<p>A debate on the right to privacy has been triggered in Ireland over a video of deputy Prime Minister (Tánaiste) Leo Varadkar socialising in a gay nightclub in Dublin last week.&nbsp;The video, shared on multiple platforms, has garnered millions of views coupled with a widespread online debate. According to a report by the Guardian on Tuesday, mainstream media ignored the video. TikTok, which had earlier hosted the video of Varadkar, took it down.&nbsp;</p>

<p>This week, deputy Prime Minister Leo Varadkar told reporters that he did not wish to comment on the video. “Everyone makes errors in judgment. You wouldn’t be a human being if you didn’t” Varadkar, who had come out as gay back in 2015, said, the Guardian reported on Tuesday.&nbsp;</p>

<p>Also read |&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/three-explosions-reported-from-kyiv-following-drone-attack-says-mayor-542893">Ukraine defence shot down 13 kamikaze drones targeting Kyiv, claims Zelensky</a></p>

<p>Micheál Martin, the Taoiseach and leader of the Fianna Fáil, condemned the filming of Varadkar in the nightclub branding it a breach of privacy. Varadkar and Martin are set to swap the Taoiseach and Tánaiste’s office.&nbsp;&nbsp;</p>

<p>Speaking to the&nbsp;Newstalk<em>, </em>Martin<em> </em>said, 'Leo Varadkar’s life, my life, everyone’s private life is their private life and I do not in any way shape or form condone any breach of that privacy. I think it is wrong, in my view, to be breaching that privacy in terms of filming people in a social context.”</p>

<p>Last month, Sean Sheehy, a Catholic priest in Ireland stoked controversy by saying that Leo Varadkar and other gay politicians would go to hell. Sheehy's remarks drew widespread criticism.&nbsp;</p>

<p><iframe allow="accelerometer; autoplay; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture" allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" height="350" loading="”lazy”" src="https://www.wionews.com/live-tv/embed?autoplay=1&amp;mute=1" width="100%"></iframe></p>


A debate on the right to privacy has been triggered in Ireland over a video of deputy Prime Minister (Tánaiste) Leo Varadkar socialising in a gay nightclub in Dublin last week.

A debate on the right to privacy has been triggered in Ireland over a video of deputy Prime Minister (Tánaiste) Leo Varadkar socialising in a gay nightclub in Dublin last week. The video, shared on multiple platforms, has garnered millions of views coupled with a widespread online debate. According to a report by the Guardian on Tuesday, mainstream media ignored the video. TikTok, which had earlier hosted the video of Varadkar, took it down. This week, deputy Prime Minister Leo Varadkar told reporters that he did not wish to comment on the video. “Everyone makes errors in judgment. You wouldn’t be a human being if you didn’t” Varadkar, who had come out as gay back in 2015, said, the Guardian reported on Tuesday. Also read | Ukraine defence shot down 13 kamikaze drones targeting Kyiv, claims Zelensky Micheál Martin, the Taoiseach and leader of the Fianna Fáil, condemned the filming of Varadkar in the nightclub branding it a breach of privacy. Varadkar and Martin are set to swap the Taoiseach and Tánaiste’s office. Speaking to the Newstalk, Martin said, 'Leo Varadkar’s life, my life, everyone’s private life is their private life and I do not in any way shape or form condone any breach of that privacy. I think it is wrong, in my view, to be breaching that privacy in terms of filming people in a social context.” Last month, Sean Sheehy, a Catholic priest in Ireland stoked controversy by saying that Leo Varadkar and other gay politicians would go to hell. Sheehy's remarks drew widespread criticism.

Deputy PM Leo Varadkar’s nightclub video triggers privacy debate in Ireland: Report

<p>A day after the <a href="http://www.wionews.com/india-news/whatsapp-group-sold-aadhaar-details-for-rs-500-uidai-denies-report-28548">Unique Identification Authority of India</a> (UIDAI) denied that there was any breach of the Aadhaar database, American whistleblower Edward Snowden said on Friday that the Aadhaar database conceived and introduced by the Indian government can also be misused and abused.</p>

<p>Retweeting CBS journalist Zack Whittaker&#39;s response on a BuzzFeed report on the breach of Aadhaar database in India, Snowden said, &quot;It is the natural tendency of government to desire perfect records of private lives. History shows that no matter the laws, the result is abuse.&quot;</p>

<div class="ui-state-default" contenteditable="false">
<div class="twitter-block" draggable="false">
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en">
<p dir="ltr" lang="en">It is the natural tendency of government to desire perfect records of private lives. History shows that no matter the laws, the result is abuse. <a href="https://t.co/7HSQSZ4T3f">https://t.co/7HSQSZ4T3f</a></p>
&mdash; Edward Snowden (@Snowden) <a href="https://twitter.com/Snowden/status/949057892069523459?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">January 4, 2018</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script></div>
<a class="close-mark close-div" href="#" id="jqclosemark">&times;</a></div>

<p>&nbsp;</p>

<p>Whittaker had earlier said, &quot;ICYMI. India has a national ID database with the private information of nearly 1.2 billion nationals. It&#39;s reportedly been breached. Admin accounts can be made and access can be sold to the database, reports BuzzFeed.&quot;</p>

<p>The UIDAI on Thursday said the Aadhaar data including biometric information is fully safe and secure.</p>

<p>It termed The Tribune report titled Rs 500, 10 minutes, and you have access to billion Aadhaar details a case of misreporting.</p>

<p>&quot;There has not been any Aadhaar data breach. The Aadhaar data including biometric information is fully safe and secure,&quot; the UIDAI said in a statement.</p>

<p>This development has come at a time when the Supreme Court is set to begin the final hearing of petitions challenging the legality of Aadhaar programme based on privacy concerns on January 17.</p>

<p>In August 2017, the Supreme Court held that privacy is a fundamental right under the Constitution of India.</p>


The UIDAI on Thursday said the Aadhaar data including biometric information is fully safe and secure.

A day after the Unique Identification Authority of India (UIDAI) denied that there was any breach of the Aadhaar database, American whistleblower Edward Snowden said on Friday that the Aadhaar database conceived and introduced by the Indian government can also be misused and abused. Retweeting CBS journalist Zack Whittaker's response on a BuzzFeed report on the breach of Aadhaar database in India, Snowden said, "It is the natural tendency of government to desire perfect records of private lives. History shows that no matter the laws, the result is abuse." It is the natural tendency of government to desire perfect records of private lives. History shows that no matter the laws, the result is abuse. https://t.co/7HSQSZ4T3f — Edward Snowden (@Snowden) January 4, 2018 × Whittaker had earlier said, "ICYMI. India has a national ID database with the private information of nearly 1.2 billion nationals. It's reportedly been breached. Admin accounts can be made and access can be sold to the database, reports BuzzFeed." The UIDAI on Thursday said the Aadhaar data including biometric information is fully safe and secure. It termed The Tribune report titled Rs 500, 10 minutes, and you have access to billion Aadhaar details a case of misreporting. "There has not been any Aadhaar data breach. The Aadhaar data including biometric information is fully safe and secure," the UIDAI said in a statement. This development has come at a time when the Supreme Court is set to begin the final hearing of petitions challenging the legality of Aadhaar programme based on privacy concerns on January 17. In August 2017, the Supreme Court held that privacy is a fundamental right under the Constitution of India.

Edward Snowden on Aadhaar: 'No matter the laws, the result is abuse'

<p>The Supreme Court today said that a five-judge constitution bench would hear tomorrow pleas seeking an interim stay on the Centre&#39;s decision directing mandatory linking of Aadhaar with various government schemes and welfare measures.</p>

<p>A bench comprising Chief Justice Dipak Misra and Justices A M Khanwilkar and D Y Chandrachud said that the larger bench would sit at 2 PM tomorrow to take up the interlocutory applications seeking interim relief against the Centre&#39;s decision on linking of Aadhaar with various schemes.</p>

<p>The Centre had on December 7 told the apex court that the deadline for mandatory linking of Aadhaar to avail various services and welfare schemes would shortly be extended till March 31 next year.&nbsp;On November 27, the apex court had said it may consider setting up a constitution bench to hear pleas challenging the Centre&#39;s move to make Aadhaar card mandatory for availing various services and benefits of welfare schemes.</p>

<p>It had on October 30 said a constitution bench would commence hearing on the clutch of petitions against the Aadhaar scheme from the last week of November.&nbsp;Recently, a nine-judge constitution bench of the apex court had held that Right to Privacy was a Fundamental Right under the Constitution. Several petitioners&nbsp;challenging the validity of Aadhaar had claimed it violated privacy rights.</p>

<p>The Centre had on October 25 told the top court that the deadline for mandatory linking of Aadhaar to receive benefits of government schemes has been extended till March 31, 2018, for those who do not have the 12-digit unique biometric identification number and were willing to enroll for it.</p>

<p>The Attorney General had told the court that no coercive action would be taken against those who do not have the Aadhaar card but are willing to enroll for. He had said such people would not be denied the benefits of social welfare schemes till March 31.</p>

<p>In a note to the court, the government had said that &quot;those who have Aadhaar are required to seed/link their Aadhaar with SIM card, with the bank account, PAN card and other schemes where section 7 notifications have been issued&quot;.&nbsp;&quot;The government will be open for the deadline for linking Aadhaar to various programmes being extended for another three months till March 31, 2018, for those who do not have Aadhaar&quot;, the note had said.</p>

<p>Some petitioners in the top court have termed the linking of the Unique Identification Authority of India (UIDAI) number with bank accounts and mobile numbers as &quot;illegal and unconstitutional&quot;.&nbsp;They have also objected to the CBSE&#39;s alleged move to make Aadhaar card mandatory for students appearing for examinations, a contention denied by the Centre.</p>

<p>One of the counsels representing the petitioners had earlier said that final hearing on the main Aadhaar matter was necessary as the government &quot;cannot compel&quot; citizens to link their Aadhaar with either bank accounts or cell phone numbers.</p>


A bench would sit at 2 PM tomorrow (Thursday) to take up applications seeking interim relief against Adhaar linking

The Supreme Court today said that a five-judge constitution bench would hear tomorrow pleas seeking an interim stay on the Centre's decision directing mandatory linking of Aadhaar with various government schemes and welfare measures. A bench comprising Chief Justice Dipak Misra and Justices A M Khanwilkar and D Y Chandrachud said that the larger bench would sit at 2 PM tomorrow to take up the interlocutory applications seeking interim relief against the Centre's decision on linking of Aadhaar with various schemes. The Centre had on December 7 told the apex court that the deadline for mandatory linking of Aadhaar to avail various services and welfare schemes would shortly be extended till March 31 next year. On November 27, the apex court had said it may consider setting up a constitution bench to hear pleas challenging the Centre's move to make Aadhaar card mandatory for availing various services and benefits of welfare schemes. It had on October 30 said a constitution bench would commence hearing on the clutch of petitions against the Aadhaar scheme from the last week of November. Recently, a nine-judge constitution bench of the apex court had held that Right to Privacy was a Fundamental Right under the Constitution. Several petitioners challenging the validity of Aadhaar had claimed it violated privacy rights. The Centre had on October 25 told the top court that the deadline for mandatory linking of Aadhaar to receive benefits of government schemes has been extended till March 31, 2018, for those who do not have the 12-digit unique biometric identification number and were willing to enroll for it. The Attorney General had told the court that no coercive action would be taken against those who do not have the Aadhaar card but are willing to enroll for. He had said such people would not be denied the benefits of social welfare schemes till March 31. In a note to the court, the government had said that "those who have Aadhaar are required to seed/link their Aadhaar with SIM card, with the bank account, PAN card and other schemes where section 7 notifications have been issued". "The government will be open for the deadline for linking Aadhaar to various programmes being extended for another three months till March 31, 2018, for those who do not have Aadhaar", the note had said. Some petitioners in the top court have termed the linking of the Unique Identification Authority of India (UIDAI) number with bank accounts and mobile numbers as "illegal and unconstitutional". They have also objected to the CBSE's alleged move to make Aadhaar card mandatory for students appearing for examinations, a contention denied by the Centre. One of the counsels representing the petitioners had earlier said that final hearing on the main Aadhaar matter was necessary as the government "cannot compel" citizens to link their Aadhaar with either bank accounts or cell phone numbers.

