level statutory interpretation fails to capture. The analysis contributes an original jurisprudential matrix of digital privacy relations and proposes targeted normative recommendations for doctrinal coherence, regulatory design, and cross-jurisdictional harmonisation.