Introduction:
The right to privacy is our right to maintain a domain around us that includes all of those things that are part of us, like our body, home, property, thoughts, feelings, secrets, and identity. The right to privacy gives us the ability to choose which parts of this domain other persons can access and to control the extent, manner, and timing of the use of those parts that we choose to disclose.
The Constitution of India encompasses the Right to Privacy under Article 21, which is a requisite of right to life and personal liberty. Stressing the word ‘Privacy’, it is a dynamic concept that required elucidation. Under the Indian Constitution, the scope of Article 21 is multidimensional. Privacy should be protected in all respects but is subject to reasonable restrictions under the Indian Constitution and other applicable statutory provisions in force. To demonstrate to the rest of the world, one must realize that privacy should be kept in mind and within the restricted limits.
Existence of Right to Privacy
There are several privacy cases, but none of the cases supported the recognition of privacy as a constitutional right, only after a landmark case has been passed. K.S.— Puttaswamy v. Union of India in 2017, due recognition was given to the right to privacy. The below-mentioned cases brought the right to privacy into the existence.
Kharak Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh
The question of state surveillance as opposed to the right to privacy was brought to the court when Kharak Singh, who was let off in a dacoity case due to lack of evidence, challenged constant police surveillance on the grounds of breach of his constitutionally guaranteed fundamental rights.
The provisions of the Uttar Pradesh police regulations allowed Singh ‘s house to be picketed secretly, home visits at night, daily officer inquiries, and tracking his movement. Claiming this was a violation of his human rights, Singh lodged a writ petition before the Supreme Court.
A six-judge constitutional bench examined the validity of the authority of surveillance given by the Uttar Pradesh Government in the context of such power violating freedom guaranteed under the Indian Constitution.
Police officials held the view that the regulations did not infringe fundamental freedoms and, while they did, they acted as fair restrictions in the general public’s interest and allowed the police to carry out their duties more effectively.
In a majority decision, the court decided that “privacy was not a guaranteed fundamental right.” Moreover, it held that Article 21 (right to life) was the repository of residual personal rights and recognized the right to privacy of common law. Furthermore, it was found to be unconstitutional in the clause authorizing home visits.
Justice Subbarao had the dissenting opinion and thus said, even though the Right to Privacy was no regarded as a fundamental right, but under Article 21 of the Indian Constitution, it was essential to personal liberty. Additionally, he held all the surveillance to be unconstitutional.
M.P Sharma v. Satish Chandra
MP Sharma’s case was related to the discovery of records of Dalmia group companies following investigations into Dalmia Jain Airways Ltd’s business. An investigation exposed in-company malpractice and highlighted attempts from shareholders to hide real information by submitting false balance sheets.
The writ petition filed before the Supreme Court challenged the constitutional validity of the searches issued by the District Magistrate because it violated the fundamental rights under Article 19(1)(f) i.e. right to property and Article 20(3), i.e. protection against self-incrimination.
In its judgment, the eight-judge bench held that a search and seizure power is an overriding power of the State for the defense of social security, under every system of jurisprudence, and that power is strictly governed by statute. Since constitutionalists have found it reasonable not to subject such legislation to constitutional restrictions by acknowledging the fundamental right to privacy, there is no reason for introducing into it, a radically different fundamental right through some strained construction procedure.
K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India
K.S. Puttaswamy is a retired Karnataka High Court Judge, who brought a case of Right to Privacy against the Union of India before a 9-judge bench.
This case was primarily concerned with an issue to a challenge to the government’s Aadhaar scheme (a form of uniform biometrics-based identification card) in which the government made it mandatory for government services and benefits to be made available. The matter was put before a Supreme Court tri-judge bench because this scheme breached the right to privacy.
Accordingly, a Constitution Bench was formed and concluded that a nine-judge bench was needed to determine whether there is a fundamental right to privacy under Article 21 of the Indian Constitution.
The petitioner argued before the bench that the right to privacy is a constitutional right and should be guaranteed as a dignified right to life with dignity under Article 21 of the Indian Constitution.
The Supreme Court’s nine-judge bench unanimously accepted that under Article 21 the Constitution granted the right to privacy as an integral part of the right to life and personal liberty. However, the Court overruled M.P. Sharma and Kharak Singh. In so far as the latter did not expressly accept the right to privacy as a constitutional right.
Basic rights are fundamental rights that are inherited in every human being and those rights should be granted with proper remedies to every citizen of the world. Some hidden and furtive parts of human beings can not be published in the public domain. With the passing of the recent case of 2017, the right to privacy has gained popularity worldwide, and has been accepted as a constitutional right to privacy. Various nations have already validly recognized their right to privacy, such as the USA, the UK, India, and numerous foreign organizations such as ECHR, UDHR, and ICCP have also given their valid recognition.
Conclusion
Under Article 21 of the Indian Constitution, the right to privacy is a requisite of right to life and personal liberty. The right to privacy is not absolute, it may be subject to certain fair restrictions on crime prevention, the protection of others and public disorder, but it may also emerge from a particular relationship, apart from contracts, which may be matrimonial, commercial or even political, and even where there is a conflict between these two derivative rights, the one which promotes the public interest and public morality, will prevail.
Considering ourselves a member of a society, we always counter that we are the first individuals, and every person or entity in this world needs his/ her private space. The State is, therefore, offering those private moments to be shared with those they want without the prying eyes of the rest of the world, to give each person the right. Privacy should be protected in all respects but is subject to reasonable restrictions under the Indian Constitution and other applicable statutory provisions in force. To demonstrate to the rest of the world, one must realize that privacy should be kept in mind and within the restricted limits.
0 Comments