My Newsfeed

To read part 1 of the Supreme Court debate, click here. The Supreme Court is debating whether Indians have a fundamental right to privacy. The impact of the privacy ruling would be wide-ranging. If the bench rules that Indians have no fundamental right to privacy, it could authorize a variety of government actions against the privacy of homes, vehicles, individual frisking, phone data collection, and more.

4:00 pm

Meenakshi Arora concludes with an argument for personal choice - in the sharing of information and data. The day's hearing ends - the Government is set to reply to arguments tomorrow. 

3:50 pm

Notes legal acknowledgement of privacy has a long history - a 1763 colonial India judgement recognized the privacy of personal belongings. 

3:30 pm

MA points out that the word 'dignity' even occurs in the majority judgement in that particular case.

Meenakshi Arora, the last counsel for the petitioners, begins her arguments. She argues that the Kharak Singh case has been used to make a case both for and against privacy - there are "internal inconsistencies" in the argument, as Justice Nariman puts it. 

3:15 pm

Define right to privacy, Povaya asks the Bench, "as one of the pillars of the Constitution". Povaya concludes, lamenting that in 2017 we are questioning a right the country has held since the Constitution was written. 

3:10 pm

Povaya believes that defining the contours (limits?) of privacy is needlessly restrictive for the citizen, and that governments will find ways to get around those. He says a basic declaration is enough, with contours decided on a case by case basis. 

3:05 pm

Povaya says that declaring privacy a fundamental right helps ensure accountability between the various branches of government, so that there are no aggregate violations of privacy as they share data among themselves.

He adds that we cannot define the right to privacy with too much specificity, since technology overtakes many restrictions over time. 

3:00 pm

The darkweb discussion is relevant for law enforcement. Non-profit Tor, which manages the dark web and encrypts IP addresses, server addresses and prevents outside parties from snooping on conversations, has drawn the attention of government authorities everywhere. in 2014 a massive law enforcement crackdown had taken several darkweb sites suspected of criminal activity offline. 

2:50 pm

The digital era and privacy debate have led to a wide-ranging discussion in court, covering the dark web, bitcoin, Russian intrusion into the US election, and hacking. Justice Bobde clarifies: this discussion may not have immediate relevance, but could impact future cases. 

2:30 pm

Justice Chandrachud follows up with an unusual question: What if citizens are unconcerned about data collection? Povaya responds by saying that surrendering information, and showing willingness to do it, does not remove the right to privacy. Povaya reads from US Justice Sotamayor's opinion on privacy in the digital age. "Secrecy is not the basis of privacy. Dignity is."

2:20 pm

Justice Chadrachud interprets Povaya's argument: So you're saying the collection most be for a purpose specified by law, and its use must be limited to that.

2:15 pm

Povaya discusses the importance of privacy to freedom of movement, and the role of a privacy right in multiple scenarios. "I may not want the State to know I visit a gay bar."

He adds: If my lords were to hold that there is no fundamental right to privacy, the State would deal with data differently.

12:45 pm

Sanjay Povaya has now taken over from Grover. Says that this is the first time privacy is being considered as a right in the digital age, by this Court. The ramifications of the absence of privacy are more severe in the digital age, such as surveillance.

12:35 pm

The Bench and Grover discuss in some detail a transgender case Grover handled, and related arguments about the indvidual's privacy. 

12:30 pm

Chief Justice pointing out that liberty conception under Part 3 is not as wide as the Bar points out. Grover re-reads arguments he read earlier on the privacy-dignity link

12: 25 pm

Chief Justice suggests there are three tiers, liberty, dignity and privacy. Grover responds saying article 21 rights are inherent. Privacy is inseparable from liberty and dignity. 

12: 15 pm

Justice Chandrachud asks whether you can refuse to give personal data to passport authorities citing a privacy law. Grover responds saying no, since that data is protected by confidentiality agreements.

Justice Chandrachud then asks: Suppose govt has an electronic database with a profile of every person who has been convicted of a crime. Is that allowed? Grover responds saying that question cannot be settled today. 

12:00 pm

 Anand Grover has begun arguing before the Supreme Court in the right to privacy case.

Grover: There is a detailed international framework for the protection of individual privacy rights. Says human dignity is at the foundation of Article 21. Says "privacy-dignity claims" have to be treated with special care. 

The minutes above have been compiled from the tweets and reports of the lawyers Gautam Bhatia and Prasanna S, who were present at the hearing. 

