AG: Even if there is an unintended consequence, it is not intended. The unintended consequence cannot be reason to strike down the law.
CJI: We have a framework today. We're not creating a framework. We're testing the validity of the framework.
AG: The framework available today is in the context of the scheme.
CJI: If the court were to lay down a legislative remedy, that impinges on separation of powers. Finding a right in the Constitution we can. We said that the right to education was a right even before it became a part of the Part III.
CJI: Declaring an aspect as a part of a declared right does not impinge on separation of powers. For instance, we have said that sexual orientation is implicit in Art 15. That doesn't impinge on separation of powers.
AG: That will probably stand on a broader conspectus...this may stand on a different footing. This statement of law may not be in direct conflict with Puttaswamy.
AG: "We cannot accept a theory that a peripheral right which facilitates the exercise of a named fundamental right or gives it substance is itself a guaranteed right included with the named fundamental right."
CJI: This logic has undergone a change after Puttaswamy. Puttaswamy is 9 judges. There is no right to privacy expressly recognised under Constitution but we read it in Right to life, dignity, preambular values etc.
AG: An isolated understanding of each legislation is fundamentally wrong. The one common thread in all is confidentiality. The scheme doesn't violate any existing right of any person.
AG: We are moving from an unregulated system to a regulated system. One cannot say that I will look at each statute in isolation and call them into question.
AG: I'm sure no court will say that I will postulate a right but not any restrictions.
AG: The scheme is regulatory - which is in the broader concept of regulations under Art 19(2).