Here is why :
Attorney General , KK Venugopal submitted to the 9 judge bench:
·
“ There is no
fundamental right to privacy , and even if it is assumed as a fundamental right
, it is multifaceted
·
Every facet can’t be ipso facto considered a
fundamental right
·
Informational privacy could not be a right to
privacy, and it could not ever be a fundamental right
( source : DNA / 28 July )
·
The bench drew Sundaram’s
attention to present day reality, when rapid technological advance is making individual
privacy increasingly vulnerable
o “ Do we have a robust data protection regime to
protect and secure personal information ? “ it asked, indicating its
willingness to look at privacy afresh without being burdened by past rulings
o “ If we accept privacy as a constitutional right ,
it will have to be part of personal liberty and right to life guaranteed under
article 21 of the constitution” , it said
( source :
Times of India / 28 July )
·
Senior advocate Sundaram,
representing Maharashtra government told the court that,
o “ Privacy can mean a lot of things . Moreover ,
right to privacy was considered by the constitution makers but they decided to
drop it as a fundamental right “
( source
: Hindustan Times / 28 July )
All of this sounds so much rational !
·
Especially , the recognition that the “ March of Technology “ , will render
futile , all arguments re: “ Right
to Privacy “
·
What could have
brought about this changed perception on the part of Hon Judges ?
·
Artificial intelligence ' Judge ' developed by UCL computer scientists
( source :
·
Artificial intelligence software that can find
patterns in highly complex decisions is being used to predict our taste in
films, TV shows and music with ever-increasing accuracy. And now, after a
breakthrough study by a group of British scientists, it could be used to
predict the outcome of trials.
·
Software that is able
to weigh up legal evidence and moral questions of right and wrong has been devised
by computer scientists at University College London, and used to accurately
predict the result in hundreds of real
life cases.
·
The AI “judge” has reached
the same verdicts as judges at the European court of human
rights in almost four in
five cases involving torture, degrading treatment and privacy.
·
The algorithm examined
English language data sets for 584 cases relating to torture and degrading
treatment, fair trials and privacy.
In each case, the software analysed the information and
made its own judicial decision. In 79% of those assessed, the AI
verdict was the same as the one delivered by the court.
·
Dr Nikolaos Aletras, the lead researcher from UCL’s department
of computer science, said: “We don’t see AI replacing judges or lawyers, but
we think they’d find it useful for rapidly identifying patterns in cases that lead to certain outcomes.
·
“It could also be a
valuable tool for highlighting which cases are most likely to be violations of
the European convention on human rights.” An equal number of “violation” and
“non-violation” cases were chosen for the study.
·
In the course of developing the programme the team found that judgments
of the European court of human rights depends more on non-legal facts than
purely legal arguments.
·
This suggests that the court’s judges
are more legal theory “realists”
than “formalists”.
·
The same is true of other high level
courts, such as the US supreme court, according to previous studies.
·
The most reliable factors for predicting European court of human rights
decisions were found to be the language used as well as the topics and
circumstances mentioned in the case texts.
One of these days ,
expect some Indian Start-up in the LEGAL
DOMAIN to upload all the past Orders /
Judgements of Hon Judges ( of 9 member bench ) into this algorithm
{ They may want to first look up :
Will the outcome read
?
PRIVACY
LEFT : NO
MORE RIGHT
31 July
2017
