Privacy not absolute, says Supreme Court

Privacy not absolute, says Supreme Court

The court said the attempt to define the right to privacy can do more harm than good.

The protection of privacy is not absolute and can not prevent the state to make laws imposing reasonable restrictions on citizens, the Supreme Court said Wednesday. He indicated that the “right to privacy” was in fact “amorphous”, a term.

The court said it recognized privacy as a final law, it was first necessary to define it. However, it would be almost impossible for an element of privacy to permeate all the fundamental rights enshrined in the Constitution.

“How is confidentiality defined?” “What is the content?” “What are the boundaries?” “How can the State regulate privacy?” “What are the State’s obligations to protect a person’s privacy?” Judge Chandrachud petitioned the petitioners who challenged the law on the grounds that Aadhaar affects the privacy of citizens.

The court said the attempt to define the right to privacy can do more harm than good.

A comprehensive cataloging of the court that everything is an isolation can limit the right in itself, said Judge Chandrachud.

Bench new judge

Judge Chandrachud is part of a nine-judge constituency bank, led by Chief Justice of India JS Khehar, examining a reference to the question of whether privacy is a sacred right, a fundamental and inviolable element under the Constitution .

Attorney General K. K. Venugopal had submitted to the court that the right to privacy is a common law right and the creators of the constitution “consciously avoided” are part of the fundamental rights.

The decision of the nine-judge panel on the question of whether privacy is a fundamental right or will not be critical to the qu’Aadhaar petitioners challenge, forcing citizens to participate with their biometric data, is unconstitutional.

At a hearing before a compound court, the Court disagreed with the petitioners’ request that the right to privacy is not negotiable.

“If people are put into the public domain with the help of technology, it is not a surrender of their right to privacy,” Judge Chandrachud asked.

Jaitley Declaration

The court’s questions are placed despite the applicants presented in the statement of the Union Finance Minister, Arun Jaitley in Parliament, that privacy is “probably” a fundamental right and a “part of individual freedom.”

The statement was made March 16, 2016 at the presentation of the bill in the Aadhaar Parliament.

The lead counsel Shyam Divan appearing by the petitioners argued that a person should have the right to “self-determination information.”

“In the Internet age, a person must have control over how much they should offer and not be forced,” Couch said.

He said there was little data protection in the digital age, inevitably resulting in a compromise of privacy.

Leave a Reply

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