Newspaper Editorial with Vocabulary – 1

In what could be described as a
crucial milestone in the annals of
Indian judicature and broadly hailed by one and all, the Constitution Bench of
the Supreme Court comprising nine judges has unanimously upheld the Right to
Privacy of citizens, a protection the Bench read into Article 21 of the
Constitution, that guarantees a right to life and personal liberty. The
Constitution Bench unanimously in its 54-page judgement that will affect the
lives of all Indians in a multitude of domains, in unequivocal terms overruling earlier judgements, stated that the
right to privacy is inalienable.

However, the judgement opens a
bundle of possibilities and many freedoms could find new life under it. In
spite of the lengthy judgement it could be noted that it did not embark upon an
exhaustive enumeration or a
catalogue of entitlements or interests comprised in the right of privacy.

The judgement does come as
something of a blow to the Centre, which has over the past few months
questioned whether privacy is a fundamental right obviously in an effort to
just protect Aadhaar.  The application of
this judgement to the ongoing Aadhaar challenge is what is at stake to the
government.

The question on Right to Privacy
arose following several petitions challenging the validity of Aadhaar, which
are being heard in another five-judge bench. The Constitution Bench was not
considering the merits and legality of Aadhaar. However, now that the right to
privacy is considered a fundamental right, Aadhaar will have to be tested
against that recognised right through hearings by the five-judge bench.

(adsbygoogle = window.adsbygoogle || []).push({});

Noticeably, the Constitution
Bench did not accept the argument of the attorney general K K Venugopal that
privacy as a right has greater credibility in jurisdictions that are socially,
politically and economically developed societies, which may not be necessarily
applicable to India. The bench rightly pointed out that free consent is the cornerstone of any progressive society.
The Bench also recognised the informational privacy as a facet of right to privacy that would have broader ramifications in the coming days. The
judgement gives a boost to the arguments being made for greater individual
freedoms in issues like marital rape, euthanasia,
abortion and others.

The Bench rightly opined that
privacy also connotes a right to be
left alone. Privacy safeguards individual autonomy and recognises the ability
of the individual to control vital aspects of his or her life. It aptly propounded that personal choices governing a way of life are intrinsic to privacy which protects heterogeneity and recognises the
plurality and diversity of our culture.

As the Bench pointed out, privacy
includes at its core the preservation of personal intimacies, the sanctity of
family life, marriage, procreation, the home and sexual orientation. By citing
sexual orientation, the Bench appears to have opened another debate over the
applications of Section 377 of IPC.

It could be summed up that the
bench has created a precedent that
shall guide the rights of individuals vis-à-vis the State for as long as it is
not overturned by a larger bench or made defunct through a legislative act of
Parliament.