Supreme Court's Constitution bench to hear petitions against Aadhaar tomorrow

<p><strong>Triple Talaq</strong></p>

<p>In the triple Talaq case decided recently by 5 Judges of the Supreme Court, the Petitioner had prayed that &lsquo;talaq-e- biddat&rsquo; (or instant triple Talaq) be declared unconstitutional.</p>

<p>The above question, however, seems to have already been decided in 2002 by the Supreme Court in the case of Shamim Ara. To the best of anyone&rsquo;s knowledge, there was no subsequent decision by the Supreme Court after 2002 which held contrary to Shamim Ara. Therefore, it is difficult to understand that if the issue was unequivocally settled by a 2 Judge Bench, then what was the need for the present matter to be decided by a 5 Judge Bench. A case which should have been decided by the Trial Court in view of the settled law was heard at length by a Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court.</p>

<p>In their combined dissenting Judgment, Chief Justice Khehar and Justice Nazeer mentioned that the Supreme Court in the Shamim Ara case did not debate the issue of the validity of &lsquo;talaq-e-biddat&rsquo;. Therefore, it was imperative for the 5 Judge Bench to decide this issue afresh.</p>

<p>This, however, in my opinion, does not seem to be the correct position. It is evident that what Shamim Ara struck down was the practice of instant triple Talaq. Though Shamim Ara does not mention the term &lsquo;talaq-e- biddat&rsquo; in the judgment, but there can be no dispute that instant triple Talaq and &lsquo;talaq-e- biddat&rsquo; are entirely one and the same thing.</p>

<p>In fact, Justice Kurian, who was a part of the majority view in the recent decision, mentions in his judgment that the issue of triple Talaq has already been decided in the Shamim Ara verdict, and concludes by saying that &ldquo;this Court has done its part in Shamim Ara&rdquo;. Further, the combined judgment of Justice Nariman and Justice Lalit also holds that triple Talaq is no longer valid after the Shamim Ara decision.</p>

<p>If that was so, it begs the question why the exercise was repeated all over again by setting up a Constitution Bench.</p>

<p>It was observed by the 5 Judge Bench that husbands continued to divorce their wives by instant triple Talaq even after the Shamim Ara judgment. The focus, therefore, should have been to see why the 2002 decision is not being implemented, rather than setting out to decide the same controversy afresh. If the 2 Judge Bench decision given 15 years ago is being flouted with impunity, there is no reason to assume that this 5 Judge decision will be respected any more than that.</p>

<p><strong>Right to Privacy</strong></p>

<p>A 9 Judge Bench of the Supreme Court was recently called upon to decide whether there exists a Fundamental Right to Privacy under our Constitution. While seeking reference to the 9 Judge Bench, the government contended that 2 old decisions of the Supreme Court in M.P. Sharma (8 Judges) and Kharak Singh (6 Judges) held that the Indian Constitution does not protect the Right to Privacy.</p>

<p>A careful perusal of the unanimous decisions of all the 9 Judges now shows that the government may have sought to create a controversy where none existed by attempting to re-agitate a well-settled issue.</p>

<p>M P Sharma</p>

<p>The Supreme Court held in MP Sharma that Right to Privacy is not a Fundamental Right guaranteed under Article 20(3) of the Constitution. The judgment does not adjudicate on whether a Right to Privacy exists under the Right to Life and Liberty under Article 21.</p>

<p><strong>Kharak Singh</strong></p>

<p>Kharak Singh contains contradictions in itself since it observes that Article 21 does provide a guarantee against invasion into the sanctity of a person&rsquo;s home. However, it eventually holds that Right to Privacy is not a guaranteed right under our Constitution.</p>

<p>While delivering the above two decisions, the Supreme Court relied upon the case of A.K. Gopalan which stated that Fundamental Rights were mutually exclusive. Therefore, a law which impinged on any of the freedoms mentioned in Article 19 was not required to answer to the test of life and personal liberty in Article 21.</p>

<p>A.K. Gopalan subsequently stood overruled in the case of R.C. Cooper by the Supreme Court in an 11 Judge Bench (more than the 8 Judges in M.P. Sharma and 6 Judges in Kharak Singh), stating that the Fundamental Rights in Articles 14, 19 and 21 were interwoven and cannot be held mutually exclusive.</p>

<p>The abrogation of the Gopalan doctrine in Cooper was revisited and carried to its logical conclusion by a 7 Judge Bench in Maneka Gandhi which expressly overruled Kharak Singh.</p>

<p>Since then, the Supreme Court in dozens of Judgments such as Mr. X, PUCL, Sudhansu Sahoo, Selvi, NALSA etc. has categorically held that Right to Privacy is a part of the Right to Life and Liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution.</p>

<p>In fact, it has been repeatedly held that the decisions in MP Sharma and Kharak Singh are not of much help anymore in deciding whether a Right to Privacy exists under the Constitution as the very foundations of these judgments have been removed by R.C. Cooper and Maneka Gandhi. There is thus, no dispute that MP Sharma and Kharak Singh no longer reflect the correct position of law.</p>

<p>In my humble view, the 3 Judge Bench and later the 5 Judge Bench would have been well within their right to decide the Aadhaar case without making any reference to the 9 Judge Bench, on the settled principle that the Constitution does recognise a Fundamental Right to Privacy, albeit subject to reasonable restrictions.</p>

<p>What is disturbing is that despite knowing that such a settled position of law exists (the Attorney General even conceded the existence of a Fundamental Constitutional Right to Privacy during the hearing), the government chose to attempt to set the clock back by adopting a highly regressive and archaic stand that Right to Privacy does not exist under the Constitution.</p>

<p>In order to defend this indefensible position, the Indian government had to resort to superficial arguments like Privacy is an elitist idea and the poor do not care about having a Right to Privacy.</p>

<p>Had the Court accepted the arguments of the State, not only would this have undone decades of Constitutional jurisprudence that we have painstakingly evolved, it would also have rendered vulnerable, the sheer multitude of rights that are contained in the pantheon of Right to Privacy, which by itself is a recipe for catastrophe.</p>

<p>Sending a message to the world outside that 70 years after independence, Indian citizens have now been granted the Right to Privacy is not in keeping with the ethos and image of the world&rsquo;s largest democracy.</p>

<p>The Triple Talaq and Right to Privacy Judgments decided by 5 Judges and 9 Judges over weeks and weeks of hearings, may seem like emphatic victories for citizens, unfortunately, do not lay down any new law and are rather merely reiterations of settled legal principles.</p>

<p>When there are so many other pressing issues in our country which are pending a determination by the Supreme Court, one wonders whether these adjudications could have been avoided altogether.</p>

<p>&nbsp;</p>


Too many judgments have been passed in the past on both the issues making it irrelevant to constitute new benches to ponder on the same subjects.

Triple Talaq In the triple Talaq case decided recently by 5 Judges of the Supreme Court, the Petitioner had prayed that ‘talaq-e- biddat’ (or instant triple Talaq) be declared unconstitutional. The above question, however, seems to have already been decided in 2002 by the Supreme Court in the case of Shamim Ara. To the best of anyone’s knowledge, there was no subsequent decision by the Supreme Court after 2002 which held contrary to Shamim Ara. Therefore, it is difficult to understand that if the issue was unequivocally settled by a 2 Judge Bench, then what was the need for the present matter to be decided by a 5 Judge Bench. A case which should have been decided by the Trial Court in view of the settled law was heard at length by a Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court. In their combined dissenting Judgment, Chief Justice Khehar and Justice Nazeer mentioned that the Supreme Court in the Shamim Ara case did not debate the issue of the validity of ‘talaq-e-biddat’. Therefore, it was imperative for the 5 Judge Bench to decide this issue afresh. This, however, in my opinion, does not seem to be the correct position. It is evident that what Shamim Ara struck down was the practice of instant triple Talaq. Though Shamim Ara does not mention the term ‘talaq-e- biddat’ in the judgment, but there can be no dispute that instant triple Talaq and ‘talaq-e- biddat’ are entirely one and the same thing. In fact, Justice Kurian, who was a part of the majority view in the recent decision, mentions in his judgment that the issue of triple Talaq has already been decided in the Shamim Ara verdict, and concludes by saying that “this Court has done its part in Shamim Ara”. Further, the combined judgment of Justice Nariman and Justice Lalit also holds that triple Talaq is no longer valid after the Shamim Ara decision. If that was so, it begs the question why the exercise was repeated all over again by setting up a Constitution Bench. It was observed by the 5 Judge Bench that husbands continued to divorce their wives by instant triple Talaq even after the Shamim Ara judgment. The focus, therefore, should have been to see why the 2002 decision is not being implemented, rather than setting out to decide the same controversy afresh. If the 2 Judge Bench decision given 15 years ago is being flouted with impunity, there is no reason to assume that this 5 Judge decision will be respected any more than that. Right to Privacy A 9 Judge Bench of the Supreme Court was recently called upon to decide whether there exists a Fundamental Right to Privacy under our Constitution. While seeking reference to the 9 Judge Bench, the government contended that 2 old decisions of the Supreme Court in M.P. Sharma (8 Judges) and Kharak Singh (6 Judges) held that the Indian Constitution does not protect the Right to Privacy. A careful perusal of the unanimous decisions of all the 9 Judges now shows that the government may have sought to create a controversy where none existed by attempting to re-agitate a well-settled issue. M P Sharma The Supreme Court held in MP Sharma that Right to Privacy is not a Fundamental Right guaranteed under Article 20(3) of the Constitution. The judgment does not adjudicate on whether a Right to Privacy exists under the Right to Life and Liberty under Article 21. Kharak Singh Kharak Singh contains contradictions in itself since it observes that Article 21 does provide a guarantee against invasion into the sanctity of a person’s home. However, it eventually holds that Right to Privacy is not a guaranteed right under our Constitution. While delivering the above two decisions, the Supreme Court relied upon the case of A.K. Gopalan which stated that Fundamental Rights were mutually exclusive. Therefore, a law which impinged on any of the freedoms mentioned in Article 19 was not required to answer to the test of life and personal liberty in Article 21. A.K. Gopalan subsequently stood overruled in the case of R.C. Cooper by the Supreme Court in an 11 Judge Bench (more than the 8 Judges in M.P. Sharma and 6 Judges in Kharak Singh), stating that the Fundamental Rights in Articles 14, 19 and 21 were interwoven and cannot be held mutually exclusive. The abrogation of the Gopalan doctrine in Cooper was revisited and carried to its logical conclusion by a 7 Judge Bench in Maneka Gandhi which expressly overruled Kharak Singh. Since then, the Supreme Court in dozens of Judgments such as Mr. X, PUCL, Sudhansu Sahoo, Selvi, NALSA etc. has categorically held that Right to Privacy is a part of the Right to Life and Liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution. In fact, it has been repeatedly held that the decisions in MP Sharma and Kharak Singh are not of much help anymore in deciding whether a Right to Privacy exists under the Constitution as the very foundations of these judgments have been removed by R.C. Cooper and Maneka Gandhi. There is thus, no dispute that MP Sharma and Kharak Singh no longer reflect the correct position of law. In my humble view, the 3 Judge Bench and later the 5 Judge Bench would have been well within their right to decide the Aadhaar case without making any reference to the 9 Judge Bench, on the settled principle that the Constitution does recognise a Fundamental Right to Privacy, albeit subject to reasonable restrictions. What is disturbing is that despite knowing that such a settled position of law exists (the Attorney General even conceded the existence of a Fundamental Constitutional Right to Privacy during the hearing), the government chose to attempt to set the clock back by adopting a highly regressive and archaic stand that Right to Privacy does not exist under the Constitution. In order to defend this indefensible position, the Indian government had to resort to superficial arguments like Privacy is an elitist idea and the poor do not care about having a Right to Privacy. Had the Court accepted the arguments of the State, not only would this have undone decades of Constitutional jurisprudence that we have painstakingly evolved, it would also have rendered vulnerable, the sheer multitude of rights that are contained in the pantheon of Right to Privacy, which by itself is a recipe for catastrophe. Sending a message to the world outside that 70 years after independence, Indian citizens have now been granted the Right to Privacy is not in keeping with the ethos and image of the world’s largest democracy. The Triple Talaq and Right to Privacy Judgments decided by 5 Judges and 9 Judges over weeks and weeks of hearings, may seem like emphatic victories for citizens, unfortunately, do not lay down any new law and are rather merely reiterations of settled legal principles. When there are so many other pressing issues in our country which are pending a determination by the Supreme Court, one wonders whether these adjudications could have been avoided altogether.

