The privacy verdict is a manifesto of hope and a celebration of freedom
flawed” Justice DY Chandrachud, strikes it down and also hails then lone dissenting judge HR Khanna for the “courage of his convictions.”Inanenvironmentofentrenchednepotism and dynastic politics, the sheer grace of this moment must be celebrated.
What’s remarkable about this verdict is that it pushes back against every divisive fault-line and stands up firmly against the idea of a nanny State. In words that could have far-reaching implications for beef politics as well as prohibition, Justice Chelameswar writes, “I do not think that anybody would like to be told by the State as to what they should eat or how they should dress or whom they should be associated with either in their personal, social or political life.” Consider the Maharashtra government’s appeal in court for the right of the police to raid and search homes of those suspected of storing beef. Now the right to privacy makes the demand untenable.
Now, one can expect a mountain of petitions challenging laws seen to be in violation of free choice. We owe gratitude to the Supreme Court for drawing a lakshman rekha against invasive State power – and for its promise – that no mob will control our thoughts. This as the Judges write is the essence of India: “Democracy accepts differences of perception, acknowledges divergences in ways of life, and respects dissent”.