Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

"The right to privacy in any event will necessarily have to go through a process of case-by-case development. Therefore, even assuming that the right to personal liberty, the right to move freely throughout the territory of India and the freedom of speech create an independent right of privacy as an emanation from them which one can characterise as a fundamental right, we do not think that the right is absolute."

29. While upholding the impugned provisions, the Supreme Court observed:

"Depending on the character and antecedents of the person subjected to surveillance as also the objects and limitation under which surveillance is made, it cannot be said surveillance by domiciliary vists would, always be unreasonable restriction upon the right of privacy. Assuming that fundamental rights explicitly guaranteed to a citizen have penumbral zones and that the right to privacy is itself a fundamental right, that fundamental right must be subject to restriction on the basis of compelling public interest. As regulation 856 has the force of law it cannot be said that the fundamental right of the petitioner under Article 21 has been violated by the provisions contained in it: for, what is guaranteed under that Article is that no person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty except by the procedure established by 'law'. We think that the procedure is reasonable having regard to the provisions of Regulations 853(c) and 857. Even if we hold that Article 19 (1) guarantees to a citizen a right to privacy in his movement as an emanation from that Article and is itself a fundamental right, the question will arise whether regulation 856 is a law imposing reasonable restriction in public interest of the freedom of movement falling within Article 19(5); or, even if it be assumed that Article 19(5) does not apply in terms as the right to privacy of movement cannot be absolute a law imposing reasonable restriction upon it for compelling interest of State must be upheld as valid."

38. Right to privacy is not expressly guaranteed. However, the Supreme Court in Kharak Singh's case (supra) held that right to privacy is a guaranteed right under the Constitution of India. In Rajagopal v. State of Tamil Nadu, and in P.U.C.L. v. Union of India, the Supreme Court reiterated the law that right to privacy is part of the right to 'life' and 'personal liberty' enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution. In these decisions, the Supreme Court placed reliance on the International Treaties to which India is signatory and came to a conclusion that Article 21 read with relevant Article in the International Treaty/Covenant would lead to a conclusion that right to privacy is part of Article 21.

43. The Hon'ble Supreme Court from Kharak Singh's case (supra) to Telephone Tapping case (supra) recognised right to privacy as a penumbral right to life and liberty guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. In Govind's case (supra) it is held that when breach of right to privacy is alleged the same has to be examined with care. The right can be denied only when important countervailing interest is shown to be superior. Even in Telephone Tapping case (20 supra) the Supreme Court held that whether the right to privacy has been infringed in a given case would depend on the facts of the said case. What is the context (sic. concept) of right to privacy? It is useful to extract the following passage from the Judgment of Rajagopal's case (supra):

57. As already noticed, while interpreting Article 21 as including the right to privacy the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Telephone Tapping case (supra) relied on Article 17 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and Article 12 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, 1948. Article 17 of ICCPR says that no one shall be subjected to arbitrary or unlawful interference with his privacy and family etc., and Article 12 of the Universal Declaration says that no one shall be subjected to arbitrary interference with personal privacy, family and home and everyone has right to protection of law against such interference. Therefore, either the first part of the definition or Human Rights or the second part thereof leaves no doubt that right to privacy under Article 21 of the Constitution is a human right. It may also be mentioned that right to privacy is an enforceable right and therefore being a part of International Covenant, the right to privacy is a Human right.