Vasu Pachnanda
The Supreme Court has finally, in a landmark verdict upheld Privacy, imparting it the status of a Fundamental Right, existing as one of the facets of freedom to life and liberty under the Indian Constitution and undeniably as an intrinsic part of the effective exercise of the freedoms guaranteed by part three of the same constitution. The decision was unanimously announced through citing different grounds, as it sufficed the conscience of the bench, unequivocally granting privacy, the status of an irrevocable, inalienable right. Such an historic ruling, can have far reaching and absolutely overturning consequences, reversing the cord of some fundamental discourses to an entirely contrasting position.
This verdict undoubtedly has affected the task of equipping the common man against unreasonable and unwarranted State intrusions and has vouched for mandatorily protecting informational privacy in an age of digital networking and unrestrained globalization.
No doubt privacy would be looked at as an indispensable attachment to all the myriad freedoms guaranteed by our constitution to the fulfillment of a dignified existence with of course, reasonable restrictions, that come as a part and parcel of every right, which under no circumstance be allowed to be absolute. This obviously envisages the basic unassailable rights such as right to equality, free speech and expression. As was expressed by a honorable justice, that state cannot be under any circumstance be allowed to dictate arbitrary dictums regulating and in any way encumbering the sphere of personal lives, and tuning them in accordance with its own fluctuating ideological and socio- political alignments.
The order came in response to an array of petitions that had questioned the mandatory usage of the Unique 12- digit ID database of every citizen for all the rudimentary yet necessary tasks of day to day life subsuming all the financial transactions and for availing the benefits of social welfare schemes. Such was contended to be in direct confrontation to the realm of civil liberties safeguarded and accorded reverent status under our constitution.
The government on its part had reiterated privacy be given a selective and a somewhat limited permissiveness arguing that guarding the fundamental needs of the deprived including their right to food and right to life, enjoyed unequivocal precedence over granting privacy to the elites. Further fortifying its contention the government had also highlighted the fact that Constitution makers had deliberated and consciously discarded the concept on merits and therefore it wasn’t accorded explicit reference in the Fundamental law of the land.
But the Apex court was sparsely convinced as it went ahead according privacy a fundamental status asserting that dignity was a part of the preamble of our Constitution and imagining it without privacy was rather impossible. The cases cited by the respondents were to no avail as the court dismissed the rulings in the Kharak Singh and the MP Sharma case, and paved way for privacy. Holding privacy as a bulwark of all other rights, the judiciary located it in a comprehensive and wide interpretation of the golden trinity of articles 14,19 and 21.
Going even further it can be duly assessed that the contention depriving the poverty stricken people of their privacy through astute references to it being a threat to their surviving needs, is highly misplaced and is no more but an excuse for inefficient and incompetent governance.
What entails after such a judgement would definitely impact the verdict of the mandatory usage of Aadhaar, a matter which is still subjudice and being decided by a smaller bench.
Further, it can be safely deduced that such a judgement would have a reinvigorating impact on the discourse surrounding 377 and also that of Euthanasia and the right to abortion.
It has been rightly referred to by justice Chelameshwar’s verdict, that bolsters privacy as an inherent and intrinsic constituent of the constitution and has also gone on to vouch for an individual’s right to refuse prolonging medical treatment or terminate his life as per his own wish.
It has also gone to the extent of stating that a pregnant women’s right to bear or abort her pregnancy are areas that too fall under the realm of privacy and thus should be rendered untouched.
The debate around 377 can also witness resurrection considering a individual’s right to resist the tide of conformity and choose his own way, too falls under his realm of privacy.
Whatever be the case, it would not be wrong to say that our constitution is also a dynamic tool and should adjust itself to the crests and troughs that make the social and living matrix of any human society. Confining ourselves to a narrow and limited interpretation would be to embark on a path contrary to the settled canons of judicial interpretation and wouldn’t serve the vested interests of an ever changing society that incessantly traces a path of evolution.
But to the contrary it can be said, that reasonability is the only way that remains with us to ward off any unwanted detriments that could result as a consequence of every right that we enjoy. And suffice it to say, that it will hopefully be enough in performing the aforesaid task.
feedbackexcelsior@gmail.com
Follow our WhatsApp channel