Deprecated (16384): The ArrayAccess methods will be removed in 4.0.0.Use getParam(), getData() and getQuery() instead. - /home/brlfuser/public_html/src/Controller/ArtileDetailController.php, line: 73
 You can disable deprecation warnings by setting `Error.errorLevel` to `E_ALL & ~E_USER_DEPRECATED` in your config/app.php. [CORE/src/Core/functions.php, line 311]
Deprecated (16384): The ArrayAccess methods will be removed in 4.0.0.Use getParam(), getData() and getQuery() instead. - /home/brlfuser/public_html/src/Controller/ArtileDetailController.php, line: 74
 You can disable deprecation warnings by setting `Error.errorLevel` to `E_ALL & ~E_USER_DEPRECATED` in your config/app.php. [CORE/src/Core/functions.php, line 311]
Warning (512): Unable to emit headers. Headers sent in file=/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Error/Debugger.php line=853 [CORE/src/Http/ResponseEmitter.php, line 48]
Warning (2): Cannot modify header information - headers already sent by (output started at /home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Error/Debugger.php:853) [CORE/src/Http/ResponseEmitter.php, line 148]
Warning (2): Cannot modify header information - headers already sent by (output started at /home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Error/Debugger.php:853) [CORE/src/Http/ResponseEmitter.php, line 181]
Notice (8): Undefined variable: urlPrefix [APP/Template/Layout/printlayout.ctp, line 8]latest-news-updates/centre-privacy-u-turn-4682407.html"/> LATEST NEWS UPDATES | Centre privacy U-turn | Im4change.org
Resource centre on India's rural distress
 
 

Centre privacy U-turn
-The Telegraph

New Delhi: The Centre in a U-turn today told the Supreme Court the right to privacy can be a fundamental right subject to certain limitations, and said it wanted a "smaller bench" - instead of the current nine-judge constitution bench - to decide whether the Aadhaar scheme violated that right.

Attorney-general K.K. Venugopal, the country's top law officer, made the concession after the bench of Chief Justice J.S. Khehar and Justices J. Chelameshwar, D.Y. Chandrachud, S.A. Bobde, R.K. Agrawal, R.F. Nariman, A.M. Sapre, Mohd Nazeer and Sanjay Kishan Kaul asked him to clarify if the right to privacy was a fundamental right.

"According to me, there is no fundamental right to privacy. My second argument is that (if) there is a fundamental right to privacy, it is a wholly qualified right and since the right to privacy consists of diverse aspects, it is a sub-species of liberty. Every aspect of such species will not qualify as a fundamental right," Venugopal said.

"Every aspect is not a fundamental right. Therefore the present right claimed by the petitioners is not a fundamental right. Your lordships may refer the issue (Aadhaar enrolment) to a smaller bench."

Justice Khehar told the attorney-general the Supreme Court was willing to refer the matter to a smaller bench provided Venugopal clarified the government's stand on whether the right to privacy was a fundamental right.

Venugopal said: "Give me the opportunity to argue before a smaller bench that it is a sub-species."

Justice Khehar replied, referring to the petitioners' contention that the right to privacy was a fundamental right: "When you say 'please allow me to argue', you are conceding their plea."

Venugopal said he could not be "deprived" of the right to "argue that it is a species".

Justice Khehar said: "There (in front of a smaller bench) you have to argue case-to-case whether there is a right to privacy or not. Because you (the Centre) did not allow them (the petitioners) to argue, that is why it came to us, because you wanted it to be referred (to a nine-judge bench)."

The court pointed to the earlier stand of the NDA government before a three-judge bench that the right to privacy was not a fundamental right, as held by two other Supreme Court benches earlier.

The Centre had taken such a stand while stoutly opposing a batch of petitions challenging compulsory enrolment for Aadhaar as an infringement of citizens' right to privacy.

The court today said the Centre could not be "Aadhaar-centric" and must think of the "little man's right to privacy".

Referring to the government's submission that Aadhaar was aimed at protecting the "fundamental rights to food, shelter and health" and also the interests of millions of poor people, Justice Nariman observed: "If you are making this kind of an emotional plea, then the right to property is also a basic human right. It is a classic case of the baby being thrown out of the bath tub. Don't forget the little man's right to privacy. Everything is not Aadhaar-centric."The Centre had earlier argued that there was no right to privacy and so it was entitled to collecting personal data from citizens for the Aadhaar scheme.

However, today Venugopal said he was of the view that at the outset, the Centre felt there was no fundamental right to privacy, but if the court was of the opinion that such a right existed, then the Aadhaar matter "should be referred to a smaller bench".Venugopal argued today that though the right to privacy might be available in developed countries like the US, Canada and the UK, in developing countries like India it should be considered only in the context of the right to food and shelter of the millions who are below the poverty line and for whom Aadhaar was a "boon".

"Are you saying you can deny the right to someone because of this reason?" Justice Chelameshwar asked.

Justice Chandrachud said: "You say the right to privacy is an elitist concept. But this right will apply to all. You cannot impose sterilisation in a slum area because there are too many kids there."

Earlier, senior advocate Kapil Sibal, appearing for the governments of Bengal, Karnataka, Puducherry and Punjab, had said the ability of the State to assume or exercise any power that would impinge upon the right to privacy was limited.

Sibal said if the State infringed on the right to privacy, it should at least meet the following tests: the action must be sanctioned by law, the proposed action must be necessary in a democratic society for a legitimate aim, the extent of such interference must be proportionate to the need for such interference, and there must be procedural guarantees against abuse of such interference.

Please click here to read more.