GET Stock QuotesNews18 APP
News18 English

Assembly Election LIVE Results

  • LOST

    Shaktisinh Gohil

    INC (Mandvi)
  • WON

    Jignesh Mevani

    IND (Vadgam (SC)
  • WON

    Alpesh Thakor

    INC (Radhanpur)
  • WON

    Nitinbhai Patel

    BJP (Mahesana)
  • WON

    Hitu Kanodiya

    BJP (Idar (SC)
  • WON

    Pradipsinh Jadeja

    BJP (Vatva)
  • LOST

    Babubhai Mangukiya

    INC (Thakkarbapa Nagar)
  • WON

    Himmatsinh Patel

    INC (Bapunagar)
  • WON

    Bhupendrasinh Chudasama

    BJP (Dholka)
  • WON

    Somabhai Patel

    INC (Limbdi)
  • LOST

    Indranil Rajguru

    INC (Rajkot West)
  • WON

    Vijay Rupani

    BJP (Rajkot West)
  • WON

    Jayesh Radadiya

    BJP (Jetpur)
  • WON

    Lalit Vasoya

    INC (Dhoraji)
  • LOST

    Raghavjibhai Patel

    BJP (Jamnagar Rural)
  • WON

    Hakubha Jadeja

    BJP (Jamnagar North)
  • LOST

    Arjun Modhwadia

    INC (Porbandar)
  • WON

    Paresh Dhanani

    INC (Amreli)
  • WON

    Purshottam Solanki

    BJP (Bhavnagar Rural)
  • WON

    Jitu Vaghan

    BJP (Bhavnagar West)
  • WON

    Saurabh Patel

    BJP (Botad)
  • LOST

    Ramsinh Parmar

    BJP (Thasra)
  • WON

    CK Raulji

    BJP (Godhra)
  • WON

    Mohansinh Rathava

    INC (Chhota Udaipur (ST)
  • LOST

    Siddharth Patel

    INC (Dabhoi)
  • WON

    Manisha Vakil

    BJP (Vadodara City (SC)
  • WON

    Rajendra Trivedi

    BJP (Raopura)
  • WON

    Mahesh Vasava

    BTP (Dediapada (ST)
  • WON

    Chhotubhai Vasava

    BTP (Jhagadia (ST)
  • LOST

    Tusharbhai Chaudhari

    INC (Mahuva (ST)
  • LOST

    Thakur Singh Bharmouri

    INC (Bharmour (ST)
  • WON

    Asha Kumari

    INC (Dalhousie)
  • LOST

    GS Bali

    INC (Nagrota)
  • LOST

    Sudhir Sharma

    INC (Dharamshala)
  • LOST

    Indu Goswami

    BJP (Palampur)
  • WON

    Jai Ram Thakur

    BJP (Seraj)
  • WON

    Anil Sharma

    BJP (Mandi)
  • LOST

    Champa Thakur

    INC (Mandi)
  • LOST

    Prem Kumar Dhumal

    BJP (Sujanpur)
  • LOST

    Satpal Singh Satti

    BJP (Una)
  • WON

    Virbhadra Singh

    INC (Arki)
  • WON

    Suresh Bhardwaj

    BJP (Shimla)
  • WON

    Vikramaditya Singh

    INC (Shimla Rural)
  • WON

    Narinder Bragta

    BJP (Jubbal Kotkhai)
»
4-min read

Privacy Protection is a Losing Battle in Modern Era, Supreme Court Had Said

The bench, which favoured "overarching" guidelines to protect private information in public domain, said there was a need to "maintain the core of privacy" as the notion of privacy was fast becoming irrelevant in an all-pervading technological era.

News18.com

Updated:August 24, 2017, 12:07 PM IST
facebookTwittergoogleskypewhatsapp
Privacy Protection is a Losing Battle in Modern Era, Supreme Court Had Said
File photo of the Supreme Court, New Delhi.
New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Thursday said that right to privacy was indeed a fundamental right to Indians.

