The big debate on whether right to privacy is a fundamental right under the Indian Constitution ended on Wednesday with the Supreme Court reserving its verdict on the issue.
The hearing by a nine-judge Bench witnessed persuasive arguments by the Centre led by Attorney General KK Venugopal and a battery of senior lawyers appearing for BJP-ruled States who submitted that privacy need not be given a separate status of a fundamental right.
Venugopal argued that privacy is not a a fundamental right and even if so assumed, it is a qualified right which must be subservient to the higher right of citizens to life. Maharashtra, Gujarat, Haryana, followed suit by claiming that privacy is a facet of liberty and violation of right to privacy will necessarily be traced to infringement of any of the existing fundamental rights. Further, Centre claimed that privacy was vague and amorphous and when a right is not definable, it cannot acquire status of a fundamental right.
Challenging the stand of the Centre and states, senior advocate Kapil Sibal appearing for Opposition-ruled states of West Bengal, Karnataka,Punjab and UT of Puducherry said that in this day and age the need for privacy is all the more essential considering the fact how technological advancement can allow State and non-State actors to pervade into private space of individuals. He was supported by senior advocates Gopal Subramanium, Arvind Datar, Shyam Divan and Anand Grover who urged the Court to lay down privacy to be at the core of the Constitutionally recognized principles of liberty and dignity, and hence a fundamental right.
The Bench of Chief Justice JS Khehar, Justices J Chelameswar, SA Bobde, RK Agarwal, RF Nariman, AM Sapre, DY Chandrachud, SK Kaul and S Abdul Nazeer did ask the petitioners that if privacy essentially was liberty, then why distinguish it as a fundamental right. The Bench understood privacy to fall into three zones -intimate, private, and public, and said that Government control would increase from the first to the last zone.