Historic verdict: Right to privacy key to life, liberty
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 JUSTICE CHELAMESHWAR
NEWDELHI: Individual privacy is a fundamental right, the Supreme Court ruled on Thursday, a watershed verdict that will test the validity of a controversial biometric identification project as well as other draconian restrictions over eating beef and gay sex. In a unanimous ruling, the nine-judge bench said the right to privacy was inherent in the right to life, liberty and speech, but not without “reasonable restrictions” when it came to national security, fighting crime and distribution of state benefits.
“The right to privacy is inextricably bound up with all exercises of human liberty,” justice SA Bobde said in his personal conclusion that is part of the unanimous judgment.
Thursday’s judgment becomes the touchstone for the validity of Aadhaar, a 12-digit biometric identification card the government is pushing for use in everything from operating bank accounts and buying property to tax declarations.
NEWDELHI: In arriving at the landmark verdict, the Supreme Court had some of the best judicial minds in the country assisting it on all aspects of laws and some more. These are some of the prominent advocates whose arguments on right to privacy being part of the Constitution resonated with the court.
Gopal Subramanium The former Solicitor General of India assisted SC as amicus curiae in the Sohrabuddin fake encounter case. He acted as the Special Public Prosecutor in the prosecution of accused of the terrorist attack on the Indian Parliament in 2001.
In the privacy case, the senior advocate had appeared for one of the petitioners with the argument that the right to privacy is very much a fundamental right, which is co-terminus with the liberty and dignity of the individual.
Shyam Divan A senior advocate in SC, Divan is an expert at civil litigation. He has represented citizens’ groups in environmental cases and also assisted SC as amicus curiae in the Bellary mining case relating to illegal iron ore mining in the forests of Karnataka. Divan had represented one of the petitioners in the privacy case. He argued that an individual must be allowed to determine what information of his can be allowed to be put out and this is closely tied to a person’s right to dignity.
Anand Grover A senior advocate known for legal activism on issues relating to homosexuality and HIV, he has argued landmark cases of public interest, such as LGBT rights in the Naz Foundation case and the Bhopal Gas disaster case. He had also argued for one of the petitioners in the privacy case, saying that there exists no dignity without privacy.
Arvind P Datar Datar is a prominent senior advocate in the top court. Appearing for one of the petitioners in the privacy case, he had argued that privacy is an essential part of the fundamental rights section of the Constitution. Datar argued that the right to privacy is found in Articles 14, 19, 20, 21 and 25 of the Constitution when read with the Preamble.