It was unnecessary to approach the Supreme Court on triple Talaq and Right to Privacy

<p>District banks in the state of Punjab&nbsp;have begun the procedure to link Aadhaar cards with customers&#39;&nbsp;accounts.</p>

<p>Unique Identification Authority of India (UIDAI) has designated more than 55 branches in Jalandhar and 32 branches in Kapurthala as authorised UID centres, according to a report in <em>The Tribune</em>.</p>

<p>As the Supreme Court recently announced the ruling on privacy being a fundamental right, many speculated that the Union Government will expel the project.</p>

<p>The Supreme Court, in its judgement on&nbsp;August 24, declared that&nbsp;privacy is a fundamental right as it is intrinsic to the right to&nbsp;life and liberty enshrined in Article 21 of the Constitution.</p>

<p>The petitioners had claimed that Aadhaar is a violation of privacy as it requires citizens to give samples of their fingerprints and iris scans, therefore, breaching bodily integrity.</p>

<p>Notwithstanding to the expectations, the district administration is preparing to begin the UID enrollment by September 1.</p>

<p>According to sources, the specified branches, along with allotting UID numbers to their customers, will also assign UIDs to clients of other banks.&nbsp;</p>

<p>UID machines have been installed at the centres. Customers can get their UID card made and get it linked to their corresponding bank.&nbsp;</p>

<p>Linking Aadhaar to PAN will ensure that multiple filing&nbsp;of tax returns by a single individual&nbsp;under different identities&nbsp;will not occur.</p>

<p>As Aadhaar is based on biometrics, the possibility of duplication gets hugely reduced. PAN is not based on biometrics.</p>

<p>The government has issued a mandate to compulsorily link bank accounts with Aadhaar by December 31, 2017.</p>


The district administration in Punjab is preparing to begin the UID enrollment by September 1

District banks in the state of Punjab have begun the procedure to link Aadhaar cards with customers' accounts. Unique Identification Authority of India (UIDAI) has designated more than 55 branches in Jalandhar and 32 branches in Kapurthala as authorised UID centres, according to a report in The Tribune. As the Supreme Court recently announced the ruling on privacy being a fundamental right, many speculated that the Union Government will expel the project. The Supreme Court, in its judgement on August 24, declared that privacy is a fundamental right as it is intrinsic to the right to life and liberty enshrined in Article 21 of the Constitution. The petitioners had claimed that Aadhaar is a violation of privacy as it requires citizens to give samples of their fingerprints and iris scans, therefore, breaching bodily integrity. Notwithstanding to the expectations, the district administration is preparing to begin the UID enrollment by September 1. According to sources, the specified branches, along with allotting UID numbers to their customers, will also assign UIDs to clients of other banks. UID machines have been installed at the centres. Customers can get their UID card made and get it linked to their corresponding bank. Linking Aadhaar to PAN will ensure that multiple filing of tax returns by a single individual under different identities will not occur. As Aadhaar is based on biometrics, the possibility of duplication gets hugely reduced. PAN is not based on biometrics. The government has issued a mandate to compulsorily link bank accounts with Aadhaar by December 31, 2017.

Right to Privacy? Aadhaar cards to be linked with PAN in Punjab

<p>Since 2009, the Aadhaar project has been aiming to give each resident of India a unique twelve-digit identification number, called the Aadhaar/UID number. The Aadhaar project uses biometric technology for de-duplication i.e. the process of ensuring that no one person receives more than one UID number and for authentication of individuals against a central database.&nbsp;</p>

<p>The UID number was envisioned to be an identification mechanism to be used for multiple purposes and is envisioned to be the universal, ubiquitous and unique identifier. The stated purpose of this exercise was to plug leakages and to make subsidy and service delivery systems of the governments, both of the Centre as well as of the states, to be more efficient. This project, initially, operated under an executive notification dated 2009 and was recently given statutory status following the passage of Aadhaar Act, 2016 as a money bill, by-passing the Rajyasabha.</p>

<div class="ui-state-default" contenteditable="false">
<div class="row">
<div class="article-blockquote">
<div class="col-sm-10 col-sm-offset-1 blockquote-content quoteshare">
<blockquote>
<h5>The authentication and de-duplication errors lead to widespread exclusion of people from access to such essentials.</h5>
</blockquote>
</div>

<div class="col-sm-1 blockquote-content">
<div class="share-blockquote"><a class="twitter popup" href="http://twitter.com/intent/tweet?text=The authentication and de-duplication errors lead to widespread exclusion of people from access to such essentials." target="_blank"><i class="fa fa-share">&nbsp;</i></a></div>
</div>
<a class="close-mark close-div" href="#" id="jqquoteclosemark">&times;</a></div>
</div>
</div>

<p>The project is the first of its kind in India. It establishes and operates a central database of personal profiles, including residents&rsquo; biometrics and uses the same for authenticating and identifying individuals for transactions that require identification, such as receiving subsidised food under the public distribution system, receiving subsidised LPG cylinders, to cast vote during elections, and filing income tax returns as well as receiving state scholarship. Until the advent of Aadhaar, identity was established by individuals by producing identity documents such as voters&rsquo; id, driving license, PAN card etc.</p>

<p>When such a central identification system operates and controls a central database of personal profiles as well as capture and store transaction logs for each transaction, it naturally raises questions, inter alia, on the potential infringement individual privacy. Moreover, the system carries the danger of being used as a tool of mass surveillance by the State. The unreliability of the underlying technology also makes it an inappropriate tool to deliver life essentials, subsidised or otherwise, such as food, maternity benefits etc. Reportedly, the authentication and de-duplication errors lead to widespread exclusion of people from access to such essentials. Such questions were raised in writ petitions filed in the Supreme Court and High Courts.</p>

<p>During the hearings of this case, in August 2015, the then Attorney-General for India, Mukul Rohatgi told the Supreme Court that it is a settled legal position and there is no fundamental right to privacy under Indian Constitution. Such a stand by the government&rsquo;s highest law officer justifiably received much criticism both from the general public as well as the legal fraternity. Particularly because there has been an unbroken line of nearly forty years of jurisprudence on the basis that privacy is a guaranteed fundamental right under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.</p>

<div class="ui-state-default" contenteditable="false">
<div class="row">
<div class="article-blockquote">
<div class="col-sm-10 col-sm-offset-1 blockquote-content quoteshare">
<blockquote>
<h5>There has been an unbroken line of nearly forty years of jurisprudence on the basis that privacy is a guaranteed fundamental right under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.</h5>
</blockquote>
</div>

<div class="col-sm-1 blockquote-content">
<div class="share-blockquote"><a class="twitter popup" href="http://twitter.com/intent/tweet?text=There has been an unbroken line of nearly forty years of jurisprudence on the basis that privacy is a guaranteed fundamental right under Article 21 of the Constitution of India." target="_blank"><i class="fa fa-share">&nbsp;</i></a></div>
</div>
<a class="close-mark close-div" href="#" id="jqquoteclosemark">&times;</a></div>
</div>
</div>

<p>After a lapse of more than two years and after multiple attempts by the petitioners to get the cases heard, the Supreme Court was able to constitute a 9-judge bench to hear arguments on this important constitutional question in July and August this year. This nine-judge bench delivered what would go down in the history of the Supreme Court as one of its most celebrated decisions in the history of Indian constitutional law. The decision was a unanimous one, reaffirming the status of privacy as a fundamental right that is guaranteed to all Indian citizens. Apart from its immediate effect on the Aadhaar litigation, this decision is going to have far reaching implications on many other laws and state actions such as Section 377 that criminalises consensual same-sex acts, beef ban laws, and opaque intelligence gathering operations that that government undertakes routinely with impunity.</p>

<p>For Aadhaar, however, this judgment raises existential questions. It&#39;s very idea is under attack following this judgment. An unlimited general purpose identification database, which is the essence of Aadhaar, is now constitutionally impermissible after this judgment that has drawn the conditions under which the right to privacy may be restricted in very narrow terms. Under the circumstance, Aadhaar may have to go.</p>


The SC's decision is going to have far reaching implications on consensual same-sex acts, beef ban laws, and opaque intelligence gathering operations run by the state.

Since 2009, the Aadhaar project has been aiming to give each resident of India a unique twelve-digit identification number, called the Aadhaar/UID number. The Aadhaar project uses biometric technology for de-duplication i.e. the process of ensuring that no one person receives more than one UID number and for authentication of individuals against a central database. The UID number was envisioned to be an identification mechanism to be used for multiple purposes and is envisioned to be the universal, ubiquitous and unique identifier. The stated purpose of this exercise was to plug leakages and to make subsidy and service delivery systems of the governments, both of the Centre as well as of the states, to be more efficient. This project, initially, operated under an executive notification dated 2009 and was recently given statutory status following the passage of Aadhaar Act, 2016 as a money bill, by-passing the Rajyasabha. The authentication and de-duplication errors lead to widespread exclusion of people from access to such essentials. × The project is the first of its kind in India. It establishes and operates a central database of personal profiles, including residents’ biometrics and uses the same for authenticating and identifying individuals for transactions that require identification, such as receiving subsidised food under the public distribution system, receiving subsidised LPG cylinders, to cast vote during elections, and filing income tax returns as well as receiving state scholarship. Until the advent of Aadhaar, identity was established by individuals by producing identity documents such as voters’ id, driving license, PAN card etc. When such a central identification system operates and controls a central database of personal profiles as well as capture and store transaction logs for each transaction, it naturally raises questions, inter alia, on the potential infringement individual privacy. Moreover, the system carries the danger of being used as a tool of mass surveillance by the State. The unreliability of the underlying technology also makes it an inappropriate tool to deliver life essentials, subsidised or otherwise, such as food, maternity benefits etc. Reportedly, the authentication and de-duplication errors lead to widespread exclusion of people from access to such essentials. Such questions were raised in writ petitions filed in the Supreme Court and High Courts. During the hearings of this case, in August 2015, the then Attorney-General for India, Mukul Rohatgi told the Supreme Court that it is a settled legal position and there is no fundamental right to privacy under Indian Constitution. Such a stand by the government’s highest law officer justifiably received much criticism both from the general public as well as the legal fraternity. Particularly because there has been an unbroken line of nearly forty years of jurisprudence on the basis that privacy is a guaranteed fundamental right under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. There has been an unbroken line of nearly forty years of jurisprudence on the basis that privacy is a guaranteed fundamental right under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. × After a lapse of more than two years and after multiple attempts by the petitioners to get the cases heard, the Supreme Court was able to constitute a 9-judge bench to hear arguments on this important constitutional question in July and August this year. This nine-judge bench delivered what would go down in the history of the Supreme Court as one of its most celebrated decisions in the history of Indian constitutional law. The decision was a unanimous one, reaffirming the status of privacy as a fundamental right that is guaranteed to all Indian citizens. Apart from its immediate effect on the Aadhaar litigation, this decision is going to have far reaching implications on many other laws and state actions such as Section 377 that criminalises consensual same-sex acts, beef ban laws, and opaque intelligence gathering operations that that government undertakes routinely with impunity. For Aadhaar, however, this judgment raises existential questions. It's very idea is under attack following this judgment. An unlimited general purpose identification database, which is the essence of Aadhaar, is now constitutionally impermissible after this judgment that has drawn the conditions under which the right to privacy may be restricted in very narrow terms. Under the circumstance, Aadhaar may have to go.

