Privacy is a fundamental right - annotations

The Supreme Court’s landmark judgment elevating the right to privacy as a fundamental right is a significant reminder of India’s republican values and their relevance to all classes of people.

• After 70 years of Independence, it would have been highly unpopular for India’s Supreme Court, and any of its judges, to subscribe to a proposition that ran counter to the liberal ethos of the times. 
• Any judge expressing a dissenting view could have run the risk of being seen on the wrong side of history.
• The right to privacy was demanded by only those who had something to hide, said Rakesh Dwivedi, senior counsel for Gujarat. 
• The right to privacy had no relevance for the hungry millions, said the Attorney General, K.K. Venugopal. Privacy was just a facet of liberty, and being amorphous, it could not be elevated to the status of a fundamental right, was the refrain of many respondents before the court.
• Justice Chandrachud - the validity of a law which infringes the fundamental rights has to be tested not with reference to the object of state action, but on the basis of its effect on the guarantees of freedom.
• In a democratic Constitution founded on the rule of law, their rights are as sacred as those conferred on other citizens to protect their freedoms and liberties.
• The invasion of a fundamental right was not rendered tolerable when a few were subjected to hostile treatment.
• The refrain that the poor need no civil and political rights and are concerned only with economic well-being has been utilised through history to wreak the most egregious violations of human rights.
• It is the right to question, the right to scrutinise and the right to dissent which enables an informed citizenry to scrutinise the actions of government.
• The theory that civil and political rights are subservient to socio-economic rights has been urged in the past and has been categorically rejected by this court.
• The right to privacy is too amorphous to be defined in specific terms and that it should be left to evolve from case to case. 
• A restrictive definition of the right to privacy specifying what it included could hamper its growth in the future. 
• The right to privacy was a fundamental right, without specifying its contours, could limit the state’s pursuit of its development agenda.
• Justice Chandrachud, while agreeing that privacy must be left to evolve case to case, laid down three grounds to justify an invasion of privacy. They are existence of a law, a legitimate state aim suffering from no arbitrariness, and proportionality of the means to the object . 
• The sharing of biometric data, which the Aadhaar scheme entails, involves many facets of the right to privacy.

Petitions challenging the Aadhaar Act will now be heard and decided by regular benches of the Supreme Court in the light of the privacy judgment.

It would have been nice if centre had recognised privacy is a fundamental right made laws attenuating Aadhaar and treated citizens with respect. But it is too much to expect such good things from autocratic Modi. Now privacy has become a fundamental right not by virtue of a constitutional provision nor by an act of parliament but by a judgement of a Supreme Court constitutional bench. This is not the best way. And if centre instead of respecting judgement gracefully searches ways and methods to surreptitiously push Aadhaar for citizen's surveillance and undermine citizens rights they would meet waterloo again and again. BJP & NDA and all parties must realize that they are in power for the citizens welfare and not other way round. But Modi & BJP are notorious for not learning lessons but will attempt to bulldoze on people with their stupid thinking.