It is imperative to note here that the apex court had, during the hearings, voiced concern over possible misuse of personal information in public domain.

“Protection of the concept of privacy in the technological era was a losing battle,” the SC had said.

A nine-judge Constitution bench, headed by Chief Justice J S Khehar, heard marathon arguments for six days over a period of three weeks last month.

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

The bench, which favoured "overarching" guidelines to protect private information in public domain, said there was a need to "maintain the core of privacy" as the notion of privacy was fast becoming irrelevant in an all-pervading technological era.

"We are fighting a losing battle of privacy. We do not know for what purpose the information will be used. This is exactly a cause of concern," the bench, which also comprised justices J Chelameswar, S A Bobde, R K Agrawal, R F Nariman, A M Sapre, D Y Chandrachud, S K Kaul and S Abdul Nazeer, said.

Senior advocate Rakesh Dwivedi, who appeared for the Gujarat government, however, said transparency was a key component in the modern age and providing basic personal information could not be covered under right to privacy and referred to illustrations in support of his submission.

He said that commercial misuse or violation of personal information can be taken care of by the Telecom Rregulatory Authority of India (TRAI) and other agencies.

The senior lawyer then referred to the Supreme Court Rules which made it mandatory for lawyers and litigants to part with various personal information like names, address, telephone number, occupation and national unique ID cards, if any, for filing a public interest litigation.

"Your lordships are marching forward with technology by seeking various personal information under the rules," Dwivedi said, adding the Aadhaar card as an identity document was also accepted.

"But, this (Aadhaar) is not mandatory," the bench said.

Dealing with facets of privacy, it referred to a verdict of a Georgia court (in the US) and said disseminating obscene materials was not allowed, but watching them in confines of the home was protected under right to privacy.

Dwivedi said that there was no problem if privacy right was identified as embedded in other fundamental rights and it could not be accorded a separate status of a fundamental right.

The bench said that there was a need to define the term privacy as India has become a "knowledge-based economy" and has nearly 1.4 billion people whose personal information was in public domain.

It said that if it decides in favour of the plea that right to privacy is a fundamental right, then "we will have to say what falls under it".

It also said the core of privacy needed to be protected and should not be surrendered and referred to an illustration saying the total number of HIV+ve patients could be ascertained, but their identity had to be protected.

Toeing Dwivedi's line, Arghya Sengupta and Gopal Sankaranarayanan, representing the Haryana government and the TRAI and the Centre for Civil Society, an NGO, said right to privacy cannot be declared as a fundamental right.

The two advocates, who were praised for their argument by the court, submitted that the ingredients of right to privacy were embedded in other rights like the right to personal liberty.

"The tail has wagged the dog," Justice Nariman said while commending the duo.

Dwivedi said if the information to be parted with was not sensitive then it was not covered under right to privacy.

If courts wanted to ascertain the identity of lawyers, who appeared before them, then there was no harm in it and "rather it may help in administration of justice", he said.

Otherwise, anybody can walk in black robes, he said.

The bench said, "Everybody should not have the personal information of an individual, unless somebody pastes the information on Facebook for the whole world to see."

Sankaranarayanan referred to the facets of privacy acceptable in other countries and prohibited here.

He said that the statute prohibited sex determination tests in India and simultaneously, this was permissible in various countries on the ground that it was a private affair.

"Privacy is incapable of precise definition and ought not to be elevated in all aspects, dimensions and sub-species to the level of a fundamental right," Sankaranarayanan said.

Sengupta said that privacy was not a separate right and rather intrinsic to the right to liberty.

"The discussion evidences a fundamental philosophical concept that privacy is purely formal and does no conceptual work that liberty cannot do, and does not do in the context of constitutionally protected personal liberty," he said.
Read full article
Next Story
facebookTwittergoogleskypewhatsapp

Live TV

File is:/article-scroll-new.php