Why the Supreme Court's verdict on Right to Privacy is a historic judgment

<p>In the MP Sharma case, it was observed by the court that privacy is not a right guaranteed by the Indian Constitution. In the present judgment, the Supreme Court overruled that stance, confirming privacy to be a right guaranteed by the Indian Constitution.</p>

<p>&nbsp;</p>

<p>Article 21 of the Indian Constitution talks about &lsquo;Right to life and Personal Liberty&rsquo;, which is a sub-head of one of the six fundamental rights. The court affirmed that &lsquo;personal liberty&rsquo; is a guarantee against invasion into the sanctity of a person&rsquo;s home or an intrusion into personal security.</p>

<p>&nbsp;</p>

<p>Life and personal liberty are inalienable rights. These are rights which are inseparable from a dignified human existence.</p>

<p>&nbsp;</p>

<p>While life and personal liberty are not creations of the Constitution, these rights are recognised by the Constitution. Thus, privacy is a constitutionally protected right which emerges, primarily, from the guarantee of life and personal liberty in Article 21 of the Constitution.</p>

<p>&nbsp;</p>

<p>The recognistion of the Right to Privacy is not an amendment in Constitution and, thus, the court is not interfering in the role of the Parliament to amend the Constitution.</p>

<p>&nbsp;</p>

<p>Privacy includes at its core the preservation of personal intimacies, the sanctity of family life, marriage, procreation, the home and sexual orientation. Privacy also connotes a right to be left alone.</p>

<p>&nbsp;</p>

<p>The meaning of the Constitution cannot be frozen on the perspectives present when it was adopted. Hence, the interpretation of the Constitution must be resilient and flexible to allow future generations to adapt.</p>

<p>&nbsp;</p>

<p>Although &lsquo;Privacy&rsquo; is not an absolute right, an invasion of privacy must be justified on the basis of a law which stipulates a procedure which is fair, just and reasonable. There should be three aspects present when privacy is invaded- 1) Legality 2) Need 3) Proportionality</p>

<p>&nbsp;</p>

<p>Privacy has both positive and negative content. The negative content restrains the state from committing an intrusion upon the life and personal liberty of a citizen. The positive content imposes an obligation on the state to take all necessary measures to protect the privacy of the individual.</p>

<p>&nbsp;</p>

<p>Informational privacy is a part of the right to privacy. The Union Government thus need to examine and put into place a robust regime for data protection.</p>

<p>&nbsp;</p>

<p>How Right to Privacy is a Fundamental Right:</p>

<p>&nbsp;</p>

<p>There are currently 6 fundamental rights, earlier which used to be 7. Right to Property was removed by the 44th Constitution Amendment Act, 1978</p>

<p>&nbsp;</p>

<p>1) Right to equality (Article 14-18)</p>

<p>&nbsp;</p>

<p>2) Right to freedom (Article 19-22)</p>

<p>&nbsp;</p>

<p>3) Right against exploitation (Article 23-24)</p>

<p>&nbsp;</p>

<p>4) Right to freedom of religion (Articles 25-28)</p>

<p>&nbsp;</p>

<p>5) Cultural &amp; educational rights (Articles 29-30)</p>

<p>&nbsp;</p>

<p>6) Right to constitutional remedies (Article 32).</p>

<p>&nbsp;</p>

<p>In each of the fundamental rights, there is more than one article of the Constitution involved which when combined together, guarantees a specific right to the citizens of India.</p>

<p>&nbsp;</p>

<p>The Supreme Court identifies the Right to Privacy as a part of article 21 (&lsquo;Protection of Life and Personal Liberty&rsquo;) which says: &lsquo;No person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty except according to procedure established by law.&rsquo;</p>

<p>&nbsp;</p>

<p>Thus, recognising &lsquo;Right to Privacy&rsquo; as an integral aspect of personal liberty, the Court has taken the decision of providing a status of Fundamental Right.</p>

<p>&nbsp;</p>

<p>Major Impact of the Decision:</p>

<p>&nbsp;</p>

<p>1) Government&rsquo;s decision on the biometric data-enabled Aadhaar ID for citizens.</p>

<p>&nbsp;</p>

<p>2) Article 377 of IPC which deals with Homosexuality as the court&rsquo;s verdict says &lsquo;Privacy includes at its core&hellip;. the preservation sexual orientation&rsquo;</p>

<p>&nbsp;</p>

<p>3) Section 66A of the IT Act which states that the State can take action against an individual for sharing his thoughts on a social platform. Earlier this particular stand was overruled in 2015 by the Supreme Court.</p>

<p>&nbsp;</p>

<p>4) DNA Profiling Bill, 2017: Bodily right such as the DNA of an individual can be profiled without his consent.</p>


In a historic judgment, the Supreme Court of India confirmed that Right to Privacy is integral to Right to Personal Liberty.

In the MP Sharma case, it was observed by the court that privacy is not a right guaranteed by the Indian Constitution. In the present judgment, the Supreme Court overruled that stance, confirming privacy to be a right guaranteed by the Indian Constitution. Article 21 of the Indian Constitution talks about ‘Right to life and Personal Liberty’, which is a sub-head of one of the six fundamental rights. The court affirmed that ‘personal liberty’ is a guarantee against invasion into the sanctity of a person’s home or an intrusion into personal security. Life and personal liberty are inalienable rights. These are rights which are inseparable from a dignified human existence. While life and personal liberty are not creations of the Constitution, these rights are recognised by the Constitution. Thus, privacy is a constitutionally protected right which emerges, primarily, from the guarantee of life and personal liberty in Article 21 of the Constitution. The recognistion of the Right to Privacy is not an amendment in Constitution and, thus, the court is not interfering in the role of the Parliament to amend the Constitution. Privacy includes at its core the preservation of personal intimacies, the sanctity of family life, marriage, procreation, the home and sexual orientation. Privacy also connotes a right to be left alone. The meaning of the Constitution cannot be frozen on the perspectives present when it was adopted. Hence, the interpretation of the Constitution must be resilient and flexible to allow future generations to adapt. Although ‘Privacy’ is not an absolute right, an invasion of privacy must be justified on the basis of a law which stipulates a procedure which is fair, just and reasonable. There should be three aspects present when privacy is invaded- 1) Legality 2) Need 3) Proportionality Privacy has both positive and negative content. The negative content restrains the state from committing an intrusion upon the life and personal liberty of a citizen. The positive content imposes an obligation on the state to take all necessary measures to protect the privacy of the individual. Informational privacy is a part of the right to privacy. The Union Government thus need to examine and put into place a robust regime for data protection. How Right to Privacy is a Fundamental Right: There are currently 6 fundamental rights, earlier which used to be 7. Right to Property was removed by the 44th Constitution Amendment Act, 1978 1) Right to equality (Article 14-18) 2) Right to freedom (Article 19-22) 3) Right against exploitation (Article 23-24) 4) Right to freedom of religion (Articles 25-28) 5) Cultural & educational rights (Articles 29-30) 6) Right to constitutional remedies (Article 32). In each of the fundamental rights, there is more than one article of the Constitution involved which when combined together, guarantees a specific right to the citizens of India. The Supreme Court identifies the Right to Privacy as a part of article 21 (‘Protection of Life and Personal Liberty’) which says: ‘No person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty except according to procedure established by law.’ Thus, recognising ‘Right to Privacy’ as an integral aspect of personal liberty, the Court has taken the decision of providing a status of Fundamental Right. Major Impact of the Decision: 1) Government’s decision on the biometric data-enabled Aadhaar ID for citizens. 2) Article 377 of IPC which deals with Homosexuality as the court’s verdict says ‘Privacy includes at its core…. the preservation sexual orientation’ 3) Section 66A of the IT Act which states that the State can take action against an individual for sharing his thoughts on a social platform. Earlier this particular stand was overruled in 2015 by the Supreme Court. 4) DNA Profiling Bill, 2017: Bodily right such as the DNA of an individual can be profiled without his consent.

Why has the Supreme Court ruled Right to Privacy as a fundamental right of Indians?

<p>As the<a href="http://www.wionews.com/india-news/supreme-court-verdict-on-whether-right-to-privacy-a-fundamental-right-today-19404"> Supreme Court gave its verdict on right to privacy</a>, young lawyers turned to social media to spread the word and express their opinion&nbsp;on the topic.&nbsp;</p>

<p><a href="http://www.wionews.com/india-news/government-welcomes-supreme-court-verdict-on-right-to-privacy-19448">They claim that the &quot;fundamental right&quot;</a> of privacy has to become&ldquo;non-negotiable&rdquo;.</p>

<p>Apar Gupta, Kritika Bhardwaj and Prasanna S are assisting senior counsel Shyam Divan, who is representing four privacy petitioners, including Shanta Sinha, the former head of the National Commission for the Protection of Child Rights, and Bezwada Wilson.&nbsp;</p>

<p>Gautam Bhatia is assisting senior lawyer, Arvind Datar, who is arguing for the Election Commission and for privacy as a fundamental right.</p>

<p>These youngsters are determined to revolutionalize how the common man views&nbsp;privacy.</p>

<p><br />
<strong>Prasanna S</strong></p>

<p>34-year-old&nbsp;Prasanna, as he describes on his Twitter profile, is a coder turned lawyer. He hails from the industrial town of Hosur in Tamil Nadu. He studied technology and software before he became a full-time lawyer. A trained Carnatic singer who is now based out of Delhi, Prasanna believes that his technological background gives him the sense to understand the challenges of civil liberty.</p>

<p>He believes that the public is stuck on the notion&nbsp;that machines make correct choices. This may be the core reason for there being no opposition to Aadhar from the masses.&nbsp;</p>

<div class="ui-state-default" contenteditable="false">
<div class="twitter-block" draggable="false">
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en">
<p dir="ltr" lang="en">This inanity of &quot;privacy not required for the poor&quot; bogey argument has been dealt with very well in paras 154 to 157 of DYC judgment.</p>
&mdash; Prasanna S (@prasanna_s) <a href="https://twitter.com/prasanna_s/status/900627823320195072">August 24, 2017</a></blockquote>
<script async src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script></div>
<a class="close-mark close-div" href="#" id="jqclosemark">&times;</a></div>

<p><strong>Gautam Bhatia</strong></p>

<p>Gautam&#39;s qualifications as a lawyer are praiseworthy. The graduate from the prestigious National Law School, Bengaluru and Rhodes scholar is also a sci-fi geek. The 28-year-old edits the UK-based science-fiction magazine, Strange Horizons.<br />
<br />
Gautam actively posts about the issue. He is also the author of Offend, Shock or Disturb: Free Speech Under the Indian Constitution.</p>

<p>He believes that any law on privacy has to be founded on principles of informed consent and specific consent. According to Bhatia, informed consent means the person is aware of what use it&rsquo;s being put to and specific consent means that the authorities must seek consent for each specific act.</p>

<div class="ui-state-default" contenteditable="false">
<div class="twitter-block" draggable="false">
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en">
<p dir="ltr" lang="en">There cannot be a victory for constitutional values as long as islands of personal law are held to be exempt from the Constitution. (13/n)</p>
&mdash; Gautam Bhatia (@gautambhatia88) <a href="https://twitter.com/gautambhatia88/status/899901618765742081">August 22, 2017</a></blockquote>
<script async src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script></div>
<a class="close-mark close-div" href="#" id="jqclosemark">&times;</a></div>

<p>He pens down his thoughts about literature and poetry of &quot;any and all kinds&quot; on his <a href="https://anenduringromantic.wordpress.com/about/">blog</a>. You can read more about his work <a href="http://www.porterfolio.net/gautambhatia1988">here</a>.</p>

<p><strong>Apar Gupta</strong></p>

<div class="ui-state-default" contenteditable="false">
<div class="twitter-block" draggable="false">
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en">
<p dir="ltr" lang="en">Request:<br />
1. Focus on the obvious impact in the order<br />
2. Individual judgements require closer reading<br />
3. Celebrate but don&#39;t claim victory</p>
&mdash; Apar (@aparatbar) <a href="https://twitter.com/aparatbar/status/900638438252199936">August 24, 2017</a></blockquote>
<script async src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script></div>
<a class="close-mark close-div" href="#" id="jqclosemark">&times;</a></div>

