It has been an eventful week for the judiciary in India, with one landmark ruling after another being delivered in quick succession. On 24 August, a nine-judge Supreme Court bench unanimously ruled that privacy is a fundamental right. The Quint has compiled a list of our best best analyses and opinion pieces on the historic judgment.
Read, learn, share:
1. Analysis: Right to Privacy: Why Did We Need 9 Judges To Debate It?
The Quint’s legal correspondent Vakasha Sachdev explains why a nine-judge Supreme Court bench was needed to debate whether privacy is a fundamental right or not.
“What binds the Supreme Court? The simple answer to that is other decisions of the Supreme Court. A decision by a bench of the Supreme Court can only be overruled by a Supreme Court bench of the same or greater size,” he writes.
The Supreme Court normally sits in benches of 2 or 3, so to avoid being bound by the decision of such a bench, you would need a bench of 3 judges or more. The numbers only go up for cases involving the interpretation of the Constitution. According to Article 145 of the Constitution, the minimum number of judges for such cases is 5 – such benches are called Constitution Benches.
The nine-judge bench, he explain, was required because two of the judgments in which existence of the right to privacy was previously considered were decided (in the negative) by a six-judge bench (Kharak Singh) and an eight-judge bench (MP Sharma).
Read the full piece here.
2. Opinion: Not Just Aadhaar, Privacy Verdict Affects Other Issues Too
In an article for The Quint, Amber Sinha, a lawyer and researcher at the Centre for Internet and Society, writes about how the privacy verdict will have broad reaching repercussions in protecting numerous civil liberties in the time to come.
This ruling will have repercussions not just for the Aadhaar case, but a robust right to privacy can be instrumental in protecting numerous civil liberties in the time to come. The right to privacy, as argued before the court, is a multi-dimensional right which includes right against search and seizure, decisional autonomy, bodily integrity, and information self determination.
“These rights cut across a spectrum of issues, from Section 377 of the Indian Penal Code, to data protection law, to state intrusion, among others,” Sinha argues, adding that the unanimous recognition of the right to privacy will, hopefully, go a long way in countering each of these. You can read the full piece here.
3. Opinion: With Right to Privacy, LGBTQ Community Has Reason to Rejoice
In her piece for The Quint, Indira Jaising writes about how the right to privacy has given the LGBTQ community freedom from everyday harassment, blackmail, violence, and everyday stifling of their desires.
The right to privacy and the protection of sexual orientation lie at the core of the fundamental rights guaranteed by Articles 14, 15 and 21 of the Constitution. Equality demands that the sexual orientation of each individual in society must be protected with equality.
“Distinct and isolated minorities face the grave danger of discrimination. The reason being that their views, beliefs or way of life does not coincide with the mainstream format. Yet, in a democratic Constitution, founded on the rule of law, the rights of minorities are as sacred as those conferred on other citizens to protect their freedom and liberty,” she writes. Read the full piece here.
4. Opinion: Right to Privacy Judgment: The Long and Short of It in 21 Points
Pavan Duggal, a leading expert and authority on cyberlaw, cyber security law and mobile law, breaks down the Right to Privacy ruling for The Quint.
Duggal identifies 21 key lessons from the privacy verdict from the perspective of the common man of India. Read the full piece here.
5. Blog: What Right to Privacy Means to an LGBTQ Beef-Eating Dalit Muslim
In his piece for The Quint, LGBT rights activist Harish Iyer writes what the historic #RightToPrivacy judgement could eventually end up meaning to a beef-eating, Muslim, Dalit, LGBT Indian.
“Your right to make love to a person of your choice is restored. The state cannot peep in. Your right to practise any religion is restored. Of course, Sonu can tweet away to glory and that can make him the “it” story. However, you can practise your religion,” Iyer writes.
“Any discrimination against anyone on the basis of sexual orientation, caste, creed, colour, religion could be deemed illegal. Soon, someone calling you out as gay or a housing society denying you a home because you are Muslim, or colleagues demanding that you be thrown out because you eat beef or have a same-sex partner - could be all illegal,” Iyer writes.
Read the full piece here.
(At The Quint, we are answerable only to our audience. Play an active role in shaping our journalism by becoming a member. Because the truth is worth it.)