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.