<p>Delhi-based Apar has graduated from Columbia Law School and is an active voice in the right to privacy and data debate in India.&nbsp;<br />
According to media reports, the 33-year-old claims that government has spent roughly Rs. 11,000 crore on generating Aadhar and are creating an illusion of&nbsp;<br />
administering efficiently.</p>

<p><br />
<strong>Kritika Bharadwaj</strong></p>

<p><br />
Delhi-based Kritika studied Political Science at Lady Shri Ram College, Delhi University and did her LLB from the same university&#39;s Faculty of Law. The now 26-year-old went on to Cambridge for her masters in international law.&nbsp;<br />
But even before her Masters, she had cut her teeth on Aadhaar-related matters and done meticulous research on international laws, biometrics, international practices, protocols and databases in the world.<br />
Kritika has possessed leadership qualities from the very beginning--she was the president of students&#39; union in LSR and student representative to the faculty of law board in Cambridge.&nbsp;</p>


Meet the lawyers: One Rhodes scholar, another Cambridge alumni, a Columbia graduate and a coder turned geek

As the Supreme Court gave its verdict on right to privacy, young lawyers turned to social media to spread the word and express their opinion on the topic. They claim that the "fundamental right" of privacy has to become“non-negotiable”. Apar Gupta, Kritika Bhardwaj and Prasanna S are assisting senior counsel Shyam Divan, who is representing four privacy petitioners, including Shanta Sinha, the former head of the National Commission for the Protection of Child Rights, and Bezwada Wilson. Gautam Bhatia is assisting senior lawyer, Arvind Datar, who is arguing for the Election Commission and for privacy as a fundamental right. These youngsters are determined to revolutionalize how the common man views privacy. Prasanna S 34-year-old Prasanna, as he describes on his Twitter profile, is a coder turned lawyer. He hails from the industrial town of Hosur in Tamil Nadu. He studied technology and software before he became a full-time lawyer. A trained Carnatic singer who is now based out of Delhi, Prasanna believes that his technological background gives him the sense to understand the challenges of civil liberty. He believes that the public is stuck on the notion that machines make correct choices. This may be the core reason for there being no opposition to Aadhar from the masses. This inanity of "privacy not required for the poor" bogey argument has been dealt with very well in paras 154 to 157 of DYC judgment. — Prasanna S (@prasanna_s) August 24, 2017 × Gautam Bhatia Gautam's qualifications as a lawyer are praiseworthy. The graduate from the prestigious National Law School, Bengaluru and Rhodes scholar is also a sci-fi geek. The 28-year-old edits the UK-based science-fiction magazine, Strange Horizons. Gautam actively posts about the issue. He is also the author of Offend, Shock or Disturb: Free Speech Under the Indian Constitution. He believes that any law on privacy has to be founded on principles of informed consent and specific consent. According to Bhatia, informed consent means the person is aware of what use it’s being put to and specific consent means that the authorities must seek consent for each specific act. There cannot be a victory for constitutional values as long as islands of personal law are held to be exempt from the Constitution. (13/n) — Gautam Bhatia (@gautambhatia88) August 22, 2017 × He pens down his thoughts about literature and poetry of "any and all kinds" on his blog. You can read more about his work here. Apar Gupta Request: 1. Focus on the obvious impact in the order 2. Individual judgements require closer reading 3. Celebrate but don't claim victory — Apar (@aparatbar) August 24, 2017 × Delhi-based Apar has graduated from Columbia Law School and is an active voice in the right to privacy and data debate in India. According to media reports, the 33-year-old claims that government has spent roughly Rs. 11,000 crore on generating Aadhar and are creating an illusion of administering efficiently. Kritika Bharadwaj Delhi-based Kritika studied Political Science at Lady Shri Ram College, Delhi University and did her LLB from the same university's Faculty of Law. The now 26-year-old went on to Cambridge for her masters in international law. But even before her Masters, she had cut her teeth on Aadhaar-related matters and done meticulous research on international laws, biometrics, international practices, protocols and databases in the world. Kritika has possessed leadership qualities from the very beginning--she was the president of students' union in LSR and student representative to the faculty of law board in Cambridge.

Right to privacy: Young petitioners fight to make a difference

<p>The government today welcomed the Supreme Court judgement declaring the right to privacy a fundamental right.</p>

<p>Union minister Ravi Shankar Prasad, while addressing the media, said that the government has been of the view that the right to privacy is a fundamental right with regard to Aadhar.</p>

<div class="ui-state-default" contenteditable="false">
<div class="twitter-block" draggable="false">
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en">
<p dir="ltr" lang="en">Govt welcomes judgement. Govt hs been of view, particularly with regard to Aadhar that <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/RightToPrivacy?src=hash">#RightToPrivacy</a> should be Fundamental Right-RS Prasad <a href="https://t.co/7fOwQIe6zF">pic.twitter.com/7fOwQIe6zF</a></p>
&mdash; ANI (@ANI) <a href="https://twitter.com/ANI/status/900659862589161472">August 24, 2017</a></blockquote>
<script async src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script></div>
<a class="close-mark close-div" href="#" id="jqclosemark">&times;</a></div>

<p>He said that the Attorney General, on behalf of the government, argued that the Right to Privacy is a fundamental right with reasonable restrictions.</p>

<p>Earlier, the opposition led by the Congress slammed the government for its view on the issue.</p>

<p>Senior Congress leader Kapil Sibal who appeared before the apex court for non-BJP ruled states said that the government&#39;s stand in opposing the declaration of right to privacy as a fundamental right reflects its narrow-mindedness. &nbsp;</p>

<p>&quot;Individual house, marriages, sexual orientation, right to space, right to move freely, right to eat what an individual likes, right to be left alone are protected both within the home and at public places to the extent necessary,&quot; Sibal told PTI.</p>

<p>A nine-judge Constitutional bench of the <a href="http://www.wionews.com/india-news/supreme-court-verdict-on-whether-right-to-privacy-a-fundamental-right-today-19404" target="_blank">Supreme Court today declared the right to privacy</a> a fundamental right.</p>

<p>&nbsp;</p>


The opposition has slammed the government's stand on the privacy issue

The government today welcomed the Supreme Court judgement declaring the right to privacy a fundamental right. Union minister Ravi Shankar Prasad, while addressing the media, said that the government has been of the view that the right to privacy is a fundamental right with regard to Aadhar. Govt welcomes judgement. Govt hs been of view, particularly with regard to Aadhar that #RightToPrivacy should be Fundamental Right-RS Prasad pic.twitter.com/7fOwQIe6zF — ANI (@ANI) August 24, 2017 × He said that the Attorney General, on behalf of the government, argued that the Right to Privacy is a fundamental right with reasonable restrictions. Earlier, the opposition led by the Congress slammed the government for its view on the issue. Senior Congress leader Kapil Sibal who appeared before the apex court for non-BJP ruled states said that the government's stand in opposing the declaration of right to privacy as a fundamental right reflects its narrow-mindedness. "Individual house, marriages, sexual orientation, right to space, right to move freely, right to eat what an individual likes, right to be left alone are protected both within the home and at public places to the extent necessary," Sibal told PTI. A nine-judge Constitutional bench of the Supreme Court today declared the right to privacy a fundamental right.

Government welcomes Supreme Court verdict on right to privacy

<p>In a landmark judgement, the Supreme Court on Thursday&nbsp;upheld the Right to Privacy as a fundamental right protected by the Constitution of India, a verdict that could impact the government&#39;s unique identification Aadhaar programme.</p>

<p>The nine-judge constitutional bench&nbsp;unanimously held that an individual&#39;s right to privacy was &nbsp;protected as a part of the rights under Article 21 of &nbsp;the Constitution.</p>

<p>Privacy&nbsp;was &quot;protected as an intrinsic part of Article 21 that protects life and liberty,&quot;&nbsp;Chief Justice JS&nbsp;Khehar said in a brief statement.</p>

<p>The Supreme Court overruled the MP&nbsp;Sharma (1962) and Kharak Singh (1954) judgements&nbsp;which held&nbsp;that&nbsp;the&nbsp;right to privacy was not a fundamental right.</p>

<p>The bench was hearing a bunch of petitions challenging the mandatory use of the biometric identification cards, known as Aadhaar, as an infringement of privacy.&nbsp;</p>

<p>A five-judge constitutional bench will decide separately whether Aadhaar violates the Right to Privacy or not.</p>

<div class="ui-state-default" contenteditable="false">
<div class="twitter-block" draggable="false">
<center>
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en">
<p dir="ltr" lang="en"><a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/FLASH?src=hash">#FLASH</a> Supreme Court&#39;s nine judge bench upholds <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/RightToPrivacy?src=hash">#RightToPrivacy</a> as a fundamental right. <a href="https://t.co/dB3yCdABZq">pic.twitter.com/dB3yCdABZq</a></p>
&mdash; ANI (@ANI) <a href="https://twitter.com/ANI/status/900586965749321728">August 24, 2017</a></blockquote>
<script async src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script></center>
</div>
<a class="close-mark close-div" href="#" id="jqclosemark">&times;</a></div>

<p><br />
The government had earlier argued that the right to privacy was a &quot;wholly qualified right&quot; which allowed the government to interfere in a matter in special circumstances.</p>

<p>Attorney General KK Venugopal had earlier told the top court that &quot;privacy, as a fundamental right, could have been mentioned in Article 21, but has been omitted. Right to life transcends right to privacy&quot;.</p>

<p>The government view was that&nbsp;the right to privacy was&nbsp;not an individual right and is only a common law right evolved through judicial decisions. It argued that&nbsp;privacy as a &quot;vague and amorphous&quot; right which cannot be granted primacy if it deprives poor people&nbsp;their rights to life, food and shelter. It held that&nbsp;Aadhaar was&nbsp;necessary for various measures like bringing people under the tax network, opening bank accounts, securing loans for cash transfers and subsidies.</p>

<p>The petitioners contended that &nbsp;enforcing Aadhaar was&nbsp;an encroachment on privacy, adding that the right to privacy was&nbsp;&quot;inalienable&quot; and &quot;inherent&quot; to the most important fundamental right -&nbsp;the right to liberty.&nbsp;<br />
<br />
They argued that the right to liberty includes the&nbsp;right to privacy and is a pre-existing &quot;natural right&quot; which the Constitution acknowledges&nbsp;and guarantees&nbsp;to the citizens in case of infringement by the state.</p>

<p>During the arguments, the top court had&nbsp;favoured overarching guidelines to protect private information in the public domain. It has observed&nbsp;there&nbsp;is&nbsp;a need to &quot;maintain the core of privacy&quot; as the notion of privacy is fast becoming irrelevant in an all- pervading technological era.</p>

<p>The nine-judge constitution bench headed by Chief Justice JS Khehar had on August 2 reserved its verdict after hearing marathon arguments over a period of three weeks for and against the issue.&nbsp;</p>

<p>While reserving its verdict, the bench had voiced concern over the possible misuse of personal information in the public domain and said that protection of the concept of privacy in the all-pervading technological era was a &quot;losing battle&quot;.</p>

<p>The decision to set up the nine-judge bench was taken to examine the correctness of two Supreme Court judgements delivered in the Kharak Singh and MP Sharma cases which were&nbsp;decided by six and eight judge benches.<br />
<br />
On July 19, during the course of arguments, the court observed that the right to privacy cannot be an absolute right and the state may have some power to put reasonable restrictions.<br />
<br />
The high-profile arguments also saw the top court asking searching questions about the contours of right to privacy in the digital age when personal information was randomly shared with all types of government and private entities.<br />
<br />
The bench had wanted to know about the tests which could be used to regulate and enforce privacy right when there could be &quot;legitimate or illegitimate&quot; use of data.<br />
&nbsp;</p>

<p><br />
&nbsp;</p>


The contentious issue had emerged when the top court was dealing with a batch of petitions challenging the Centre's move to make Aadhaar mandatory