The Supreme Court hearing on the right to privacy began today. The bench recessed and will continue tomorrow, but the Justices in conversation with the petitioner lawyers seemed to consider the need for an assertion of privacy. Whether it will take the shape of a fundamental right however, remains an open question as they will continue to listen to arguments tomorrow. 

The impact of the privacy ruling would be wide-ranging. If the bench rules that Indians have no fundamental right to privacy, it could authorize a variety of government actions against the privacy of homes, vehicles, individual frisking, phone data collection, and more.

3:40 pm

Justice Chandrachud notes that complete autonomy and privacy not possible - for example in deciding whether to send a child to school. Says that privacy may be a "small component" of liberty. 

3:20 pm

Asks Justices to "lift the cloud" over the various past judgements by asserting a clear right to privacy. Asserting it as a fundamental right would guarantee Indian citizens real protections.

3:00 pm

Advocate Datar says it will be paradoxical to insist that the Constitution guarantees 40 other rights but not privacy. 

2:45 pm

Justices discussing 4th amendment cases in the US, that asserted privacy protections.

2:30 pm

Divan adds that power of other citizen rights would be denuded, without an asserted right to privacy. 

2:20 pm

Justices question Divan on his request that the right to privacy be asserted in Part III of the Constitution, as a fundamental right. Divan says its necessary to limit State control and violation of this right. 

2:15 pm

Supreme Court Justice Dhananjaya Chandrachud notes that in the age of big data, "the State must regulate its aspects." That all parts of customer information cannot be considered protected. 

Divan agrees but says that the right to privacy is not absolute, but an assertion of the basic right needs to be laid down by the Court. 

2 pm

Divan: Two generations of Indians have grown up accepting that privacy is a fundamental right. We cannot set the clock back now.

1 pm

The bench breaks for lunch. To be continued from 2 pm. 

12:50 pm

Divan distinguishes the fundamental right to privacy from the rulings on search and seizure by police, on suspicion of criminal activity. It's a tightrope walk here. Narco analysis was outlawed in a case on grounds of mental privacy. 

12:45 pm

Divan notes that Article 21, which guarantees life and personal liberty, is the cornerstone that makes the Constitution a living document. 

12:40 pm

Divan: "There are fourteen such judgments, in an unbroken line, that have held that privacy, or an aspect of it, is a fundamental right." He argues that these mark fundamental righs as evolving, and embracing privacy. 

12:37 pm

Divan cites Gobind vs State of Madhya Pradesh, the first Indian case that recognized a fundamental right to privacy in 1975. Mentions additional such cases from 1994, 1997 and 1998. 

Articles 14, 19 and 21, form a golden triangle that guarantees the right to privacy. This right, Divan argues, "is also part of India's international obligations."

12:35 pm

In a nod to liberal thought in the developed world, which says laws need to adapt to changing societies, Divan calls the Constitution a "living document".

12:32 pm

You cannot compel an individual to give up their personal information, Shyam Divan says. "Compelled speech" violated the right to privacy. 

12:30 pm

Privacy includes the right to be left alone, freedom of thought, freedom to dissent, bodily integrity, informational self-determination (referring to the compulsory collection of Aadhaar)

12:25 pm

Advocate Shyam Divan makes continuing arguments. "We have an unbroken line of decisions since 1975 recognizing the right to privacy."

12:15 pm

Soli Sorabjee continues for the petitioners. Says, the fact that no express right to privacy is mentioned in the Constitution does not mean that it doesn't exist.

 Article 19(1)(a) does not guarantee a freedom of the press. But it can be deduced from free speech, which courts have done.

12:10 pm

Subramaniam is now reading passages from various judgements to strengthen his argument of Justices, at various times, defending privacy rights for citizens.

12:00 pm

"Article 21 makes the dignity of a citizen enforceable against the State. This means all shades of dignity, including privacy", says Gopal Subramaniam, "Every democratic country sanctifies domestic life... nothing is more deleterious (to this) than a calculated interference with privacy."

11:30 pm

Lawyer Gopal Subramaniam, representing the petitioners, has begun arguments before the Supreme Court, saying that,  "Privacy is the essence of liberty".  Privacy is not...a right in the shade of other rights. Gopal Subramaniam argues that freedom of thought, guaranteed by the Constitution, is not possible without the right to privacy. 

"Recognize what is already there (in the Constitution)" Gopal Subramaniam says in his argument. 

The minutes above have been compiled from the tweets and reports of the lawyers Gautam Bhatia and Prasanna S, who were present at the hearing.