By Khushboo Dev
---
Citation: 2017 10 SCC 1
Act:
Principle: Article 21, the Right to Life and Personal Liberty, includes the Right to Privacy
On
11 August 2015 while the Supreme Court was hearing a petition against the legal
validity of the government’s Aadhar scheme, the Attorney General asserted in
the Court that the Constitution of India does not guarantee the Fundamental
Right to Privacy to the citizens. What resulted was the setting up of a Nine-Judge
Bench to determine this Question of Law, i.e. whether the Right to Privacy is protected
under Article 21 of the Indian Constitution. The petition was initiated by K.S.
Puttaswamy, a retired Karnataka High Court Judge against the Union Of India.
The nine-judge bench, in the Puttaswamy Judgement answered four substantial questions of law. These questions or legal principles form the Operative part of the judgement and are as follows along with their reasoning:
1. The Puttaswamy
Judgement overruled the decision of the Supreme Court in the MP Sharma and
Others v. Satish Chandra and Others, wherein an eight-judge
bench had held that the Indian Constitution does not guarantee any Fundamental
Right to Privacy to its citizens.
The
Supreme Court in Puttaswamy, held that the MP Sharma judgement is
“unconvincing” on the grounds that the judgement failed to look into the
possibility of Guaranteeing the Fundamental Right to Privacy under the Indian
Constitution on an independent footing. In simpler words, the court asserted
that MP Sharma judgement put “too much” emphasis on the American Fourth
Amendment. Moreover, the Supreme Court also opined that the bench in the MP
Sharma case had erroneously assumed the American Fourth Amendment to be the
exhaustive guarantee of the Right to Privacy in the American Jurisdiction,
which wasn’t the case.
2.
The Supreme Court overruled the decision of the six-judge bench in the case of Kharak
Singh v. State of UP to the extent that it held that the
Constitution of India does not provide the Fundamental Right to Privacy.
Firstly,
The Court held that the Kharak Singh judgement was inconsistent as, on one
hand, it held that there was no Fundamental Right to Privacy and on the other, it
struck down the power of the police to conduct domiciliary visits on the ground
that it violated the “ordered liberty” of the citizens, thereby guaranteeing
the Right to Privacy. Secondly, the nine-judge bench observed that the decision
of the six-judge bench in the Kharak Singh case was based on a very narrow
understanding of the term “personal liberty”.
3.
The Court held that the Right to Freedom and the Right to Life and Personal
liberty under the Indian Constitution guarantees The right to privacy as an
intrinsic part of Part III of the Constitution
The
Puttaswamy Judgement held that the Right to Privacy is not only indispensable
for the exercise of other Fundamental Rights under Article 19, but also relates
with the body, mind and choices of all individuals. Denial of Rights to Privacy
would thus, deny the individual his Right to Dignity, Liberty and Autonomy.
The
Supreme Court also laid down a Three-Pronged test to determine the Breach of
Right to Privacy of an individual. Thus, according to the Puttaswamy judgement,
the Right to Privacy of an individual is violated if :
1.
The acts of
the State are not in accordance with the law
2.
There is
absence of legitimate aim on the state’s part
3. The acts of the State are not proportionate to
any purported aim
This
principle forms the most integral part of the Puttaswamy Judgement.
4.
The Puttaswamy judgement provided that the decisions subsequent to Kharak Singh
which have enunciated the position in (3.) above lay down the correct position
in law.
As the fourth principle, the Supreme Court clarified that The Right to Privacy is a Fundamental Right as an intrinsic part of the Right to Life and Personal Liberty under the Indian Constitution and all the Supreme Court Judgements following the case of Gobind v. State of MP that affirmed this status of Privacy form the correct position of law.
---
Khushboo Dev is a second-year student at National Law University who aims to become a distinguished Criminal Lawyer. She feels very strongly for Women and Minority Rights and aspires to advocate for the same. An absolute go-getter, she can often be found debating with her peers on contemporary legal, political and feminist issues. A trait she is very proud of (that sometimes works against her) is her commitment to being “perfect” at everything she does.
No comments:
Post a Comment