In a landmark judgement, the Supreme Court on Thursday upheld the Right to Privacy as a fundamental right protected by the Constitution of India, a verdict that could impact the government's unique identification Aadhaar programme. The nine-judge constitutional bench unanimously held that an individual's right to privacy was protected as a part of the rights under Article 21 of the Constitution. Privacy was "protected as an intrinsic part of Article 21 that protects life and liberty," Chief Justice JS Khehar said in a brief statement. The Supreme Court overruled the MP Sharma (1962) and Kharak Singh (1954) judgements which held that the right to privacy was not a fundamental right. The bench was hearing a bunch of petitions challenging the mandatory use of the biometric identification cards, known as Aadhaar, as an infringement of privacy. A five-judge constitutional bench will decide separately whether Aadhaar violates the Right to Privacy or not. #FLASH Supreme Court's nine judge bench upholds #RightToPrivacy as a fundamental right. pic.twitter.com/dB3yCdABZq — ANI (@ANI) August 24, 2017 × The government had earlier argued that the right to privacy was a "wholly qualified right" which allowed the government to interfere in a matter in special circumstances. Attorney General KK Venugopal had earlier told the top court that "privacy, as a fundamental right, could have been mentioned in Article 21, but has been omitted. Right to life transcends right to privacy". The government view was that the right to privacy was not an individual right and is only a common law right evolved through judicial decisions. It argued that privacy as a "vague and amorphous" right which cannot be granted primacy if it deprives poor people their rights to life, food and shelter. It held that Aadhaar was necessary for various measures like bringing people under the tax network, opening bank accounts, securing loans for cash transfers and subsidies. The petitioners contended that enforcing Aadhaar was an encroachment on privacy, adding that the right to privacy was "inalienable" and "inherent" to the most important fundamental right - the right to liberty. They argued that the right to liberty includes the right to privacy and is a pre-existing "natural right" which the Constitution acknowledges and guarantees to the citizens in case of infringement by the state. During the arguments, the top court had favoured overarching guidelines to protect private information in the public domain. It has observed there is a need to "maintain the core of privacy" as the notion of privacy is fast becoming irrelevant in an all- pervading technological era. The nine-judge constitution bench headed by Chief Justice JS Khehar had on August 2 reserved its verdict after hearing marathon arguments over a period of three weeks for and against the issue. While reserving its verdict, the bench had voiced concern over the possible misuse of personal information in the public domain and said that protection of the concept of privacy in the all-pervading technological era was a "losing battle". The decision to set up the nine-judge bench was taken to examine the correctness of two Supreme Court judgements delivered in the Kharak Singh and MP Sharma cases which were decided by six and eight judge benches. On July 19, during the course of arguments, the court observed that the right to privacy cannot be an absolute right and the state may have some power to put reasonable restrictions. The high-profile arguments also saw the top court asking searching questions about the contours of right to privacy in the digital age when personal information was randomly shared with all types of government and private entities. The bench had wanted to know about the tests which could be used to regulate and enforce privacy right when there could be "legitimate or illegitimate" use of data.

Supreme Court upholds right to privacy as a fundamental right

<p>The Indian Supreme Court&#39;s landmark&nbsp;judgment declaring the&nbsp;right to privacy a fundamental right has touched upon issues that are fundamental to deciding the constitutionality of&nbsp;Section 377 of the IPC, which criminalises unnatural sex.</p>

<p>Even though the focus of the case has been on Aadhaar cards, the verdict has also brought hope for the LGBT community.</p>

<p>The Supreme Court, in its landmark judgement, observed&nbsp;that the &quot;right to privacy is an integral part of right to life and personal liberty guaranteed in Article 21 of the Constitution&quot;.</p>

<p>Furthermore, the judgment states -&nbsp;&quot;The rights of the lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender population cannot be construed to be &#39;so-called rights&#39;... Their rights are not &#39;so-called&#39; but are real rights founded on sound constitutional doctrine.&quot;</p>

<p>A petition challenging Section 377 is still pending before the Supreme Court.</p>

<p>Section 377 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) dating back to 1860, introduced during the British rule in&nbsp;India, criminalises sexual activities &quot;against the order of nature&quot;.</p>

<p>The section was decriminalised with respect to sex between consenting adults by the Delhi High Court in&nbsp;July 2009.</p>

<p>That judgment was overturned by the Supreme Court of India on 11 December, 2013, with the court ruling that amending or repealing Section 377 should be left to Parliament, not the judiciary.</p>

<p>On 6 February 2016, the final hearing of the curative petition submitted by the Naz Foundation and others came for hearing in the Supreme Court.</p>

<p>The three-member bench headed by the then Chief Justice of India T&nbsp;S&nbsp;Thakur said that all the eight&nbsp;curative petitions submitted will be reviewed afresh by a five-member constitutional bench.</p>

<p>Today&#39;s judgement brings hope&nbsp;for the LGBT community which has been fighting for its rights.</p>

<p>&nbsp;</p>


The rights of LGBT community are not 'so-called rights but real rights founded on sound constitutional doctrine'

The Indian Supreme Court's landmark judgment declaring the right to privacy a fundamental right has touched upon issues that are fundamental to deciding the constitutionality of Section 377 of the IPC, which criminalises unnatural sex. Even though the focus of the case has been on Aadhaar cards, the verdict has also brought hope for the LGBT community. The Supreme Court, in its landmark judgement, observed that the "right to privacy is an integral part of right to life and personal liberty guaranteed in Article 21 of the Constitution". Furthermore, the judgment states - "The rights of the lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender population cannot be construed to be 'so-called rights'... Their rights are not 'so-called' but are real rights founded on sound constitutional doctrine." A petition challenging Section 377 is still pending before the Supreme Court. Section 377 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) dating back to 1860, introduced during the British rule in India, criminalises sexual activities "against the order of nature". The section was decriminalised with respect to sex between consenting adults by the Delhi High Court in July 2009. That judgment was overturned by the Supreme Court of India on 11 December, 2013, with the court ruling that amending or repealing Section 377 should be left to Parliament, not the judiciary. On 6 February 2016, the final hearing of the curative petition submitted by the Naz Foundation and others came for hearing in the Supreme Court. The three-member bench headed by the then Chief Justice of India T S Thakur said that all the eight curative petitions submitted will be reviewed afresh by a five-member constitutional bench. Today's judgement brings hope for the LGBT community which has been fighting for its rights.

Supreme Court's verdict on right to privacy ignites hope for LGBT community

<p>The nine-judge Constitution bench of the Supreme Court on Wednesday reserved its judgment over the issue of whether the right to privacy is fundamental right or not.</p>

<p>The federal government has told the top court that even though the right to privacy is a fundamental right, it is a &quot;wholly qualified right&quot;. It maintains that the right to life transcends the right to privacy.</p>

<p>The government made this submission before the nine-judge Constitution bench that is hearing the Aadhaar Card privacy matter on July 26.</p>

<p>Attorney General KK Venugopal told the top court that &quot;privacy, as a fundamental right, could have been mentioned in Article 21, but has been omitted. Right to life transcends right to privacy&quot;.</p>

<p>The Attorney General told the court that under special circumstances, the government can interfere in a matter that comes under a wholly qualified right. An absolute right cannot be reduced or amended, he said.</p>

<p>The petitioners maintain that the twelve-digit biometric unique identification Aadhaar card is a threat to the right to privacy. They completed their argument in the top court on July 20.&nbsp;</p>

<p>In June, the top court had ruled that from July 1, every person eligible to obtain the Aadhaar card must quote their Aadhaar number or their Aadhaar Enrolment ID number for filing Income Tax Returns as well as applications for Permanent Account Number (PAN).</p>

<p>&nbsp;</p>


The government had earlier told the top court that the fundamental right to privacy was a 'wholly qualified right'

The nine-judge Constitution bench of the Supreme Court on Wednesday reserved its judgment over the issue of whether the right to privacy is fundamental right or not. The federal government has told the top court that even though the right to privacy is a fundamental right, it is a "wholly qualified right". It maintains that the right to life transcends the right to privacy. The government made this submission before the nine-judge Constitution bench that is hearing the Aadhaar Card privacy matter on July 26. Attorney General KK Venugopal told the top court that "privacy, as a fundamental right, could have been mentioned in Article 21, but has been omitted. Right to life transcends right to privacy". The Attorney General told the court that under special circumstances, the government can interfere in a matter that comes under a wholly qualified right. An absolute right cannot be reduced or amended, he said. The petitioners maintain that the twelve-digit biometric unique identification Aadhaar card is a threat to the right to privacy. They completed their argument in the top court on July 20. In June, the top court had ruled that from July 1, every person eligible to obtain the Aadhaar card must quote their Aadhaar number or their Aadhaar Enrolment ID number for filing Income Tax Returns as well as applications for Permanent Account Number (PAN).

Supreme Court reserves judgment on right to privacy being a fundamental right

<p>Four states, all non-BJP ruled, moved the Supreme Court on Wednesday seeking to intervene in the hearing on whether the Right to Privacy can be declared as one of the Fundamental Rights under the Indian Constitution.&nbsp;</p>

<p>The states include Karnataka, West Bengal, Punjab and Puducherry.&nbsp;</p>

<p>Senior advocate Kapil Sibal is representing the four states. He initiated his arguments before a nine-judge Constitutional bench headed by Chief Justice J S Khehar and said that the court needs to take a fresh look on the Right to Privacy in the light of technological advancements.&nbsp;</p>

<p>&quot;Privacy cannot be an absolute right. But it is a Fundamental Right. This court needs to strike a balance,&quot; he submitted before the bench, PTI reported.&nbsp;</p>

<p>The top court had set up a Constitution bench on July 18 after the issue was referred to a larger bench by a five-judge bench.&nbsp;</p>

<p>The petitioners have claimed that the collection and sharing of biometric information under the Aadhaar scheme is a breach of the &quot;fundamental&quot; right to privacy.</p>

<p>The Central government on July 19 submitted a report before the Supreme Court saying that Right to Privacy is a common law right and not a Fundamental Right.<br />
&nbsp;<br />
&nbsp;<br />
&nbsp;</p>


The states include Karnataka, West Bengal, Punjab and Puducherry.

Four states, all non-BJP ruled, moved the Supreme Court on Wednesday seeking to intervene in the hearing on whether the Right to Privacy can be declared as one of the Fundamental Rights under the Indian Constitution. The states include Karnataka, West Bengal, Punjab and Puducherry. Senior advocate Kapil Sibal is representing the four states. He initiated his arguments before a nine-judge Constitutional bench headed by Chief Justice J S Khehar and said that the court needs to take a fresh look on the Right to Privacy in the light of technological advancements. "Privacy cannot be an absolute right. But it is a Fundamental Right. This court needs to strike a balance," he submitted before the bench, PTI reported. The top court had set up a Constitution bench on July 18 after the issue was referred to a larger bench by a five-judge bench. The petitioners have claimed that the collection and sharing of biometric information under the Aadhaar scheme is a breach of the "fundamental" right to privacy. The Central government on July 19 submitted a report before the Supreme Court saying that Right to Privacy is a common law right and not a Fundamental Right.

Four non-BJP ruled states move Supreme Court in favour of Right to Privacy

<p>Contradicting itself, the government has told the Supreme Court that the privacy of personal data is integral to the right to life.&nbsp;</p>

<p>On Friday, additional solicitor general PS Narasimha told the court: &quot;Personal data is an extension of an individual&#39;s personality. Data of a personality is integral to right to life guaranteed under Article 21.&quot;&nbsp;</p>

<p>The court was hearing a petition against WhatsApp sharing user data with its new parent company Facebook.&nbsp;</p>

<p>The stand though is contradictory to the one the government has taken in the Aadhar case.&nbsp;</p>

<p>Arguing a petition against Aadhar, attorney general KK Venugopal had told the court -- while referring to two earlier judgements by it -- that privacy is a common law right and that the&nbsp;petitioners therefore cannot complain about breach of privacy because of the collection of biometric data. &nbsp;</p>

<p>Common law is the part of law&nbsp;derived from custom and judicial precedent rather than statutes.</p>

<p><br />
&nbsp;</p>


Additional solicitor general PS Narasimha told the court: 'Personal data is an extension of an individual's personality. Data of a personality is integral to right to life guaranteed under Article 21'

Contradicting itself, the government has told the Supreme Court that the privacy of personal data is integral to the right to life. On Friday, additional solicitor general PS Narasimha told the court: "Personal data is an extension of an individual's personality. Data of a personality is integral to right to life guaranteed under Article 21." The court was hearing a petition against WhatsApp sharing user data with its new parent company Facebook. The stand though is contradictory to the one the government has taken in the Aadhar case. Arguing a petition against Aadhar, attorney general KK Venugopal had told the court -- while referring to two earlier judgements by it -- that privacy is a common law right and that the petitioners therefore cannot complain about breach of privacy because of the collection of biometric data. Common law is the part of law derived from custom and judicial precedent rather than statutes.

