English हिन्दी
Connect with us

Latest News

Right To Privacy Is A Fundamental Right: SC Constitution Bench

Published

on

Right To Privacy Is A Fundamental Right: SC Constitution Bench [9:0]

[vc_row][vc_column][vc_column_text]In a unanimous decision, a nine-judge Constitution bench of the Supreme Court of India on Thursday rejected central government’s objections to pronounce that right to privacy is a Fundamental Right and it is protected under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.

The bench overruled the earlier judgments in MP Sharma and Kharak Singh cases which had said right to privacy did not have Constitutional protection.

The question of whether Aadhar can be made compulsory for various services would be decided separately by a five-judge bench which will hear a clutch of petitions challenging the validity of the Act.

The right to privacy ruling came on an array of petitions challenging the Centre’s move to make Aadhaar mandatory for availing the benefits of various social welfare schemes. Petitioners say that enforcing the use of Aadhaar is an infringement of privacy. They also stress that the Aadhaar database was originally presented as a purely voluntary programme that offered to provide every Indian with an identity card.

Senior counsel Prashant Bhushan, who is a party to the case, told reporters: “The judgment doesn’t say anything about the right of citizens to share biometric details for Aadhaar. The nine judges held that right to privacy is a fundamental right. Any law which is made to restrict this fundamental right will have to be examined keeping Article 21 in mind.  For example, if the government tomorrow says that your Aadhaar card will be required for your travel and income tax filings, that in my view these are unreasonable restrictions… it is a setback to the government as they said right to privacy is not a wholly qualified right.”

The judgment on behalf of the Chief Justice Justice Jagdish Singh Khehar, Justice RK Agrawal, Justice S Abdul Nazeer and Dr Justice DY Chandrachud was delivered by Dr Justice DY Chandrachud.  Justice J Chelameswar, Justice SA Bobde, Justice Abhay Manohar Sapre, Justice Rohinton Fali Nariman and Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul delivered separate judgments.

The order said:

“(i) The decision in M P Sharma which holds that the right to privacy is not protected by the Constitution stands over-ruled;

(ii) The decision in Kharak Singh to the extent that it holds that the right to privacy is not protected by the Constitution stands over-ruled;

(iii) The right to privacy is protected as an intrinsic part of the right to life and personal liberty under Article 21 and as a part of the freedoms guaranteed by Part III of the Constitution;

(iv) Decisions subsequent to Kharak Singh which have enunciated the position in (iii) above lay down the correct position in law.”

(Part III of the Constitution lays down the Fundamental Rights of the citizens.)

The court had reserved its verdict on August 3 after marathon day-long hearings spanning six days across three weeks.

A battery of senior lawyers, including Attorney General KK Venugopal, Additional Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, Arvind Datar, Kapil Sibal, Gopal Subramaniam, Shayam Divan, Anand Grover, CA Sundaram and Rakesh Dwivedi, had advanced arguments for and against the inclusion of the right to privacy as a fundamental right.

A number of petitions had questioned the violation of privacy in collection of information under Aadhaar.

Before the nine judge bench was set up, a five-judge constitution bench headed by chief justice JS Khehar earlier said that the larger bench would examine the correctness of the two judgments delivered in the cases of Kharak Singh and MP Sharma in which it was held that right to privacy was not a fundamental right.

PETITIONERS’ STAND

Legal eagles Gopal Subramanium, Soli Sorabjee and Shyam Divan appearing for the petitioners strongly argued for declaration of ‘Right To Privacy’ as a fundamental right.

Subramanium contended that privacy is embedded in all processes of human life and liberty. “All human choices are an exercise of liberty. And they all presuppose privacy,” he argued

Sorabjee argued that privacy is an inalienable right inhering in the very personality of Human beings.” 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 you can deduce it from free speech, which courts have done. The framers said that freedom of the press was implicit in free speech.”

Divan argued, “We have an unbroken line of decisions since 1975 recognising the right to privacy. Privacy includes the right to be left alone, freedom of thought, freedom to dissent, bodily integrity, informational self-determination.”

CENTRE’S STAND

Strongly backing the Aadhaar scheme, the Centre submitted that the right to life of millions of poor in the country through food, shelter and welfare measures was far more important than privacy concerns raised by the elite class.

Controversially, Attorney General KK Venugopal arguing for the Centre also stated that privacy claims required better priority in developed countries “not in a country like India where a vast majority of citizens don’t have access to basic needs”.

