Live | Welcome SC Verdict But Right to Privacy Not Absolute: Govt
A nine-judge Constitution bench headed by Chief Justice JS Khehar will be delivering the verdict on 25 August.
advertisement
Right to privacy is a fundamental right, the Supreme Court ruled on 24 August.
The verdict was delivered by a nine-judge bench, headed by Chief Justice JS Khehar and comprising Justices J Chelameswar, SA Bobde, RK Agrawal, RF Nariman, AM Sapre, DY Chandrachud, SK Kaul, and S Abdul Nazeer.
The bench had on 2 August reserved its verdict after hearing marathon arguments for six days over a period of three weeks, during which submissions were advanced in favour and against the inclusion of the right to privacy as a fundamental right.
- The Supreme Court on 24 August ruled that right to privacy is a fundamental right
- Privacy is protected under Article 21 and Part 3 of Constitution, the court ruled
- The verdict was delivered by a nine-judge bench, headed by Chief Justice JS Khehar
- The bench overruled a six-judge bench ruling in the 1962 Kharak Singh case, that said privacy was not a fundamental right
- Prashant Bhushan has called the decision a setback to the government
'Opposed Privacy As Fundamental Right': Mukul Rohatgi Contradicts Centre
Former Attorney General Mukul Rohatgi told NDTV that he had argued before the top court against treating privacy as a fundamental right. Rohatgi, who had represented the government in the top court till June this year, said the government had argued before the top court that privacy "is not a fundamental right but a regular common law right"
SC Judgement in Consonance With Govt Vision: Amit Shah
BJP president Amit Shah welcomed the Supreme Court verdict declaring Right to Privacy a fundamental right by saying that it strengthened the personal liberty of citizens.
He also took a dig at the Congress party by saying,
Watch: Privacy Law Experts Take on SC Judgement
SC Verdict Enhances Citizen's Rights: Soli Sorabjee
Former Attorney General Soli Sorabjee welcomed the apex court verdict on the Right to Privacy and said that the verdict “enhances citizens’ rights.”
Nandan Nilenkani Welcomes SC verdict
The former Chairman of Unique Identification Authority of India Nandan Nilenkani welcomed the Supreme Court verdict declaring Right to Privacy a fundamental right.
In a tweet, he hailed the apex court verdict as a “superb judgement” but that the right was not absolute.
Arun Jaitley Speaks Out on Right to Privacy Judgment
Following the Supreme Court judgement on the Right to Privacy case, Union Minister Arun Jaitley said that the apex court has only reiterated the government’s stand on the issue.
He said that the NDA government “absolutely believed” that privacy was a fundamental right, and has put special provisions for privacy during the enactment of Aadhaar act.
Jaitley also pointed out apex court’s reasonable restrictions on privacy - in cases of national security, detection of crime, and dissipation of social benefits.
Watch: Why One Must Care About SC's Right to Privacy Verdict
Right to Privacy Verdict Could Be Game-Changer: Amnesty India
A historic judgment by India’s Supreme Court ruling that the right to privacy is part of the constitutional right to life and personal liberty could have far-reaching implications for human rights in the country, Amnesty International India said on 24 August.
“This judgment can also ensure that people’s right to privacy is better protected from unjustified surveillance by state and non-state actors, and also that privacy concerns around the Aadhaar biometric card programme are addressed more effectively.”
Watch: Government Welcomes SC Verdict on Right to Privacy
Union Minister for Information and Technology Ravi Shankar Prasad on 24 August welcomed the Supreme Court verdict upholding the right to privacy as a fundamental right.
He said the government had acknowledged that right to privacy was a fundamental right long before the Supreme Court verdict, while moving the Aadhaar Act.
Speaking on Aadhaar, he assured that it was a “safe and secure.”
When asked about Section 377, Prasad said, “This day was the one to speak about poor and their empowerment.”