Contradicting itself, govt tells SC privacy of personal data integral to right to life

<p>The nine-judge Constitution bench hearing the issue of right to privacy has said that it is not an absolute right.</p>

<p>According to a report in The Hindu, the bench observed that privacy cannot prevent the state from making laws imposing reasonable restrictions on citizens.</p>

<p>The nine-judge bench is headed by Chief Justice J S Khehar and comprises Justices J Chelameswar, S A Bobde, R K Agrawal, Rohinton Fali Nariman, Abhay Manohar Sapre, D Y Chandrachud, Sanjay Kishan Kaul and S Abdul Nazeer.</p>

<p>The nine-judge Constitution bench was constituted on Tuesday for deciding on the issue whether the right to privacy is a fundamental right or not.</p>

<p>Petitions challenging Aadhaar will continue to be heard before the five-judge Constitution bench.</p>

<p>The five-judge bench had referred to the larger bench the issue of privacy in the context of&nbsp;two previous judgements of the top court delivered in 1950 and 1962 which held that right to privacy is not a fundamental right.</p>

<p>Appearing for the petitioners, senior lawyer Gopal Subramanium said that the rights to life and liberty are pre-existing natural rights and how can liberty be experienced without privacy.</p>

<p>&quot;Life and liberty are natural existing rights which our Constitution has. Now can liberty be at all experienced without privacy? Can liberty be exercised without privacy at least with regard to all the Fundamental Rights of the Constitution,&quot; he said.&nbsp;</p>

<p>The bench will continue hearing the arguments on Thursday also.</p>

<p>&nbsp;</p>

<p>&nbsp;</p>


A nine-bench Constitution bench headed by Chief Justice of India is listening to arguments on the issue of right to privacy

The nine-judge Constitution bench hearing the issue of right to privacy has said that it is not an absolute right. According to a report in The Hindu, the bench observed that privacy cannot prevent the state from making laws imposing reasonable restrictions on citizens. The nine-judge bench is headed by Chief Justice J S Khehar and comprises Justices J Chelameswar, S A Bobde, R K Agrawal, Rohinton Fali Nariman, Abhay Manohar Sapre, D Y Chandrachud, Sanjay Kishan Kaul and S Abdul Nazeer. The nine-judge Constitution bench was constituted on Tuesday for deciding on the issue whether the right to privacy is a fundamental right or not. Petitions challenging Aadhaar will continue to be heard before the five-judge Constitution bench. The five-judge bench had referred to the larger bench the issue of privacy in the context of two previous judgements of the top court delivered in 1950 and 1962 which held that right to privacy is not a fundamental right. Appearing for the petitioners, senior lawyer Gopal Subramanium said that the rights to life and liberty are pre-existing natural rights and how can liberty be experienced without privacy. "Life and liberty are natural existing rights which our Constitution has. Now can liberty be at all experienced without privacy? Can liberty be exercised without privacy at least with regard to all the Fundamental Rights of the Constitution," he said. The bench will continue hearing the arguments on Thursday also.

Right to privacy is not absolute: Supreme Court

<p>Recently, the Supreme Court (SC) was called upon to decide the Constitutional validity of Section 139AA of the Income Tax Act, which provides that every Pan Card holder or Income Tax Assessee has to compulsorily enroll for an Aadhaar Card.&nbsp;</p>

<p>A challenge was laid to this Provision, inter alia on the ground that though the &lsquo;Aadhaar Act&rsquo; prescribes that enrolment to Aadhaar is voluntary as per Section 139AA which, however, adds an element of compulsion.&nbsp;<br />
It may be recalled that by way of interim Orders, the Supreme Court made it clear that Aadhaar could only be used for certain schemes like MGNREGS, Pensions, Jan Dhan Yojana, Provident Fund, public distribution of food grains and cooking fuels.&nbsp;</p>

<p>&nbsp;</p>

<div class="ui-state-default" contenteditable="false">
<div class="row">
<div class="article-blockquote">
<div class="col-sm-10 col-sm-offset-1 blockquote-content quoteshare">
<blockquote>
<h5>There is a valid risk of leakage and hacking of the database</h5>
</blockquote>
</div>

<div class="col-sm-1 blockquote-content">
<div class="share-blockquote"><a class="twitter popup" href="http://twitter.com/intent/tweet?text=There is a valid risk of leakage and hacking of the database" target="_blank"><i class="fa fa-share">&nbsp;</i></a></div>
</div>
<a class="close-mark close-div" href="#" id="jqquoteclosemark">&times;</a></div>
</div>
</div>

<p>&nbsp;</p>

<p>The Petitioners, thus, argued that Section 139AA was in violation of the Orders which provided that Aadhaar could not be used for any other purpose.&nbsp;Besides, it was also emphasised that there is a valid risk of leakage and hacking of the database.&nbsp;The Court, after a careful consideration of the submissions from both sides, held that the Parliament is empowered to make a particular Provision directory in one statute (Aadhaar Act) and compulsory in the other (Income Tax Act). That by itself cannot be a ground to question the competence of the Legislature.&nbsp;</p>

<p>The Court recognised the various advantages of Aadhaar such as (i) benefits of welfare schemes reaching people for whom they were meant; (ii) tackling corruption and black money; (iii) helping enforcement agencies to combat terrorism and other crimes; (iv) weeding out duplicate PANs.On the issue of PAN, the Court observed it has an impact on day to day activities and commercial transactions. Therefore, till the larger aspects of Right to Privacy and human dignity, etc. are not decided by the Constitution Bench, it is necessary to impose a partial stay to prevent PANs being made invalid retrospectively.&nbsp;</p>

<p>&nbsp;</p>

<div class="ui-state-default" contenteditable="false">
<div class="row">
<div class="article-blockquote">
<div class="col-sm-10 col-sm-offset-1 blockquote-content quoteshare">
<blockquote>
<h5>Implementation of Aadhaar, in its present form raises a number of concerns, which have either been dealt with quite casually by the Government or have not been addressed at all</h5>
</blockquote>
</div>

<div class="col-sm-1 blockquote-content">
<div class="share-blockquote"><a class="twitter popup" href="http://twitter.com/intent/tweet?text=Implementation of Aadhaar, in its present form raises a number of concerns, which have either been dealt with quite casually by the Government or have not been addressed at all" target="_blank"><i class="fa fa-share">&nbsp;</i></a></div>
</div>
<a class="close-mark close-div" href="#" id="jqquoteclosemark">&times;</a></div>
</div>
</div>

<p>&nbsp;</p>

<p>It must be respectfully stated that there are a few aspects which the Court does not seem to have fully considered. More importantly, the manner in which Aadhaar is sought to be implemented by the Government is not entirely appropriate either.&nbsp;There is no doubt that the initiative of the present Government is praiseworthy. Its advantages are undeniable. However, despite these apparent advantages, the implementation of Aadhaar, in its present form raises a number of concerns, which have either been dealt with quite casually by the Government or have not been addressed at all.&nbsp;</p>

<p>A valid concern is that of possible data leak collected from the individuals. Although the Court in its Judgment, recognises data leak as a real possibility, it only states that this concern needs to be addressed by the Government by ensuring that a proper scheme in this regard is devised at the earliest.&nbsp;Despite this direction, which itself is more of an observation, there is little chance that the Government may do much about it, given the manner in which it has approached the security concern so far. Till date, neither in the Parliament nor in the Court has the Government been able to provide a clear plan on how it would go ahead in tackling this critical issue.&nbsp;It is important to mention that the present Bench of two Judges (Sikri and Bhushan J.J.) was only called upon to look into the Constitutional validity of Section 139AA. The larger issue of whether Aadhaar impinges on the &lsquo;Right to Privacy&rsquo; and &lsquo;Human Dignity&rsquo; is pending before the larger Constitution Bench.&nbsp;</p>

<p>The two Judge Bench had made it clear that it was not going to touch upon the Privacy issue. Had the Petitioners insisted on arguing the right to privacy, the matter would have been &lsquo;tagged&rsquo; with the pending challenge before the Constitution Bench.&nbsp;Instead, the Petitioners decided that they would not be raising the &lsquo;Right to Privacy&rsquo; and would be questioning the validity of Section 139AA, primarily on Articles 14 and 19 of the Constitution.&nbsp;<br />
In my humble view, whether it is a challenge to the Aadhaar Act itself before the Constitution Bench, or to Section 139AA of the Income Tax Act before the Division Bench, neither of these cases can be decided effectively without touching upon concepts of &lsquo;Right to Privacy&rsquo;, &lsquo;Bodily Integrity&rsquo; and &lsquo;Informational Self-Determination&rsquo;. By giving up arguments of Privacy etc., the Petitioners have unfortunately fought with one hand tied behind their backs.<br />
It appears that the Petitioners chose to go ahead before the Division Bench by giving up the &lsquo;Privacy&rsquo; argument since the Constitution Bench had not been able to take up the matter for final determination despite various urgent mentionings. In addition, the deadline of &nbsp;July 1, 2017, mentioned in Section 139AA for linking PAN cards and Income Tax Returns was fast approaching.&nbsp;</p>

<p><br />
The larger challenge before the Constitution Bench has itself been pending for a very long time now. In the meantime, the Government is going ahead rapidly with the implementation, thereby leading to a possible situation where the entire challenge may become only academic, if not redundant.&nbsp;The Government, in going ahead (however noble or much needed the step may be), without addressing or properly analysing the risks it is clearly putting the cart before the Horse. It cannot be denied that there are certain pressing apprehensions that require immediate attention.</p>

<p>&nbsp;</p>

<div class="ui-state-default" contenteditable="false">
<div class="row">
<div class="article-blockquote">
<div class="col-sm-10 col-sm-offset-1 blockquote-content quoteshare">
<blockquote>
<h5>UIDAI has lodged a criminal complaint, saying that certain firms have been storing biometrics and using them illegally</h5>
</blockquote>
</div>

<div class="col-sm-1 blockquote-content">
<div class="share-blockquote"><a class="twitter popup" href="http://twitter.com/intent/tweet?text=UIDAI has lodged a criminal complaint, saying that certain firms have been storing biometrics and using them illegally" target="_blank"><i class="fa fa-share">&nbsp;</i></a></div>
</div>
<a class="close-mark close-div" href="#" id="jqquoteclosemark">&times;</a></div>
</div>
</div>

<p>&nbsp;</p>

<p>Such database may create opportunities for people who are vulnerable or perceived as a threat. For instance, a person may be implicated falsely by the Police in serious cases, such as terrorism or murder by simply taking his fingerprints from the database and planting them at the scene of the crime. History has shown us time and again, the propensity of investigative agencies to incriminate people falsely. There is also a huge concern about private or foreign entities being contracted to collect and store data. If the registration machines do not belong to the State, it is extremely difficult for the State to guarantee that such sensitive information will not be leaked or misused.&nbsp;<br />
It was recently reported that the UIDAI has lodged a criminal complaint, saying that certain firms have been storing biometrics and using them illegally. With the growing footprint of Aadhaar and the same being made mandatory, such crimes are only likely to rise in the future. Unfortunately, we are not ready to handle mass online attacks, in a space where criminals are getting more sophisticated every day. On the other hand, our Cyber Crime Cells are lagging abysmally behind, with little or no training being imparted to these so-called specialised Police Officers.&nbsp;</p>

