Thank you Your Honours ,
Thank you for taking time out
to read my following E mail sent to you [ supremecourt@nic.in ], yesterday morning .
Today’s Hindustan Times [ 20 July ], carries
following report :
“ Right to Privacy
isn’t absolute, observes the Supreme Court “
A rare 9-judge bench of the Supreme Court said the RIGHT TO PRIVACY IS NOT ABSOLUTE, making its first
observations on Wednesday as it began hearing on an issue that could have a
sweeping impact on issues such as the Aadhaar scheme and the law criminalising
homosexuality.
The bench began the process to decide
if privacy can be regarded as a fundamental right guaranteed
to all Indians, a question that arose from the legal challenge to the Aadhaar
programme that activists say impinges on the right to privacy.
“ If privacy is about right to make a choice, then choice in
what areas ? Family, sexual orientation, gender identity,
surveillance, what all? ” , it observed.
In addition to the Section 377 case, the SC’s ruling on privacy
will impact a case against mobile communication application WhatsApp in which petitioners have
opposed its policy to share user data with its parent Facebook.
‘ NEED TO
DEFINE PRIVACY ’
During the hearing the bench felt that right to privacy was too “amorphous” a term and said that to
recognise privacy as a definite right, it had to first define it.
“How do we DEFINE privacy ?
What are its CONTENTS ?
Its CONTOURS ?
How can the State REGULATE privacy ?
What OBLIGATIONS does the State
have to PROTECT a
person’s privacy ? ”
Justice Chandrachud asked the
lawyers representing petitioners in Aadhaar case.
AN ATTEMPT TO DEFINE THE RIGHT TO PRIVACY MAY CAUSE MORE HARM THAN GOOD, the
bench said.
The observations may or may not be a part of the court’s final
ruling.
Justice Chandrachud also posed several questions on data
protection in the age of social media, saying ,
·
SOCIAL MEDIA did not exist when the CONSTITUTION was made.
·
IF PEOPLE HAVE PUT THEMSELVES IN THE PUBLIC REALM USING
TECHNOLOGY, IS THAT NOT A SURRENDER OF THEIR RIGHT TO PRIVACY?,” the
judge said, asking if right to privacy is non-negotiable.
Senior advocate Shyam Divan placed before the bench a statement
made by a minister in March admitting privacy was “probably a fundamental
right” and “part of individual liberty.”
Divan said in the internet age, one should have the right of “ informational self-determination ”. “ I should know how much
I should put forward and not be compelled,” he submitted.
He complained there
was hardly any data protection in this digital age, leading to a compromise in
privacy.
Former solicitor
general Gopal Subramanium said right to liberty and lead a life of dignity
includes the right to privacy.
“The right to liberty means
the right to make personal choices, the right to develop one’s personality,
one’s aura, one’s thinking and actions, the freedom of religion and conscience,
the freedom to believe or not believe,” he told the bench, which will continue
hearing the case on Thursday.
Thank you Your Honours ;
Thank you for making me , a “ party ( in absentia ) to the on-going litigation
“
My humble submission :
·
If those who drafted our Constitution in 1947 , could not have foreseen
the CONTOURS that SOCIAL MEDIA will acquire in 2017 , it was understandable
·
But in 2017 , when 10 year old children are coding Mobile Apps
employing Virtual Reality / Augmented Reality / Artificial Intelligence /
Machine Learning / Neural Networks / Hepatic Interfaces / Holographic
Projections etc , would anyone understand if lawyers / jurists ( of this
Software Super Power , India ), decided to bury their heads in the sand ,
hoping that they will , somehow escape getting buried under the inevitable Sand
Storm of TECHNOLOGY ?
20 July
2017
www.hemenparekh.in / blogs
No comments:
Post a Comment