Tag: Fundamental Right

Case Analysis Justice K.S. Puttaswamy v. UOI | Right to Privacy

August 12, 2022
/ Leave a Comment on Case Analysis Justice K.S. Puttaswamy v. UOI | Right to Privacy

8 min
1 year
1,518 word

Case Analysis Justice K.S. Puttaswamy v. UOI | Right to Privacy

The Supreme Court of India has once again shown itself to be the solitary defender of the constitution, establishing a legal basis for privacy protections in India. The verdict addresses all of the problems and establishes that, under India’s constitution, privacy is a fundamental inalienable right, intrinsic to human dignity as well as liberty.

Keywords: Fundamental Right, Right to Life, Indian Constitution, Right to Privacy, Absolute Right, Supreme Court

Written By: Simran Chandel

Title of the Case: Justice K.S.Puttaswamy (Retired). vs Union of India And Ors., 2017.

Citation: Writ Petition (Civil) No. 494 of 2012, (2017) 10 SCC 1

Court: Supreme Court of India

Parties Involved-

Appellant: Justice K S Puttaswamy (Retired)

Respondent: Union of India and Others.

Bench: Sanjay Kishan Kaul, Dhananjaya Y. Chandrachud, R. K. Agrawal, J. S. Khehar, S. A. Bobde, S. A. Nazeer, R. K. Agrawal, J. Chelameswar, A.M. Sapre JJ.

Brief Facts of Justice K.S. Puttaswammy (retd) v. Union of India

The case was brought by 91-year-old retired High Court Judge Puttaswamy against the Union of India (the GOI) before a nine-judge Supreme Court bench on a request from the Constitution Bench. To determine whether the right to privacy was guaranteed as an independent fundamental right following conflicting Supreme Court decisions.

The most recent instance involved a legal challenge against the government’s Aadhaar scheme (a biometrics-based identity card that the government proposed making mandatory for access to government services and benefits). The case was brought before a three-judge Supreme Court panel because the plan infringed on the right to privacy. On behalf of the UOI, the Attorney General contended that the Indian Constitution does not provide specific protection for the right to privacy. He based this on findings in the cases of M.P. Sharma v. Satish Chandra (an eight-judge bench) and also Kharak Singh v. Uttar Pradesh (an eight-judge bench) (a five-judge bench). However, an eleven-judge panel later concluded that basic rights should not be regarded as separate, unrelated rights, upholding the dissenting opinion in Kharak Singh. Later rulings by smaller SC benches that explicitly affirmed the right to privacy were based on this precedent.

In this context, a Constitution Bench was established, also with the conclusion that a nine-judge bench was required to evaluate whether the Constitution contained a basic right to privacy.

The Petitioner claimed before the nine-judge panel that this was an independent right granted by Article 21 of the Constitution’s Right to Life with dignity. According to Respondent, the Constitution only recognises personal liberty, which may include a limited right to privacy. The Court deliberated extensively on the nature of fundamental rights, constitutional interpretation, and the theoretical and philosophical foundations for the right to privacy, as well as the nature of the right itself.

Issues

Is there a fundamental right to privacy guaranteed by the Indian Constitution?
Is the Court’s conclusion in M.P. Sharma & Ors. vs. Satish Chandra, DM, Delhi & Ors., and also in Kharak Singh vs. The State of U.P., that there are no such fundamental rights, the proper statement of the constitutional position?

Petitioner’s Argument

The petitioner argued in court that the right to privacy is an integral part of the right to life and personal liberty guaranteed by Article 21 of the Constitution, as well as a part of the freedoms guaranteed by Part III of the Constitution and that it should be protected by the Indian constitution. It was also proposed to assess the correctness of the decisions in Karak Singh vs. The State of Uttar Pradesh and M. P. Sharma vs. Satish Chandra, alleging that they infringe on Article 21 of the Constitution’s Right to Privacy.

Respondent’s Argument

The defendant argued that the Indian constitution does not specifically protect the right to privacy and that because the right to privacy is not guaranteed under the Constitution, Article 21 of the Indian Constitution (the right to life and personal liberty) did not apply in the cases of M. P. Sharma vs Satish Chandra as well as Karak Singh vs. the State of Uttar Pradesh.

To complement the clear analysis, the court has examined a variety of privacy considerations.

1. State and Non-State Actors Face Privacy Concerns

It was decided that the claim of privacy protection can be made against both state and non-state actors. The threat in the age of technological advancement can come from both state and non-state actors.

2. Protection of personal information (Not an absolute right).

According to the court, informational privacy is a part of the right to privacy. The unauthorized use of such information may consequently constitute a violation of an individual’s right to control his or her data and to regulate his or her online presence.

The Planning Commission of India formed a group of experts to provide thorough reports on data protection as well as informational privacy, which submitted a report on October 16, 2012. The five main points of this paper were supposed to serve as a conceptual foundation for privacy laws.

The expert committee proposed a framework based on five key characteristics:

(i) Technological neutrality and interoperability with international standards;

(ii) Privacy in multiple dimensions;

(iii) Horizontal applicability to state and non-state entities;

(iv) Conformity with privacy principles; also

(v) A co-regulatory enforcement regime.

PDP Bill, 2018

On July 31, 2017, the Union Government formed a committee chaired by Retd. Justice B N Srikrishna, a former Supreme Court of India judge. Also to evaluate data protection rules in the country provide suggestions. The Committee’s report was released, and the first draft of the Personal Data Protection Bill, 2018 replaced the traditional concepts of the data controller. Also it is the entity that processes data, and the data subject, which is the natural person whose data is being collected, with data ‘fiduciary’ and data ‘principal’.

