Petition to Declare Privacy as a Fundamental Right

Privacy isn’t a fresh concept that has to be explained. It dates back to the legal system and requires legislative acknowledgement. This is so closely entwined with a person’s freedom and integrity that it must be recognised as a fundamental right. The petition to declare privacy a fundamental right was crucial. A person’s privacy rights are a natural right that they are born with. The rights of a person to be left undisturbed, as defined by the common law, are known as privacy.

Aadhar and Privacy

The petition to declare privacy as a fundamental right was launched primarily since the Indian government requested biometric information from residents to issue individuals with Aadhar cards. The Aadhaar system makes every individual need to get an Aadhar card, and otherwise, they may face difficulties creating savings accounts, paying taxes, etc. 

The main argument stated that the Aadhar Act doesn’t make registration for Aadhar compulsory. The program is not infringing on anyone’s rights because everyone willingly supplies their fingerprints. The reality that the Indian government gives numerous state benefits to the nation’s underprivileged must be brought to the forefront. The important point to know is the Centre’s stand on Aadhar linkage. 

Whenever a person doesn’t receive an Aadhar number, they will be denied access to certain benefits. This will deny individuals the advantages and establish various unjustified sets of people, violating Article 14 of the Indian Constitution.

Another difficulty with the problem mentioned above is that, despite the implementation of such a program. The administration has not enacted strict rules to protect residents’ personal information. Even though the Information Technology Act has been changed multiple times to improve data protection rules, more strict legislation is still required to incorporate the Aadhar program. The authorities must be legally obligated to declare the cause for data acquisition and assume accountability for its security.

The Judgement and Analysis

The petition to declare privacy as a fundamental right was accepted by the court. The Supreme Court’s decision that confidentiality is a basic human right is valid. This is evident; nevertheless, that privacy is never an inherent right. Surveillance, for example, is critical in preventing crime in society. When a mass community interest necessitates keeping someone under observation, citizens cannot merely state that their privacy is being infringed. 

The main issue is that India’s Supreme Court has yet to acknowledge the notion of waivers, which allows a person to forgo fundamental human rights if the greater public needs it. The rationale is that it will go against the Constitution’s objective, suggesting that basic rights are unalienable. So, since privacy isn’t absolute, how could it be a basic right? As previously said, privacy is not merely a right but a natural and inherent one. It cannot be refused the stature of a basic right since freedom would indeed be useless without rights and confidentiality.

The Petition to Declare Privacy as a Fundamental Right Impacts Surveillance 

An individual is placed under observation such that their movements may be tracked and no future crimes can be committed. This certainly brings up whether human privacy rights are being violated. As previously stated, the problem first arose in Kharak Singh’s instance. Nevertheless, the wider public interest cannot be neglected only to defend one specific individual privacy rights. One cannot ignore the importance of the right to privacy verdict. The following are among the factors to take into account before placing someone under vigilance: 

• The individual’s criminal history. Whether the individual has truly committed offences that need their continued observation.

• The rate with which a person commits an offence, i.e. whether they break the law regularly or not.

• The severity of the criminal offence, i.e., of a very severe character, is required to track the person’s movements for public safety.

There is no comprehensive law in India that governs the government’s surveillance systems. Each day, information is moved to various government agencies, and also the cases of cyber breaches are increasing, creating a danger in the eyes of the community. Surveillance is frequently considered mostly nationally. Nevertheless, it should be observed that since the use of IT has grown, so has the utilisation of mass surveillance.  

Nevertheless, because there is no international treaty on blanket surveillance, nations feel free to conduct this monitoring at their discretion. Personal liberty is eventually violated as a result of this. This viewpoint is based on the International Court of Justice’s Lotus Method, which states that if there is no global statute addressing a particular issue, the sovereign is free to determine and conduct its activities. This perspective has also resulted in cases of widespread spying, which has finally violated privacy.

Conclusion

The importance of the right to privacy verdict is growing more and more as time goes on. Everybody needs protection, with almost everyone’s lives being revealed to the press via social networks or surveillance cameras. That must behave so that nobody ever thinks of invading a person’s privacy rights. We need to recognise that privacy must be respected and kept within reasonable bounds not to be revealed to the entire globe.