Nine-judge bench to rule if privacy is fundamental right

The Supreme Court has referred to a nine-judge constitution bench a case to determine if the right to privacy is a fundamental right.

The question pertains to pleas that challenge Aadhaar for violating privacy.

“During the course of hearing today it has become essential for us to determine whether right to privacy is a fundamental right under the Constitution,” said a five-judge bench headed by Chief Justice of India JS Khehar.

COURT REFUTES ATTORNEY GENERAL KK VENUGOPAL’S ARGUMENT THAT CONSTITUTION OMITTED THE ISSUE OF RIGHT TO PRIVACY

Is the right to privacy a fundamental right?

The question, which forms the basis of petitions that challenge Aadhaar for violating privacy, will be answered by a nine-judge constitution bench.

The Supreme Court on Tuesday said the constitution bench would revisit its rulings that said the right to privacy was not a fundamental right and then hear petitions against the 12-digit biometric identity number.

“During the course of hearing today it has become essential for us to determine whether right to privacy is a fundamental right under the Constitution,” a fivejudge bench headed by Chief Justice of India JS Khehar said.

The nine-judge bench is expected to take up and conclude its hearing on Wednesday itself.

“The determination of this question would essentially entail whether the decision recorded by an eight-judge bench in 1954 and also by a sixjudge bench in 1962 that there is no such fundamental right is the correct expression of constitutional provisions,” the court said. It decided to refer the matter to a larger bench after the Centre cited the two judgments to argue that the right to privacy was not a fundamental right.

“Our founding fathers have encompassed all rights. But consciously this is omitted,” attorney general KK Venugopal said.

But justice J Chelameswar said it was illogical to argue that the Constitution didn’t mention the right to privacy while common law identified it. “Textually it is correct today that there is no right to privacy in the Constitution. But even freedom of press is not expressly stated. This court has interpreted it,” the judge said, adding the earlier verdicts should be looked at again. “One can’t overlook the constant view held by smaller benches in their later judgments holding right to privacy is a fundamental right.”