Right To Privacy Not a Fundamental Right, It Need To be Governed And Protected Statutorily: Aryama Sundaram

Holding that basic structure of constitution was democracy and balance of power, Senior counsel Aryama Sundaram, arguing for Maharashtra, reiterated before Supreme Court today that only Parliament was empowered to include right to privacy as a fundamental right and it was not the job of the Supreme Court.

"A constitutional amendment is required for it and only Parliament can do it. It cannot be done through an interpretation" Sundaram told the nine-judge constitution bench headed by Chief Justice J S Khehar.

The issue arose when Justice Rohinton Nariman said UN Declaration of Human Rights 1948 to which India was a signatory had expressly recognised privacy as an inalienable right and this constitutional bench just had to read it in.

 Sundaram then replied "yes it can be read in if there is scope for interpretation. I say there is no room for interpretation but only a constitutional amendment"

OTHER IMPORTANT POINTS BY SUNDARAM

1.   Your Lordships talk about how we have to change according to times but when the framers of the constitution had rejected something the intent was clear.


2.   Constituent Assembly discussed Right to privacy and came to a conclusion it's part of Article 19 and 21.


3.   Privacy largely is my right not to be intruded into my person, my private space, these are right to liberty. All these are already protected.


4.  Right to privacy need to be governed and protected statutorily and it cannot be a fundamental right.


5.   People's representatives the real authority to decide if right to privacy a fundamental right


6.  Question of including freedom of press was discussed by framers but then they decided it was part of freedom of expression. No need of individual status. Likewise right to privacy also does not need an elevation.


7.   Privacy not an absolute right. Any facet of privacy cannot be protected as a fundamental right.

Sundaram had on Thursday, the last day of hearing told the nine-Judge Constitution Bench that it is fallacious to suggest that certain manifestations of privacy can be part of Fundamental Rights, and some other manifestations of privacy can’t be.

“Either privacy is a Fundamental Right, or it is not.  The genus of the species can’t be a Fundamental Right”, he had told the bench categorically.

This had contradicted what the Attorney General, K.K.Venugopal, told the bench on Wednesday.  According to the AG, certain species of privacy can be elevated to the protection of fundamental rights

 Continuing to justify seeking of biometric details for aadhaar scheme,Venugopal representing the Centre had said several personal details are sought for passport,  during census, for voter ID but no such right to privacy issues were or are raised.

“Look at how for census and passport and voter registration, the  kind of data taken and put in public domain, the requirement in this regard is also similar and it cannot be objected. The privacy concerns raised are misplaced”, the AG told the nine judge bench headed by chief justice J S Khehar deciding if right to privacy needs to be elevated as a fundamental rights.

Touching on the issue, Venugopal’s written submission had also said: “It is also  submitted that the right to privacy can never be claimed, if practically each and every one of the aspects sought to be protected is already in the public domain and the information in question has already been parted with by the citizens. For instance a reading of the census form, issued under the census act, 1948 would show that the information in much greater detail is routinely sought as part of the census exercise. Similarly before contesting elections candidates have to disclose pendency of criminal cases, details of assets and loans and educational qualifications”, it had said.