Key Takeaways From Right to Privacy Verdict
Nine judges of the Supreme Court unanimously declared that right to privacy is a fundamental right guaranteed by the Constitution of India. It’s impact will be felt for years to come.
Six out of the nine judges penned their thoughts and opinions. Here are the quick takeaways from the six opinions:
Read more on the key takeaways here.
'Victory to Every Indian': Rahul Hails SC Verdict
Congress vice president Rahul Gandhi on 24 August hailed the Supreme Court verdict, calling it a “victory for every Indian.”
He tweeted that the apex court’s decision was a ‘major blow to fascist forces.’
The 547-Page Supreme Court Judgment
'Very Happy With the Decision'
Banerjee was quite confident that there would not be significant restrictions on the right to privacy, though this was subject to what the judgment actually said.
It's a Good Judgment Overall: Raman Jit Singh Chima
Raman Jit Singh Chima, co-founder of SaveTheInternet.in, believes the decision should prove to be a good judgment overall, with the Chief Justice of India saying that all judges have located privacy within Article 21 of the Constitution, and other fundamental rights under Part 3 of the Constitution.
Politicians Hail Verdict
Minutes after the Supreme Court delivered its verdict on right to privacy, politicians took to Twitter to hail the verdict.
SC to Now Test Validity of Aadhaar: Reports
According to several reports, the apex court will now test the validity of Aadhaar on the basis of the fact that right to privacy is now a fundamental right.
Decision Is a Setback to Government: Prashant Bhushan
Prashant Bhushan on 24 August said that the SC decision will be a setback for the government. He also added that the court has not said anything on the validity of Aadhaar.
“The court has not said anything about whether Aadhaar is invalid or not,” he said. “Right to privacy being a fundamental right means a lot for Aadhaar. It will now be seen whether the restrictions imposed by Aadhaar are reasonable restrictions or not,” he added.
“I believe that these unreasonable restrictions of Aadhaar will be struck down,” said Bhushan.
Privacy Protected Under Article 21 of Constitution
Privacy is protected under Article 21 and Part 3 of the Constitution, the nine-judge bench of the apex court said on 24 August.
The court overruled a six-judge bench ruling in the 1962 Kharak Singh case that said privacy is not a fundamental right.
The Decision Was Unanimous
There was no dissenting judgment in the verdict and the decision to uphold right to privacy as a fundamental right was unanimous.
SC upholds Right to Privacy as a Fundamental Right: ANI
Supreme Court’s nine judge bench has upheld right to privacy as a fundamental right. Privacy intrinsic to freedom of life and personal liberty guaranteed under Article 21 of Constitution, the court said.
The ruling was to deal with a batch of petitions challenging the government move to make Aadhaar mandatory for availing benefits of social welfare schemes.
Four Judgments Expected in the Case Today: Sources
Sources say that there are four judgments expected in the case, but not sure whether they will all be conflicting or in agreement with each other.
This means that while it’s a nine-judge bench, there will be four judgments or views emerging out of it.
What Happened in the Previous Hearing
The hearings before the Supreme Court on whether Indian citizens have a fundamental right to privacy concluded on2 August, after final submissions were made by lawyers from both sides. The special constitution bench, headed by the Chief Justice of India, reserved its judgment for an undeclared period of time.
The high-voltage hearing saw a battery of senior lawyers, including Attorney General KK Venugopal, Additional Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, Arvind Datar, Kapil Sibal, Gopal Subaramaniam, Shyam Divan, Anand Grover, CA Sundaram, and Rakesh Dwivedi advancing arguments either in favour or against the inclusion of right to privacy as a fundamental right.
The contentious issue had emerged when the apex court was dealing with a batch of petitions challenging the Centre’s move to make Aadhaar mandatory for availing the benefits of various social welfare schemes.
The arguments raised by the respondents were essentially variations on the arguments raised by Attorney General KK Venugopal when he started their arguments, with constant references to Aadhaar and how privacy will affect this (despite repeated instructions from the court to refrain from this).
