The verdict on privacy is a flood of sunshine in dark times. By Manini Chatterjee // Opening new doors by Upendra Baxi
Mrs. Powel of Philadelphia: “Well, Doctor, what have we got, a republic or a monarchy?”
Benjamin Franklin: “A republic, if you can keep it.” (1797)
The verdict on privacy is a flood of sunshine in dark times
Benjamin Franklin: “A republic, if you can keep it.” (1797)
The verdict on privacy is a flood of sunshine in dark times
'Read as a whole, the verdict is truly
remarkable on several counts: for the grand sweep of arguments that the
honourable judges draw upon from previous legal cases both in India and abroad,
from history and from philosophy to prove that privacy lies in the very essence
of being human; for the clarity and lucidity with which it explains the real
meaning and import of the rights outlined in the Indian Constitution; and most
of all for the profound humanity and compassion it displays in upholding the
liberty and dignity of each and every Indian citizen..'
Read the full text of the judgement
Justice Chelameswar: "I do not think that anybody in this country would like to have the officers of the State intruding into their homes or private property at will or soldiers quartered in their houses without their consent. I do not think that anybody would like to be told by the State as to what they should eat or how they should dress or whom they should be associated with either in their personal, social or political life." NB: RSS & Modi government please note the above observation. It is a forthright criticism of your totalitarian political project, your attempt to impose an ideological tyranny over the Indian public. DS
In a public discourse
increasingly coarsened by shrill hyperbole, words such as "landmark",
"path-breaking" and "historic" sound almost trite, bereft
of any real meaning. Yet, each of these
adjectives, singly and together, cannot quite describe the enormous
significance and magnificent sweep of the Supreme Court verdict delivered on
August 24 declaring individual privacy a fundamental right.Read the full text of the judgement
Justice Chelameswar: "I do not think that anybody in this country would like to have the officers of the State intruding into their homes or private property at will or soldiers quartered in their houses without their consent. I do not think that anybody would like to be told by the State as to what they should eat or how they should dress or whom they should be associated with either in their personal, social or political life." NB: RSS & Modi government please note the above observation. It is a forthright criticism of your totalitarian political project, your attempt to impose an ideological tyranny over the Indian public. DS
The unanimous verdict
of the nine-judge bench of the apex court, overruling two previous judgments
which had held that the right to privacy is not protected by the Constitution
of India, declared that "the right to privacy is protected as an intrinsic
part of the right to life and personal liberty under Article 21 and as a part
of the freedoms guaranteed by Part III of the Constitution".
This simple one-line
assertion comes at the end of a 547 page verdict that comprises six separate
but concurring judgments. The first and the most substantial one running into
266 pages is written by the judge, D.Y. Chandrachud, on behalf of the chief
justice, J.S. Khehar, and the judges R.K. Agarwal, S. Abdul Nazeer, and
himself. Separate judgments of varying lengths were given by the judges J.
Chelameswar, S.A. Bobde, R.F. Nariman, Abhay Mohan Sapre and Sanjay Kishan
Kaul.. read more:
https://www.telegraphindia.com/1170828/jsp/opinion/story_169395.jsp#.WaRR6c64TgY.emailOpening new doors by Upendra Baxi
So rarely do we come
across unanimous Supreme Court judgments that the stunning verdict of the
nine-justice bench concerning the right to privacy (R2P, hereafter) comes to us
as a great gift. Justice D.Y. Chandrachud led a joint judgment on behalf of
then Chief Justice Jagdish Singh Khehar, R.K. Agrawal, S. Abdul Nazeer and
himself. Separate concurring opinions were provided by Justices J. Chelameswar,
S.A. Bobde, Abhay Manohar Sapre, Rohinton Fali Nariman and Sanjay Kishan Kaul.
The separate concurring opinions are not disguised dissents.
The basic human right to
privacy stands affirmed. What is more, the highest adjudicatory power stands
defined as the power to re-interpret that which has been pre-interpreted;
judicial review emerges as the power to co-govern the nation by feats of
demosprudential adjudicatory leadership. This feat should cause constitutional
happiness. If the 1973
Kesavananda Bharati inaugurated a daringly new constitutionalism for late 20th
century India, the R2P affirms, for the 21st century, the vision of a
“constitutional renaissance” (to borrow a phrase of Justice Dipak Misra in a
2015 decision). Both sets of decisions open new doors of constitutional
perception.
Poignantly, Justice
Chandrachud explicitly overrules the infamous habeas corpus decision validating
human rights denialism during the Emergency which came to an end over four
decades ago. Of course, two sterling justices — Yashwant Chandrachud and P.N.
Bhagwati — had apologised to the nation later and the 44th Amendment preserved
core fundamental human rights even during future Emergencies. But the formal
overruling remains historically significant, as it amends the past.
Equally daring is the
notion of “inalienable” natural rights. Justice Chandrachud maintains (for the
court) that: “Natural rights are not bestowed by the state. They inhere in
human beings because they are human. They exist equally in the individual,
irrespective of class or strata, gender or orientation”.
read more:
http://indianexpress.com/article/opinion/columns/right-to-privacy-supreme-court-4819896/