<p>One major criticism of the Aadhaar Act is that it came to be passed as a Money Bill, cleverly escaping passage through the Rajya Sabha. It is difficult to understand how &lsquo;Aadhaar&rsquo; was categorised as a Money Bill. In fact, at the time when the Bill was passed on 11.03.2016 by the Lok Sabha, the attendance was merely 73 persons out of a total strength of 543 members. When the Rajya Sabha returned the Bill with suggestions/amendments, they were taken up by the Lok Sabha on 16.03.2016 and none of the amendments/suggestions was accepted. Running down the Parliamentary Institution and Procedures sets a very dangerous trend, which must be avoided at all costs.&nbsp;<br />
The possibility per se of misuse does not render a Legislation invalid. However, with the nature of this project, the risk is too high to not be addressed in a proper manner. The least that such an ambitious project required was a proper and informed debate in both houses of the Parliament as also, inviting suggestions from all stakeholders, including the public at large.</p>

<p>It is also difficult to understand the extreme urgency to implement Aadhaar when its Constitutionality is yet to be determined by the Court.&nbsp;If there are genuine apprehensions in the minds of the citizens in parting with sensitive information and linking it with various aspects of their daily life, it is the bounden duty of the State to allay such fears.&nbsp;Despite all odds, however, the citizens, ever hopeful and optimistic, place their faith in the government&rsquo;s intention to address such grave issues and not wait for it to turn into a tool for abuse.&nbsp;</p>

<p>As it has been said, &ldquo;our eyes were on the other-world, the stars, the Gods. We didn&rsquo;t keep watch on the world around us. And when we eventually lowered our heads and studied the waters closer to home, it was too late&rdquo;.</p>


Recently, the Supreme Court (SC) was called upon to decide the Constitutional validity of Section 139AA of the Income Tax Act, which provides that every Pan Card holder or Income Tax Assessee has to compulsorily enroll for an Aadhaar Card. A challenge was laid to this Provision, inter alia on the ground that though the ‘Aadhaar Act’ prescribes that enrolment to Aadhaar is voluntary as per Section 139AA which, however, adds an element of compulsion. It may be recalled that by way of interim Orders, the Supreme Court made it clear that Aadhaar could only be used for certain schemes like MGNREGS, Pensions, Jan Dhan Yojana, Provident Fund, public distribution of food grains and cooking fuels. There is a valid risk of leakage and hacking of the database × The Petitioners, thus, argued that Section 139AA was in violation of the Orders which provided that Aadhaar could not be used for any other purpose. Besides, it was also emphasised that there is a valid risk of leakage and hacking of the database. The Court, after a careful consideration of the submissions from both sides, held that the Parliament is empowered to make a particular Provision directory in one statute (Aadhaar Act) and compulsory in the other (Income Tax Act). That by itself cannot be a ground to question the competence of the Legislature. The Court recognised the various advantages of Aadhaar such as (i) benefits of welfare schemes reaching people for whom they were meant; (ii) tackling corruption and black money; (iii) helping enforcement agencies to combat terrorism and other crimes; (iv) weeding out duplicate PANs.On the issue of PAN, the Court observed it has an impact on day to day activities and commercial transactions. Therefore, till the larger aspects of Right to Privacy and human dignity, etc. are not decided by the Constitution Bench, it is necessary to impose a partial stay to prevent PANs being made invalid retrospectively. Implementation of Aadhaar, in its present form raises a number of concerns, which have either been dealt with quite casually by the Government or have not been addressed at all × It must be respectfully stated that there are a few aspects which the Court does not seem to have fully considered. More importantly, the manner in which Aadhaar is sought to be implemented by the Government is not entirely appropriate either. There is no doubt that the initiative of the present Government is praiseworthy. Its advantages are undeniable. However, despite these apparent advantages, the implementation of Aadhaar, in its present form raises a number of concerns, which have either been dealt with quite casually by the Government or have not been addressed at all. A valid concern is that of possible data leak collected from the individuals. Although the Court in its Judgment, recognises data leak as a real possibility, it only states that this concern needs to be addressed by the Government by ensuring that a proper scheme in this regard is devised at the earliest. Despite this direction, which itself is more of an observation, there is little chance that the Government may do much about it, given the manner in which it has approached the security concern so far. Till date, neither in the Parliament nor in the Court has the Government been able to provide a clear plan on how it would go ahead in tackling this critical issue. It is important to mention that the present Bench of two Judges (Sikri and Bhushan J.J.) was only called upon to look into the Constitutional validity of Section 139AA. The larger issue of whether Aadhaar impinges on the ‘Right to Privacy’ and ‘Human Dignity’ is pending before the larger Constitution Bench. The two Judge Bench had made it clear that it was not going to touch upon the Privacy issue. Had the Petitioners insisted on arguing the right to privacy, the matter would have been ‘tagged’ with the pending challenge before the Constitution Bench. Instead, the Petitioners decided that they would not be raising the ‘Right to Privacy’ and would be questioning the validity of Section 139AA, primarily on Articles 14 and 19 of the Constitution. In my humble view, whether it is a challenge to the Aadhaar Act itself before the Constitution Bench, or to Section 139AA of the Income Tax Act before the Division Bench, neither of these cases can be decided effectively without touching upon concepts of ‘Right to Privacy’, ‘Bodily Integrity’ and ‘Informational Self-Determination’. By giving up arguments of Privacy etc., the Petitioners have unfortunately fought with one hand tied behind their backs. It appears that the Petitioners chose to go ahead before the Division Bench by giving up the ‘Privacy’ argument since the Constitution Bench had not been able to take up the matter for final determination despite various urgent mentionings. In addition, the deadline of July 1, 2017, mentioned in Section 139AA for linking PAN cards and Income Tax Returns was fast approaching. The larger challenge before the Constitution Bench has itself been pending for a very long time now. In the meantime, the Government is going ahead rapidly with the implementation, thereby leading to a possible situation where the entire challenge may become only academic, if not redundant. The Government, in going ahead (however noble or much needed the step may be), without addressing or properly analysing the risks it is clearly putting the cart before the Horse. It cannot be denied that there are certain pressing apprehensions that require immediate attention. UIDAI has lodged a criminal complaint, saying that certain firms have been storing biometrics and using them illegally × Such database may create opportunities for people who are vulnerable or perceived as a threat. For instance, a person may be implicated falsely by the Police in serious cases, such as terrorism or murder by simply taking his fingerprints from the database and planting them at the scene of the crime. History has shown us time and again, the propensity of investigative agencies to incriminate people falsely. There is also a huge concern about private or foreign entities being contracted to collect and store data. If the registration machines do not belong to the State, it is extremely difficult for the State to guarantee that such sensitive information will not be leaked or misused. It was recently reported that the UIDAI has lodged a criminal complaint, saying that certain firms have been storing biometrics and using them illegally. With the growing footprint of Aadhaar and the same being made mandatory, such crimes are only likely to rise in the future. Unfortunately, we are not ready to handle mass online attacks, in a space where criminals are getting more sophisticated every day. On the other hand, our Cyber Crime Cells are lagging abysmally behind, with little or no training being imparted to these so-called specialised Police Officers. One major criticism of the Aadhaar Act is that it came to be passed as a Money Bill, cleverly escaping passage through the Rajya Sabha. It is difficult to understand how ‘Aadhaar’ was categorised as a Money Bill. In fact, at the time when the Bill was passed on 11.03.2016 by the Lok Sabha, the attendance was merely 73 persons out of a total strength of 543 members. When the Rajya Sabha returned the Bill with suggestions/amendments, they were taken up by the Lok Sabha on 16.03.2016 and none of the amendments/suggestions was accepted. Running down the Parliamentary Institution and Procedures sets a very dangerous trend, which must be avoided at all costs. The possibility per se of misuse does not render a Legislation invalid. However, with the nature of this project, the risk is too high to not be addressed in a proper manner. The least that such an ambitious project required was a proper and informed debate in both houses of the Parliament as also, inviting suggestions from all stakeholders, including the public at large. It is also difficult to understand the extreme urgency to implement Aadhaar when its Constitutionality is yet to be determined by the Court. If there are genuine apprehensions in the minds of the citizens in parting with sensitive information and linking it with various aspects of their daily life, it is the bounden duty of the State to allay such fears. Despite all odds, however, the citizens, ever hopeful and optimistic, place their faith in the government’s intention to address such grave issues and not wait for it to turn into a tool for abuse. As it has been said, “our eyes were on the other-world, the stars, the Gods. We didn’t keep watch on the world around us. And when we eventually lowered our heads and studied the waters closer to home, it was too late”.

Aadhaar: Putting the Cart before the Horse

<p>India&rsquo;s Supreme Court on Friday upheld the government&#39;s decision to link Aadhaar to one&rsquo;s PAN card for filing Income Tax returns. But, it refused to make it compulsory for those who don&rsquo;t have an Aadhaar card or have not yet applied for one,&nbsp;till a Constitution bench addressed the issue of right to privacy.</p>

<div class="ui-state-default" contenteditable="false">
<div class="videos-block">
<div class="embed-responsive embed-responsive-16by9"><iframe class="embed-responsive-item" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/-GeEbPDpnXY"></iframe></div>
</div>

<div class="media-description">
<p>The Supreme Court on Friday upheld the validity of linking Aadhaar with PAN or Permanent Account Number. WION brings you more on this (WION)</p>
</div>
<a class="close-mark close-div" href="#" id="jqclosemark">&times;</a></div>

<p>Those who have enrolled but have not yet received&nbsp;their Aadhaar card are also exempted.</p>

<p>The tax provision, pushed by the Centre, said that those who file I-T returns without an Aadhaar-linked PAN card would have their PAN declared invalid.&nbsp;</p>

<p>A bench comprising Justices AK Sikri and Ashok Bhushan asked the government to take appropriate steps to ensure there was no leakage of data from the Aadhaar scheme.<br />
&nbsp;<br />
&quot;The government to take proper and appropriate steps and the scheme in this regard has to be devised at the earliest till confidence among the citizens that the data would not be leaked,&quot; the bench said.<br />
&nbsp;<br />
The bench, however, clarified that it had not touched upon the issue of the right to privacy and concerns that the Aadhaar scheme affected the human dignity, which, it said, had to be decided by the Constitution bench.<br />
&nbsp;<br />
The bench made it clear that there was no conflict between the impugned provisions of the Income Tax Act and the Aadhaar Act.<br />
&nbsp;<br />
It also said that PAN cards without Aadhaar number would not be treated invalid till the Constitution bench decided the larger issue of right to privacy.<br />
&nbsp;<br />
&nbsp;<br />
&nbsp;</p>


The Supreme Court said it is compulsory to link Aadhaar to one's PAN card for filing taxes, but only if you already have an Aadhaar card

India’s Supreme Court on Friday upheld the government's decision to link Aadhaar to one’s PAN card for filing Income Tax returns. But, it refused to make it compulsory for those who don’t have an Aadhaar card or have not yet applied for one, till a Constitution bench addressed the issue of right to privacy. The Supreme Court on Friday upheld the validity of linking Aadhaar with PAN or Permanent Account Number. WION brings you more on this (WION) × Those who have enrolled but have not yet received their Aadhaar card are also exempted. The tax provision, pushed by the Centre, said that those who file I-T returns without an Aadhaar-linked PAN card would have their PAN declared invalid. A bench comprising Justices AK Sikri and Ashok Bhushan asked the government to take appropriate steps to ensure there was no leakage of data from the Aadhaar scheme. "The government to take proper and appropriate steps and the scheme in this regard has to be devised at the earliest till confidence among the citizens that the data would not be leaked," the bench said. The bench, however, clarified that it had not touched upon the issue of the right to privacy and concerns that the Aadhaar scheme affected the human dignity, which, it said, had to be decided by the Constitution bench. The bench made it clear that there was no conflict between the impugned provisions of the Income Tax Act and the Aadhaar Act. It also said that PAN cards without Aadhaar number would not be treated invalid till the Constitution bench decided the larger issue of right to privacy.

Is it compulsory to link Aadhaar with PAN card?

right-to-privacy

Right To Privacy, News on Right To Privacy, stories on Right To Privacy, articles on Right To Privacy, Right To Privacy stories at Wion, Right To Privacy news, Right To Privacy latest news

right to-privacy