However, Arghya Sengupta, appearing for the state of Haryana and TRAI, as well as Gopal Sankaranarayanan for the Centre for Civil Society, made some more nuanced arguments that were singled out for appreciation from the bench.
Get a recap from the last session here.
Watch: Law Expert Karuna Nundy Talks on Why We Need the Right to Privacy
The Supreme Court is currently deciding whether Indian citizens have a fundamental right to privacy under the Constitution of India. But why do we need the right to privacy? Why should you care if this is a fundamental right? And what does privacy have to do with Aadhaar and other laws? Supreme Court lawyer Karuna Nundy explains.
Read the full story here.
Right to Privacy: SC to Make History, But Maybe Not In a Good Way
Do Indian citizens have a fundamental right to privacy?
Regardless of how the question is answered, the decision will have far-reaching consequences. The size of the bench will mean that the decision taken will remain in force for many years to come, and the way in which the court arrives at its answer will affect the way we view and interpret fundamental rights in this country for generations.
The government’s interpretation of the right to privacy arises out of two judgments of the Supreme Court that were decided by large constitutional benches, Kharak Singh (six judges) and MP Sharma (eight judges).
Read the full story on The Quint.
Why Does the Number of Judges Matter?
This matters because of the way precedent works in our legal system. The decisions of a superior court on a particular issue have to be followed by a lower court when looking at a similar issue. At its most basic, this means that trial courts and district courts are bound by decisions of the High Courts and the Supreme Court, and High Courts are bound by decisions of the Supreme Court.
So what binds the Supreme Court then? The simple answer is other decisions of the Supreme Court. But, what does one do if one wishes to challenge such a decision? Till you reach the Supreme Court, you always have another court to approach if you disagree with the precedent. But, there is no court higher than the Supreme Court.
Which is why we have the concept of benches with higher numbers. A decision by a bench of the Supreme Court can only be overruled by a Supreme Court bench of the same or greater size. The Supreme Court normally sits in benches of two or three, so to avoid being bound by the decision of such a bench, you would need a bench of three judges or more.
Read more about this on The Quint.
Privacy, Security, and the Supreme Court: An Aadhaar Starter Kit
Perspectives on Aadhaar depend on who you’re talking to. With every stakeholder, a different clutch of arguments emerge on Aadhaar dealing with security, welfare schemes, role of governments, privacy, surveillance, and development. Here are the main stakeholders you should know about:
- UIDAI is responsible for collecting the biometric and demographic data, which is required to enrol as a part of the 12-digit unique identity number.
- Sections of the civil society have been vocal critics of Aadhaar, raising concerns over it being a surveillance tool. On the other hand, some argue that critics of Aadhaar should differentiate between Aadhaar the technological tool
- The role of the government in the Aadhaar debate can be understood through executive orders which make Aadhaar mandatory for a slew of welfare services, including pension fund benefits, mid-day meals, and cash rewards.
Read more about the different perspectives on Aadhaar Identification here.
Aadhaar Case: Beyond Privacy, An Issue of Bodily Integrity
If one follows the courtroom exchanges in the original Aadhaar matter (not the one being argued now), the debates around the privacy implications of Aadhaar have focussed on simplistic balancing exercises of “security vs privacy” and “efficient governance vs privacy.”
These observations depict the right to privacy as a monolithic concept, ie, a single right which has a unity of harm it captures within itself. In other words, all privacy harms are considered to be on the same footing. "Privacy harms" here mean the undesirable effects of the violation of the right to privacy.
This monolithic conception was clearly reflected in the Supreme Court’s decision to refer the constitutionality of “right to privacy” to a larger bench.
One of the arguments presented by advocate Shyam Divan further is that coercing someone to give personal information is compelled speech and hence, violative of Article 19(1)(a) (the rights to free speech and expression). Once again, the harm described here – compelling someone to part with personal data – is conventionally a privacy harm.
Read the full story on The Quint.
(At The Quint, we question everything. Play an active role in shaping our journalism by becoming a member today.)