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
'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.

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.email

Opening 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/


Popular posts from this blog

Third degree torture used on Maruti workers: Rights body

Haruki Murakami: On seeing the 100% perfect girl one beautiful April morning

The Almond Trees by Albert Camus (1940)

Satyagraha - An answer to modern nihilism

Rudyard Kipling: critical essay by George Orwell (1942)

Three Versions of Judas: Jorge Luis Borges

Goodbye Sadiq al-Azm, lone Syrian Marxist against the Assad regime