9-judge Bench to look into right to privacy
9-judge bench to determine whether it is a fundamental right under Constitution
A nine-judge Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court will start hearing on Wednesday if “right of privacy” is a fundamental right.
A five-judge Bench, hearing a batch of petitions challenging the constitutional validity of Aadhaar, referred the matter to the nine-judge bench.
The attorney general told the court that an eight-judge Bench in 1954 and a six-judge Bench in 1962 had ruled that “right to privacy” was not a fundamental right.
A nine-judge Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court will determine on Wednesday whether there is any fundamental “right of privacy” under the Indian Constitution, which arose in furnishing of personal and biometric information under the Aadhaar card.
A five-judge bench of Chief Justice J.S. Khehar and Justices J. Chelameswar, S.A. Bobde, D.Y. Chandrachud and S. Abdul Nazeer, hearing a batch of petitions challenging the constitutional validity of Aadhaar card, referred the matter to a nine-judge bench.
The petitioners, former judge of Karnataka high court Justice K.S. Puttaswamy and others, had contended that the biometric data and iris scan that was being collected for the issuance of Aadhaar card violated the fundamental right to privacy of the citizens as personal data was not protected, and was vulnerable to exposure and misuse. It was argued that right to life under Article 21 of the Constitution would include right to privacy though it was not expressly stated in the Constitution.
Attorney-general K.K. Venugopal, however, brought to the notice of the court that an eightjudge bench in 1954 and a six-judge bench in 1962 had categorically ruled that “right to privacy” was not a fundamental right. He also said such a right had not been expressly provided in the Constitution, though under the British Common Law right to privacy was a fundamental right. He said judicial discipline warrants that a larger bench of nine judges should go into the correctness of the two earlier judgments.
Refusing to accept the attorney-general’s submission, Justice Chelameswar observed, “In a Republic founded on a written Constitution in India, it is difficult to accept there is no fundamental right to privacy, whereas the same is available in Common Law, an unwritten Constitution.”