Right to Privacy: Summary of Arguments Made by the Petitioners on Day 2 of the Hearings

Day 2: 

The bench comprised of 9 judges sitting from left to right in the following order

• Sanjay Kishan Kaul J.
• A.M. Sapre J.
• R.K. Agarwal J.
• Jasti Chelameshwar J.
• J.S. Kehar J.
• S.A. Bobde J.
• R.F. Nariman J.
• Dhananjay Chandrachud J.
• Navin Sinha J.

10:30 AM: Arguments were continued by Sr. Advocate Mr.Arvind Datar from where he let off the previous day

• The three types of privacy that an individual can command are as follows
• Physical privacy: Protection against tangible and intangible invasion of private space.
• Informational privacy: An individual's control over the dissemination of his private information.
• Decisional privacy: Protection of an individual's autonomy over fundamental personal choices.
• Interrupted by Dhananjay Chandrachud J. (DyC) with the following question 

DyC: For us to claim the protection from invasion of privacy from the state is one thing. But for a horizontal right like Right to Privacy can the same be enforced against private entities?

Datar: The remedy in that case is of damages.

DyC: But, the state has equal obligation for protection even against violations by a private player. Say for example its role might by to frame appropriate rules and regulations to prevent such violations from happening.

Datar: Yes! I completely agree. The state is obligated to play its role.

DyC: But the obligation and the entailing burden on the state may not be equal in all such horizontal rights.

11:00 AM: Mr.Datar rested his arguments and the stage was taken by Sr.Adv. Mr.Anand Grover

• Maneka Gandhi has overrules Kharak Singh, so there is no need to get into that discussion.
• The UOI has made a primary argument that the Right to Privacy is not present within the constitution in any form. If at all it is granted as a common law right. I say that English Common Law does not recognise the right. It is imported by the American Jurisprudence.
• It is baffling that we are still debating upon the very existence of a right as essential as this after the passage of such a long time.
• Such form of human rights is a part of the obligation that India has under the international instruments that it has signed. (Cites Article 17 of International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights).
• Sr. Adv. Mr.Gopal Subramanium (GS) interrupts: The recent Manipur judgement (Extra Judl. Exec. Victims Families Association & Anr. Vs. Union of India & Ors. W.P. Crl. No.129/2012) delivered by M.B. Lokur J. discusses this.
• It is the obligation of the state to implement and comply with such international instruments if it is not against any of the domestic law. It is in pursuance of such obligation that several acts like Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993 were enacted. In fact, Section 12 (f) of the Act obligates the National Human Rights Commission to study treaties and other international instruments on human rights to make suitable recommendations for their effective implementation. Interrupted by Rohinton F. Nariman J. (RFN)

RFN: The court can issue a mandamus to the government to enforce the commitments of the nation under such international instruments.

GS: Yes! It has happened in the past.

• If there is no domestic law and there is international law then the international law will prevail. This has been enunciated in the Vishaka Judgement by the Supreme Court itself.

RFN: Then we can say that the 8 judge bench in the M.P.Sharma case is outrightly wrong since it was delivered in the face of international instruments such as Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR).

Grover: Also it does not have the ratio decidendi. Privacy was never an issue before that bench.

• Dignity is always associated with privacy. Interrupted by DyC: "Then the NALSA judgement would become vulnerable". (Mr.Grover enters into an animated discussion about the NALSA judgement by tracing out the dignity and privacy aspects of the issues involved in that case).
• The present bench should not precisely define the Right to Privacy in its totality. It may trace its contours to provide a general idea and leave the rest to be decided on case to case basis. 
• Cites Govind Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh 1975 SCR (3) 946. DyC: This judgement by Mathews J. is a rather narrow conception of privacy. The issue was not entertained in its full context. Only now the issue is entertained in full fledged manner.
• Tests that can be used differs from the Article under which the issue of privacy arises. It can either arise in Art.19 or 21. So the issue must be adjudicated and tested in the appropriate context. Several of such tests can be 
• Compelling state interest test.
• Proportionality test.
• Least Restrictive test.
• Legitimacy test.
• Privacy would also entail the right to identity and right to remain anonymous. DyC cites several practical examples where the issues of privacy and state necessity are encountered.

In applying for a passport for an adopted child can the authority compel to disclose the details of biological parents. Also in case of a single mother can there be any compulsion to disclose the identity of the father? To what extent such rights can be claimed, if at all there is any?

Suppose the government maintains a register about all people who has committed a crime. The violation of the Right to Privacy is not merely of the maintaining the register. There will be one if such an information is used to profile individuals and their propensity to commit crime. 

Ultimately, the important issue is that the identity should not be used to stigmatise the person. (Cites NALSA judgement.)

• Cites Right to Privacy and bodily integrity of a mentally unstable woman and a victim of rape to give birth to a child. (Suchita Srivastava Vs. Chandigarh Administration)
• There is a right to privacy. But it should not be defined now. It should be on case to case basis. It should be indicative (Sr. Adv. GS whispering in Grover's ears: Let us not go into the merits of Aadhaar case now. Grover nods in agreement).
• The Right to Privacy is all pervading, the test for which will depend on the right in which it manifests itself.

1:50 PM: Arguments rested by Mr.Anand Grover and the stage has been taken by Sr. Adv. Sajjan Poovayya (SjP).

• Cites United States Vs. Jones (2012). DyC: Please tell us about consent, informed consent and its entailing effects.

DyC: If any surveillance is a transgression of Right to Privacy, then what about the legitimate requirements of the state such as a person being put under surveillance under alleges terrorist activities?

SjP: Then it must be done under the procedure established by law.

Chelameshwar: What is the objection on mere collection of data?

SjP: Given the advancement in technology the collection of data and its processing happens near simultaneously due to artificial intelligence. The possibilities of abuse is large. Moreover, in case of a private player I consent for such a collection on a case to case basis on a private contract to avail its services. That is not the case with the state.

• Secrecy is not a prerequisite for protection under Right to Privacy. Even the information in public domain is entitled to such a protection.
• The state is not merely obligated to protect the physical being of its citizens, in modern times it is to protect their digital identity as well.
• Cites the various instances where the legislature has already acknowledged the existence of Right to Privacy.
• Section 5(2) of Telegraph Act.
• Section 8 (j) of RTI Act.

RFN: What happened to the privacy bill?

3:30 PM: Arguments rested by Mr.Poovayya. The stage was taken by Ms.Meenakshi Arora

• Cites Wolf Vs. Colorado.
• Rights there were already there before the Constitution came into being were inhered into the Constitution. Just because it is not stated there does not mean that it does not exist. A similar argument was taken by H.R. Khanna J. in A.D.M.Jabalpur case (Habaeus Corpus Case).
• Cites Row Vs. Wade.

04:00 PM: Adjourned. Hearing of Respondents arguments to continue on Tuesday.