http://www.firstpost.com/…/in-a-9-0-verdict-supreme-court-s…
In a 9-0 verdict, Supreme Court says right to privacy is a Fundamental Right: Highlights from judgment

FP StaffAug, 24 2017 12:55:26 IST
Tweet

The Supreme Court on Thursday declared to right to privacy as a
Fundamental right under the Constitution. A nine-judge constitutional
bench headed by Chief Justice JS Khehar ruled that right to privacy is
protected intrinsically as part of rights guaranteed under Article 21 of
the Constitution.

Delivering the verdict, the bench observed that privacy is protected under Article 21 and Part 3 of the Indian Constitution.
Representational image.

Representational image.

The ruling will have a bearing on 24 other cases challenging the
validity of the Aadhaar scheme on the grounds of it violating the right
to privacy. Others members of the bench comprising Justice J
Chelameswar, Justice S A Bobde, Justice R K Agrawal, Justice R F
Nariman, Justice A M Sapre, D Y Chandrachud, S K Kaul and S Abdul Nazeer
also shared the same view.

Reading out the “operative portion” of the judgment, Khehar made following observations:

- Decision in MP Sharma case overruled.
- Decision in Kharak Singh case, to the extent it says Right to Privacy is not part of Right to Life, is overruled
- Right to Privacy is an intrinsic part of life and personal liberty under Article 21.
- Decisions subsequent to the Kharak Singh case verdict which held privacy as part of right to life are correct.
- A number of writ petitions were tagged along with Justice K
Puttaswamy’s petition on Aadhaar, which led to the constitution of this 9
Judge Bench. A slew of Senior Advocates had appeared for various
parties in the case.

Here is the full text of the judgment in the case:

Part 1:
Powered by
Publish for Free

Part 2:
Powered by
Publish for Free

Click here to follow live updates on the Supreme Court verdict

Published Date: Aug 24, 2017 11:40 am | Updated Date: Aug 24, 2017 12:55 pm
Tags :#Aadhaar#Breaking news!#Constitution
of india#Fundamenta right#Fundamental right#India#Justice js
khehar#Kapil sibal#Newstracker#Right to privacy#Right to privacy
fundamental right#Right to privacy verdict#Supereme court hearing
today#Supreme court of india

In a first, Justice DY Chandrachud
overrules his father Justice YV Chandrachud’s judgment in a 1975 case.
Simillarly a nine-judge Constitution bench of the Supreme Court with all
the major political leaders as juries must be created to overrule the
ex CJI Sathasivam who committed a grave error of judgement by ordering
that the EVMs could be replaced in a phased manner as suggested by the
ex CEC Sampath because of Rs 1600 crore at that time to replace the
entire EVMs. He never ordered for conducting the elections with paper
ballots as followed by 80 democracies of the world.In 2014 elections
only 8 out of 543 seats were replaced. The BJP gobbled the Master Key.
In Uttar Pradesh Assembly elections only 20 out of 403 seats were
replaced again benefiting the BJP to corner the power. It was clearly
proved that the EVMs could be tampered by the very fact that order was
passed to replace them.
The Central and the state governments
selected by these fraud EVMs must be dissolved and go for fresh polls
with paper ballots as the replacement of the EVMs now cost Rs 5000 crore
as said to the Supreme Court by BJP. This is negating the Universal
Adult Franchise as enshrined in our Constitution.

http://www.firstpost.com/…/right-to-privacy-upheld-by-supre…

Right to Privacy upheld by Supreme Court: Verdict sets a precedent, will save citizens from ‘Big Brother’

(Wo)Men are born free, yet everywhere are in chains
– Jean Jacques Rousseau

At 10:38 am on Thursday, nine jurists followed freedom’s call, down to
Tilak Marg, listening to the wind of change. The nine-judge Constitution
bench of the Supreme Court has unanimously upheld the Right to Privacy,
which was soon hailed as a staggering victory by the pro-privacy civil
society. When the chief justice pronounced his judgment, it felt like
both the longest and shortest 180 seconds of my life.

For a while
now, the public discourse surrounding privacy has been guided by, and
been within the context of, the Aadhaar debate. However, by no means are
the ramifications of Thursday’s judgment limited to the access to
government services within the Aadhaar regime.

But first, a quick recap

Our legislature and executive have, in recent times, indicated that the
Indian populace is not ready to embrace privacy as a fundamental right.
The attorney general, on behalf of the Union of India, has reportedly
argued that privacy as a right has greater credibility in jurisdictions
that are socially, politically and economically developed: A description
that may not necessarily be applicable to India.

Besides, the
State has contended that privacy is not a legal concept, but rather a
sociological notion. If we were to accept the State’s arguments as valid
— that the existence of an advanced society (the parameters of which
may be social, political, economic or abstract) — is a condition
precedent for the recognition of the right to privacy, shouldn’t being
“less developed” make it the State’s duty to legally recognise and
protect that which society is (apparently) not advanced enough to
acknowledge and practice?

