During the hour-long hearing, senior advocate Kapil Sibal argued that his client employed end-to-end encryption and has no scope of interference by a third party. The court has scheduled the case for hearing on September 6.
The Centre informed the Supreme Court that protection of data integral to citizens' personal life is part of their Fundamental Right to life and dignity. The Union's submission in the WhatsApp privacy case on Friday was the complete opposite from the stand it has taken so far in the Aadhaar case.
Representing the Centre before a five-judge constitutional bench, Additional Solicitor General (ASG) PS Narisimha submitted that any service provider or social media platform that shared any personal data which impinged on a person's Right to Life under Article 21 of the Constitution would need to be regulated.
The bench was hearing matters pertaining to a user's right to privacy and whether WhatsApp sharing user information with its parent company Facebook, violated the a citizen's right to privacy. The bench led by Justice Misra, also comprises Justices Amitava Roy, AK Sikri, AM Khanwilkar and M Shantanagouder.
"Data connected to my personality is an integral part of my life with dignity... so if any contractual obligations impinge on Article 21, then that needs to be regulated," the ASG said.
During the hour-long hearing, senior advocate Kapil Sibal argued that his client employed end-to-end encryption and has no scope of interference by a third party. The court has scheduled the case for hearing on September 6.
Presently, a nine-judge bench led by the Chief Justice of India is also determining whether privacy is a Fundamental Right accorded to the citizens under the Indian Constitution. The apex court had observed that privacy was not an absolute right.
In May, during the hearing in the Aadhaar matter before a bench comprising of Justices AK Sikri and Ashok Bhushan, the Centre had submitted that citizens of India did not have absolute right over their own bodies. Defending its unique numbered identification scheme advocate Araghya Sengupta, representing the Centre, had said, "There is no absolute right to informational self-determination."
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
 "Data")
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
)
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
)
)
)
)
)
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}