Twitter
Advertisement

Privacy not an absolute right, SC observes

A nine-judge bench is hearing arguments on the issue whether privacy is an absolute right under the Constitution

Latest News
article-main
Supreme Court
FacebookTwitterWhatsappLinkedin

Observing that privacy was not absolute and the State couldn't be stopped from making laws imposing reasonable restrictions on citizens, the Supreme Court today wondered if any attempt to define the Right to Privacy could cause more harm than good.

Hearing arguments on whether privacy is a fundamental right under the Constitution, one of the judges on the nine-judge bench headed by Chief Justice of India JS Khehar also observed that while privacy was a Constitutional issue, steps needed to be taken to give data protection a statutory recognition.

"It is all well and good to argue about privacy in the abstract," Justice DY Chandrachud said towards the end of the hearing, adding, "[But] What are its contents? What are the contours? How can the State regulate privacy?

What obligations does the State have to protect a person's privacy?" Justice Chandrachud was referring to the arguments made by the petitioners' lawyers who contended that the Right to Privacy was absolute and fundamental.

The petitioners' counsel also cited Union Finance Minister Arun Jaitley's statement in Parliament last year during the debate for passage of the aadhaar law, where he said that privacy was probably a fundamental right and a "part of individual liberty", to buttress their contention.

Opening the arguments for the petitioners, Senior Advocate Gopal Subaramium said, "The Right to Liberty means the right to make personal choices, the right to develop one's personality, one's aura, one's thinking and actions, the freedom of religion and conscience, the freedom to believe or not believe. For all this, one needs privacy. So the Right to Liberty and lead a life of dignity includes the Right to Privacy."

Subramanium also touched upon various concepts of liberty and dignity. "The locus of the Constitution lies with the individual. The citizen is above the State. If there is no citizen, there is no State. And the State is the creation of the constitution," he added. "Our request is not for you to expand on it, rather simply uphold it," he told the bench.

Responding to arguments forwarded by Subramanium, Senior Advocates Shyam Divan, Soli Sorabjee and Arvind Datar, the bench noted that, "Every aspect of liberty is not privacy. One cannot have an exhaustive list of what constitutes privacy. The Constituent Assembly could not have imagined the idea of social media."

"If people have put themselves in the public realm using technology, is that not a surrender of their Right to Privacy," Justice Chandrachud said.

When Divan submitted that Right to Privacy in the digital world was a global concern, Justice Chandrachud observed that data protection is much wider than the ambit of privacy. "Whether you like it or not, you live in the age of big data and the state has to manage it."

The petitioner's counsel also agreed with the bench that Right to Privacy was not absolute. "I agree it is not absolute and the matter needs to be dealt with on a case-by-case basis," Divan said. "Right to Privacy forms the basis of an architectural issue between a citizen and the State. Once you (the bench) decide on the status of privacy, whether it is upheld or taken away, the State will approach the legislation accordingly," he added.

In pursuance to matters pertaining to the constitutional validity of aadhaar, the top court was hearing arguments to decide whether privacy is an absolute right. Though, two major judgments held that it is not, Divan submitted that there are at least 40 judgments from smaller benches that support the opposite.

"This (issue of privacy) is a new procedure for us," Justice Fali Nariman observed. "There is no established procedure till date and we will need all the assistance particularly on the parameters of the issue," he said, concluding the hearing for the day.

The court will continue hearing arguments on the same with the Union getting the option of stating its stand. The bench also comprises Justices J Chelameswar, SA Bobde, RK Agarwal, Rohinton Fali Nariman, Abhay Manohar Sapre, Sanjay Kishan Kaul and S Abdul Nazeer.

Find your daily dose of news & explainers in your WhatsApp. Stay updated, Stay informed-  Follow DNA on WhatsApp.
Advertisement

Live tv

Advertisement
Advertisement