Privacy pioneers, on the other hand,
have consistently argued, both in this case and otherwise, that privacy
is a fundamental and inalienable right granted to individuals, and
safeguarded by the constitutional law of the land. They have implored
courts to read privacy into the rights under Articles 19 and 21 of the
Constitution. Per judicial precedent, privacy rights have been seen to
encompass within their remit the prevention of disclosure of information
imported under confidence. This last part is especially significant
today, as our apex court upholds the right of a billion people to their
“selves” under Article 21, within the background of a constitutional
challenge to a government scheme that creates a centralised repository
of personal information, in the face of reported infrastructural and
security lapses.

What is at stake

The application of this
bench’s decision to the ongoing Aadhaar challenge — that’s what is at
stake. As we wait to peruse the text of the current judgment, it is
important to assess the more granular issues related to the
biometric-enabled Aadhaar identification process and its confluence with
government services. In principle, we are faced with issues of consent.
In practice, we struggle with infrastructural deficiencies and an
absence of safeguards and accountability.

Free consent is the
cornerstone of any progressive democratic society. It is legally the
foundation of every contractual arrangement, and sociologically
underpins all discourse on personal choice. Even the existing data
privacy regime in India, as outlined under the Information Technology
Act, 2000, and rules thereunder, requires that data collectors gather
and use user information only pursuant to consent. This is critical,
because within this context, the user may freely choose to part (or not
part) with his/her personal information. The consequence of refusing to
share this information is the inability to access the data collector’s
service/platform. However, choosing to not part with one’s personal data
is a luxury one can ill-afford, when in the bargain, one loses the
ability to access basic and essential government services.

The
large-scale centralisation of everything from personal identifiers to
financial information, coupled with less than confidence-inspiring
security systems to keep the data safe, is probably the greatest concern
plaguing those who are sceptical of the Aadhaar process from a privacy
perspective. A centralised database that amasses the personal
information of the entire citizenry and links it across platforms and
services has the potential of being used as a tool for Big Brother-esque
policy implementation.

Add to that a Right to Privacy qualified
by reasonable restrictions in public interest or in the interest of
national security, and we have ourselves a structure of zero
governmental accountability. An unaccountable, surveillance-heavy
nation-state, where public services are antagonistic to the notion of
free consent, one that places itself much higher on the podium than the
individual it seeks to serve. It is a recipe for disaster, and this is
what makes the Supreme Court’s decision a step in the right direction.

What Next

The proof of the pudding is in eating it. Until it is possible to read
the judgment in its entirety, I recommend cautious optimism. With the
Supreme Court upholding the right to privacy on one hand, the Telecom
Regulatory Authority of India recommending an overarching data
protection framework on the other, and murmurs saying the Ministry of
Electronics and Information Technology is working on a draft privacy
legislation, things are getting interesting.

And we must remember
that the debate doesn’t end with Aadhaar, the validity of which is
still under the judicial review of a five-judge bench. It transcends the
wide spectrum of judicial interpretation of the freedom of expression
under Article 19 and life and personal liberty under Article 21 of the
Indian Constitution. The bench has created a precedent that shall guide
the rights of individuals vis-à-vis the State for as long as it isn’t
overturned by a larger bench or made defunct through a legislative act
of Parliament. This judgment, as a direct consequence, puts into motion a
chain of events, the impact of which shall be felt across space and
time, and today was just the first domino.

In Bob Dylan’s words,
there’s a battle outside and its ragin’, and our highest court seems to
have finally heeded the call, resolved no longer to stand in the doorway
or block up the hall, cuz the times, they appear truly to be a
chaingin’.

Published Date: Aug 24, 2017 03:43 pm | Updated Date: Aug 24, 2017 03:44 pm

In a first, Justice DY Chandrachud overrules his father Justice YV
Chandrachud’s judgment in a 1975 case. Simillarly a nine-judge
Constitution bench of the Supreme Court with all the major political
leaders as juries must be created to overrule the ex CJI Sathasivam who
committed a grave error of judgement by ordering that the EVMs could be
replaced in a phased manner as suggested by the ex CEC Sampath because
of Rs 1600 crore at that time to replace the entire EVMs. He never
ordered for conducting the elections with paper ballots as followed by
80 democracies of the world.In 2014 elections only 8 out of 543 seats
were replaced. The BJP gobbled the Master Key. In Uttar Pradesh Assembly
elections only 20 out of 403 seats were replaced again benefiting the
BJP to corner the power. It was clearly proved that the EVMs could be
tampered by the very fact that order was passed to replace them.
The
Central and the state governments selected by these fraud EVMs must be
dissolved and go for fresh polls with paper ballots as the replacement
of the EVMs now cost Rs 5000 crore as said to the Supreme Court by BJP.
This is negating the Universal Adult Franchise as enshrined in our
Constitution.