It intended to establish a trusting relationship between the two parties. The Bill substantially adopted data protection concepts from the EUGDPR and EU data protection case law, such as fair and reasonable data processing, purpose limitation, collection limitation, lawful processing, storage limitation, data quality, and accountability. The right to access and correction, the right to data portability, also with the right to be forgotten – a right to prevent or limit a fiduciary’s disclosure of personal data – are among these rights. Most notably, in the draught data protection law, consent was given a high priority. As a result, individual consent must be a major basis for processing personal data.

Judgment

On August 24, 2017, a nine-judge panel of the Supreme Court of India issued a major decision. As well as it preserves the basic right to privacy guaranteed by Article 21 of India’s constitution.

Also “No person shall be deprived of his right to life or personal liberty except according to the procedure prescribed by law,” says Article 21 of the Constitution.

The verdict states that privacy will be an inherent part of Part III of the Indian Constitution, which establishes people’s fundamental rights. The Supreme Court further declared that the state must strike a careful balance between individual privacy and legitimate goals, at all costs. As fundamental rights cannot be granted or taken away by legislation, all laws as well as activities must be consistent with the constitution. The Court also stated that the right to privacy is not absolute. And that any invasion of privacy by a state or non-state actor must pass the triple test, which includes the following:

1. Legitimate Aim

2. The proportionality principle

3. Compliance with the law

The decision of all nine judges holds that:

(i) the decision in M P Sharma vs. Satish Chandra, which holds that the right to privacy is not protected by the Indian Constitution, is overturned; (ii) the decision in Kharak Singh vs. the State of UP, to the extent that it holds that the right to privacy is not protected by the Constitution, is also overturned; and (iii) Under Article 21 of the Indian Constitution, the right to privacy is safeguarded as an integral aspect of the right to life and personal liberty, as well as one of the freedoms guaranteed by Part III of the Constitution.

Conclusion

In the case of Navtej Singh Johar v. Union of India (2018), the verdict paved the path for the legalising of homosexuality in India, as well as the repeal of the provisions of the crime of adultery in the case of Joseph Shine v. Union of India (27 September 2018). The case widens freedom of expression by recognising privacy as a right that may be enforced on its own, rather than as a right that can only be exercised in the context of constitutionally given freedoms. This protects freedom of expression by recognising rights such as the right to be free of arbitrary and unrestricted government monitoring, the right to express one’s sexual orientation, religious expression, and data protection.

Cases cited for Reference:

M P Sharma v. Satish Chandra
Kharak Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh
A K Gopalan v. State of Madras
Rustom Cavasji Cooper v. Union of India
Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India
Gobind v. State of Madhya Pradesh
R Rajagopal v. State of Tamil Nadu
People’s Union for Civil Liberties v. Union of India

For any Query

Mail us at edumoundofficial@gmail.com

Sex work is considered as work by the Supreme Court

News

June 14, 2022
/ Leave a Comment on Sex work is considered as work by the Supreme Court

3 min
2 years
468 words

Tagged Fundamental Right, Right to Dignity, Right to Life, Sex Work, Supreme Court

Sex work is considered as work by the Supreme Court

It was an issue for many years for communities who don’t steal anything but they are not treated well in society. Because of their work they do which they earn their livelihood. But now Supreme Court has given all the Fundamental Rights to an adult sex workers.

Abstract

Laws should be free consenting sex workers from stigma and grant them rights. A long- standing demand of sex workers that their work should be decriminalized has been partially fulfilled by the Supreme Court. The Court passed an order on May 19 that adult sex workers are entitled to dignity as well as equal protection under law.

Directing the police to respect the rights of consenting sex workers. The court observed that “notwithstanding” the profession every individual has a right to a dignified life under Article 21 of the Constitution. It reiterated what the court had ruled in Budhadev Karmaskar(2011) that sex workers are also entitled to a “Life of Dignity”.

Trafficking of Persons (Prevention, Protection and Rehabilitation) Bill

With the Trafficking of Persons (Prevention, Protection and Rehabilitation) Bill yet to see the light of day. The court invoked powers under Article 142 to issue guidelines till the legislation is in force. In 2011, it had set up a panel to look at prevention of trafficking, rehabilitation and conditions conducive of sex workers who wish to continue work.

As everyone has the right to choose their own work for running their livelihood as well as earn their basic necessities. It is their choice to work as sex workers no one has this right to abuse them. If anyone has a problem they don’t interfere in their work because they are not interrupting in your life you also need to do the same.

As the court awaits the government’s response to the panel’s recommendations. That adult sex workers should not be arrested or penalised or harrased or victimised. A three judge bench led by justice L. Nageswara Rao did well to direct the police to treat “all sex workers with dignity”. And should not abuse them, verbally as well as physically. Subject them to violence or coerce them into any sexual activity. The court has asked the government to respond to the panel’s suggestion in six weeks.

By holding that basic protection of human decency and digital extends to sex workers and their children. The court has struck a blow for the rights of an exploited, vulnerable section.

Decision of Court help Sex Workers

The brutal and violent attitude of the police toward sex workers; the court said “it is their choice to do whatever they want”. And now it is legal that an adult sex workers should be given all rights as all other citizens have.

Written By: Ashi Dubey

For any Query

Mail us at edumoundofficial@gmail.com

Who are We?

EduMound is a start-up platform established for young minds aspiring to contribute their skills and knowledge for the growth of the educational fraternity. We are an educational platform that focuses on the co-curricular portfolio development of students.

Stay Connected

Events

SUBSCRIBE TO OUR WEBSITE!