UP Govt.'s Appeal Against Removal Of Banners: Live-Updates From Supreme Court

SG, while elaborating that in the instance case, the action of Police which imposed restrictions on Right to privacy was upheld.

“British call it the action for exposure, we call it action for deterrence” says SG

The bench notes that time is still available for accused persons, and that their petitions challenging recovery proceedings are pending.

The bench asks if such "drastic steps are covered by law?"

The bench asks if the time granted for payment has lapsed. SG Mehta says that they have 30 days time from Feb 13. The apprehension was whether they will dispose of property to avoid payment, SG adds.

SG illustrates the aformention. Says “If I throw a stone, there will be action against me.

The Right of Public Vs. The Right of the individual, that is the question”

SG Mehta now reads a Judgement of the Supreme Court of England to elaborate on the repurcussions of “Public Domain” on Right To Privacy.

SG - “The decision is well within the contours of law Milord. The contours are laid down sufficiently”

SG says that a person wielding guns during protest and involved in violence cannot claim right to privacy.

Lalit J. - Such anxious decisions taken by the Govt.

SG now reads relevant excerpts of Puttaswamy judgement.

Refers to Pg 575

Reads Rajagopalan Vs state of Tamil Nadu.

SG further asserts that the waiver of right to privacy and its tenets are affirmed in Puttaswamy Judgement.

SG reads out relevant excerpt of Puttaswamy judgement.