Right To Privacy [Day-2]- To What Extent One Can Remain Anonymous ? SC Ponders

As the 9-judge bench of the Supreme Court continued hearing on whether right to privacy should be declared a fundamental right, it today posed pointed questions as to what level the anonymity should or can be allowed."For example you are applying for passport. They ask your father's name, mother's name, spouse's name..in certain cases for passport for an adopted child they insist on name of biological parents. Then how far a citizen can say he has right to anonymity?" Justice D Y Chandrachud asked Senior advocate Anand Grover who appeared for one of the petitioners.“Regressive To Deny Right To Privacy In 2017 By Relying On A 63-Year Old Decision”: Arvind Datar And Meenakshi Arora Back The Right [Read Written Submissions]At this moment Justice Rohinton Nariman chipped in saying the ultimate test could be if the state's interest is compelling? Is it in the interest of the state or is the information sought arbitrary and excessive.Chief Justice Khehar asked " you mean to say can somebody say I don't want to disclose if details sought bothers you then it comes under privacy"Earlier in the day senior advocates Arvind Datar and Anand Grover argued that fundamental rights should be given an expansive interpretation so that it is in tune with changing times, situation and circumstances.They argued that right to privacy is not in the periphery but central to right to liberty and life. HIGHLIGHTS OF ARVIND DATAR'S ARGUMENT1) Without right to privacy all other fundamental rights will be denuded.2)Right to privacy is recognised in several judgments of this court.3)Though not specifically stated in the constitution it is part of Article 19 and 21. Supreme Court has several times recognised it4)35 judgments submitted by Shyam Divan will help in evolving right to privacy5)Now the rulings in M P Sharma and Kharak Singh under examination. It is a golden chance for the court to re-interpret6)An individual can decide to control dissemination of his personal information7)Protection of an individual's autonomy is of prime importance8) The law that says one cannot be compelled to undergo narco analysis upholds right to privacyHIGHLIGHTS OF ANAND GROVER'S ARGUMENT1)There are several decisions of this court which upholds right to privacy2)Even under international laws and conventions state has an obligation to protect citizens right to privacy3)Article 19 and 21 are linked and both have good element of right to privacy4)Right to privacy is all embracing5) Fundamental rights should be given an expansive interpretation in tune with the times.The bench had yesterday observed that the right to privacy was not absolute.“If privacy is about right to make a choice, then choice in what areas? Family, sexual orientation, gender identity, surveillance, what all?” it observed.The judges are revisiting previous rulings by the Supreme Court— one by an eight-judge bench in 1954 and the other by a six-judge bench in 1962 — to study if they were the correct interpretation of constitutional provisions. Both rulings rejected the idea that privacy was a fundamental right. “If yes (i.e. if right to privacy is a fundamental right), then Naz Foundation (ruling) falls,” Justice DY Chandrachud –a member of the bench – said to the lawyers who argued privacy was a facet of liberty, which the Constitution guarantees.During the hearing the bench felt that right to privacy was too “amorphous” a term and said that to recognise privacy as a definite right, it had to first define it.“How do we define privacy? What are its contents? Its contours? How can the State regulate privacy? What obligations does the State have to protect a person’s privacy?” Justice Chandrachud asked the lawyers representing petitioners in Aadhaar case. An attempt to define the right to privacy may cause more harm than good, the bench said.Concept Of Privacy Is Embedded In Liberty And Honor Of A Person: Gopal Subramanium [Read Written Submissions]Legal eagles Gopal Subramanium, Soli Sorabjee and Shyam Divan appearing for the petitioners had strongly argued for declaration of ‘Right To Privacy’ as a fundamental right as the nine judge constitution bench constituted by the Chief Justice to decide the question ‘whether right to privacy is a fundamental right under Constitution of India’ began its hearing.Justice Chandrachud also posed several questions on data protection in the age of social media, saying social media did not exist when the Constitution was made. “If people have put themselves in the public realm using technology, is that not a surrender of their right to privacy?,” the judge said, asking if right to privacy is non-negotiable.Earlier, former Attorney General Soli Sorabjee called government’s argument that privacy is not sacred because the Constitution does not mention it as fallacious. “It does not signify that the right does not exist,” he told the court in a brief submission. Sorabjee reminded the bench that even freedom of press was denuded from other fundamental rights ...

Right To Privacy [Day-2]- To What Extent One Can Remain Anonymous ? SC Ponders

LIVELAW NEWS NETWORK

Tags