Privacy is a fundamental right

• A nine-judge Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court on August 24 unanimously ruled that right to privacy is “intrinsic to life and liberty” and is inherently protected under the various fundamental freedoms enshrined under Part III of the Indian Constitution. SC overruled previous judgments on the privacy issue that ruled that privacy is not a fundamental right.
• Justice Chandrachud in his judgment for himself, Chief Justice Khehar, R.K. Agrawal and S. Abdul Nazeer said that privacy is a concomitant of the right of the individual to exercise control over his or her personality. Natural rights like privacy are inalienable because they are inseparable from the human personality. To live is to live with dignity. Privacy with its attendant values assures dignity to the individual and it is only when life can be enjoyed with dignity can liberty be of true substance. Privacy ensures the fulfillment of dignity.
• The judgement also stated that - Like other rights which form part of the fundamental freedoms protected by Part III, including the right to life and personal liberty under Article 21, privacy is not an absolute right. A law which encroaches upon privacy will have to withstand the touchstone of permissible restrictions on fundamental rights. In the context of Article 21 an invasion of privacy must be justified on the basis of a law which stipulates a procedure which is fair, just and reasonable. 
• The Union government had argued that privacy is a common law right. The government argued that right to privacy is not expressly included in the Constitution as the founding fathers rejected or jettisoned the idea of inclusion of privacy as a fundamental right. The centre had termed privacy as a "vague and amorphous" right which cannot be granted primacy to deprive poor people of their rights to life, food and shelter.
• The earlier Attorney General Mukul Rohatgi rejected suggestions that Indians could refuse to provide their iris scans or fingerprints to the government, telling a court "the concept of absolute right over one's body was a myth".
• The judgment will have a crucial bearing on the government’s Aadhaar scheme that collects personal details, biometrics to identify beneficiaries for accessing social benefits and government welfare scheme.
• A bunch of petitions were filed in the Supreme Court in 2015 challenging Aadhaar as a breach of privacy, informational self-determination and bodily integrity. The petitioners argued that Aadhaar enrolment was the means to a “Totalitarian State” and an open invitation for personal data leakage. 
• The government claimed Aadhaar was a panacea to end corruption in public distribution, money laundering and terror funding.
• Attorney general K K Venugopal had argued that right to privacy cannot be a fundamental right has now welcomed the SC decision. He said that whatever the 9-judge bench says is the correct law.
• Three days ago, PM Modi hailed the SC judgement on triple talak as "historic" and said it grants equality to Muslim women. Today on Privacy rights judgement of SC, he maintained stoic silence so far. He is yet to respond. Why?
• Finance Minister Arun Jaitley said that the apex court has accepted the government’s argument that privacy is a fundamental right, but it’s not an absolute right but will be subjected to restrictions which will be fair, just and reasonable. He blamed that the privacy matter went to the Supreme Court because the UPA government brought about Aadhaar without a law. It is too late to contend that privacy will not be a fundamental right.
• Law Minister Ravi Shankar Prasad made a somersault by welcoming the judgement but said should have "reasonable" restrictions. 
• Mukul Rohatgi said that the government should not have diluted their stand in court because the inclusion or exclusion of fundamental rights is only the proviso of Parliament. It is a very unsatisfactory resolution of the dispute. His view is that the framers of the constitution did not intend to make privacy a fundamental right. He said “The fact is, we haven’t won this case. The eight-judge bench of 1954 has been overruled and the Aadhaar issue has been left unresolved. So where is the question of winning?” Had he still been in office as Attorney General, he would have admitted that the government had lost the case.

Today's verdict is a major setback for the government, which had argued that the constitution does not guarantee individual privacy as an inalienable fundamental right. The verdict however does not comment on whether the government's demand for Aadhaar to be linked to all financial transactions amounts to an infringement of privacy. There are fears that the data could be misused by a government that argued Indians have no right to privacy.

Aadhaar has its uses, but it is also an instrument of control and manipulation. It must be only optional, not mandatory. Aadhaar had already violated the privacy rights with the vast majority of the population already enrolled, their information held in insecure databases, and linked to public and private services. Ambedkar's fears of abuse of constitution without amending it are coming true in Modi's India. In a democracy, ruled by majority, it is the duty of majority to uphold the rights & dignity of minorities. Ambedkar also remarked that democracy in India is only a top-dressing on an Indian soil, which is essentially undemocratic. Unfortunately Modi & co believes that minorities must toe line with majoritarian wishes with no individual rights etc.

Read the exhaustive article on the judgement