Breaking: Right To Privacy Is A Fundamental Right: SC Constitution Bench [9:0] [READ JUDGMENT]

Supreme Court of India has held that right to privacy is a Fundamental Right and it is protected under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. In a unanimous decision the Nine -Judge Constitution bench overruled the Judgments in MP Sharma and Kharak Singh cases.

This Is What Supreme Court Said In Right To Privacy Judgment [READ JUDGMENT]

Reading out the operative portion of the judgment, Chief Justice J S Khehar said “few of us have written different orders”
“However these are our conclusion: Petitions are disposed of in following terms:”
1.The decision in M P Sharma that privacy is not a fundamental right stands overruled.
2.The decision in Kharak Singh that privacy is not a fundamental right stands overruled.
3.Right to privacy is protected as intrinsic part of right to life and liberty.
4.All decisions subsequent to Kharak Singh makes the position clear and will hold the field.

WHO ARE THE JUDGES

The court had reserved its verdict on August 3 after marathon day-long hearings spanning six days across three weeks. The bench comprised of Chief Justice J S Khehar and Justices J Chelameswar, S A Bobde, R.K. Agrawal, Rohinton Nariman,  A M Sapre, D Y Chandrachud, Sanjay Kishan Kaul and S Abdul Nazeer.

A Rare Moment In History: Justice D.Y.Chandrachud Overrules His Father’s Judgment In ADM Jabalpur Case

WHO ARE THE LEGAL EAGLES WHO ARGUED

A battery of senior lawyers, including Attorney General KK Venugopal, Additional Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, Arvind Datar, Kapil Sibal, Gopal Subramaniam, Shayam Divan, Anand Grover, CA Sundaram and Rakesh Dwivedi, had advanced arguments in favour and against the inclusion of the right to privacy as a fundamental right.

Petitions questioned the violation of privacy in collection of information under Aadhaar.

Exclusive-Right To Privacy: Read The Complete Written Submissions Of Lawyers In The Landmark Hearing

Before the nine judge bench was set up, a five-judge constitution bench headed by chief justice J. S. Khehar earlier said that the larger bench would examine the correctness of the two judgments delivered in the cases of Kharak Singh and M. P. Sharma in which it was held that right to privacy was not a fundamental right.

Crucially, this bench examined whether the two earlier rulings were correct expressions of the constitution.

Privacy Bench Affirms LGBT Rights, Disagrees With Suresh Koushal Judgment On 377 IPC

PETITIONERS’ STAND

Legal eagles Gopal Subramanium, Soli Sorabjee and Shyam Divan appearing for the petitioners strongly argued for declaration of ‘Right To Privacy’ as a fundamental right.

Subramanium contended that privacy is embedded in all processes of human life and liberty. “All human choices are an exercise of liberty. And they all presuppose privacy”, he argued

Sorabjee argued that privacy is an inalienable right inhering in the very personality of Human beings.” The fact that no express right to privacy is mentioned in the Constitution does not mean that it doesn’t exist  Article 19(1)(a) does not guarantee a freedom of the press. But you can deduce it from free speech, which courts have done. The framers said that freedom of the press was implicit in free speech”,

Divan argued that “We have an unbroken line of decisions since 1975 recognising the right to privacy. Privacy includes the right to be left alone, freedom of thought, freedom to dissent, bodily integrity, informational self-determination”

CENTRE’S STAND

Strongly backing the Aadhaar scheme, the Centre submitted that the right to life of millions of poor in the country through food, shelter and welfare measures was far more important than privacy concerns raised by the elite class.

Controversially, Attorney General K K Venugopal arguing for the Centre also stated that privacy claims required better priority in developed countries “not in a country like India where a vast majority of citizens don’t have access to basic needs”.

He said right to privacy cannot be invoked to scrap the Aadhaar scheme. The government was categorical that after enrolling nearly 100 crore citizens spending an astronomical amount of Rs 6,300 crore there was no going back.

Read the Judgment Here

 

Got Something To Say:

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *


*

*

  • Abhay Raj Singh Adv. says:

    Hon’ble supreme court has been pleased to render two landark jt in this week.i would like to say thanks to the Hon’ble Judges.

  • Sekar says:

    Omniscient Honourable Judges have given judgement to Ochlocracy to understand the value of privacy. It is right time to present rulers, to understand they had this opportunity, by sheer luck ,to rule and they must understand people are (Indian) elected them. Rest. District Judge Sekar

  • seshagirilakshmanrao says:

    Let us wait for the judgement on the topic posted,for implementation purposes….

  • seshagirilakshmanrao says:

    when the appointing authorities issue clear instructions on the Document like !!! Aadhaar Card!!! we need to comply with the instructions. The purpose behind the need of the key document has to be well reconciled. This view is more relevant to pensioners/family pensioners…

  • SANJIWAN KUMAR says:

    Wonderful…!!!
    Hats off to Supreme Court. Because without right to privacy, right to life has no meaning.

  • GUNJAN KUMAR TIWARI ADV. High Court Allahabad says:

    It will become bane to world of corrupts

Top