He said right to privacy cannot be invoked to scrap the Aadhaar scheme. The government was categorical that after enrolling nearly 100 crore citizens spending an astronomical amount of Rs 6,300 crore there was no going back.

The Aadhar law will now be tested against Thursday’s right to privacy judgment. The judgment also has a bearing on broader civil rights as well as a law criminalising homosexuality. A ban imposed on the consumption of beef in many states and alcohol in some could also come up for review. The question would be decided by a five-judge bench separately.[/vc_column_text][/vc_column][/vc_row]

Entertainment

Kapil Sharma warned by MNS for referring to Mumbai as Bombay on Netflix show

Published

on

Bollywood comedian Kapil Sharma has come under the radar of the Maharashtra Navnirman Sena (MNS) after the use of the term Bombay instead of Mumbai on his Netflix show The Great Indian Kapil Show. MNS spokesperson Ameya Khopkar issued a warning, stating that the usage of the city’s former name could hurt the sentiments of its residents and demanded that the correct name, Mumbai, be used.

The controversy arose during an episode featuring actress Huma Qureshi, her brother Saqib Saleem, and the Shetty sisters. While talking about her bond with Saqib, Qureshi referred to the city as Bombay, explaining that she felt at home with him despite not being originally from the city. This comment drew criticism from the MNS, who have historically been vocal about protecting the identity and pride of Mumbai.

In a post on X, Khopkar stated in Marathi, that even though 30 years have passed since Bombay was officially renamed Mumbai, the term Bombay is still frequently used by celebrity guests on The Kapil Sharma Show, Delhi-based Rajya Sabha MPs, show anchors, and in many Hindi films. He noted that the name change was officially recognized by the Maharashtra government in 1995 and by the Central Government in 1996, preceding similar renamings in other major cities such as Chennai, Bengaluru, and Kolkata.

Khopkar further emphasized the seriousness of the matter during a media interaction in Mumbai. He stated that Sharma had been working in Mumbai for many years and described the city as his land of work. He added that the people of Mumbai admire him and watch his shows, and warned that the city and its residents should not be insulted, cautioning Sharma against repeating the mistake.

He added that if the reference had been made unintentionally, the mistake should be corrected immediately. Khopkar stated that all guests on the show, including celebrities and the host, should be informed in advance to refer to the city as Mumbai. He warned that if this is not followed, the MNS would launch a strong agitation.

The Great Indian Kapil Show has recently been renewed for a third season. Its first two seasons, comprising 13 episodes each, premiered in 2024, featuring a mix of Bollywood celebrities and entertainers. The controversy marks one of the few instances where the city’s political groups have publicly intervened over the naming of Mumbai on popular entertainment platforms.

Continue Reading

Latest News

Indian-origin motel manager beheaded in the US

Published

on

In a horrifying incident in Dallas, Texas, an Indian-origin motel manager, Chandra Nagamallaiah, was brutally beheaded by a guest following an argument over a malfunctioning washing machine. The gruesome attack was carried out by 37-year-old Yordanis Cobos-Martinez in front of Nagamallaiah’s wife and children, leaving the family traumatized.

According to court records and affidavits, the confrontation began when Nagamallaiah reportedly told Cobos-Martinez not to use a broken washing machine at the Downtown Suites motel. The suspect became enraged, partly because the manager relied on a woman present for translation instead of speaking directly to him. Surveillance footage later revealed Cobos-Martinez producing a machete and repeatedly stabbing and cutting Nagamallaiah, despite the efforts of his wife and child to intervene.

The affidavit details that the victim tried to flee to the motel’s front office while screaming for help, but the attacker followed him and continued the assault. Cobos-Martinez removed Nagamallaiah’s key card and cellphone before ultimately beheading him. Disturbing footage reportedly shows the suspect kicking the severed head across the ground before throwing it into a trash bin.

Cobos-Martinez, a Cuban national with a long criminal history, including convictions for grand theft, carjacking, false imprisonment, and sexual offenses, was arrested shortly after the attack. Authorities found him a block away wearing a blood-soaked T-shirt, along with the victim’s key card and cellphone. U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) officials noted that Cobos-Martinez should not have been in the country at the time, as previous attempts to deport him to Cuba were unsuccessful due to his criminal record.

The Department of Homeland Security described the beheading as unthinkable and stated that the case highlights the critical need for strict immigration enforcement. A witness to the attack told NBC DFW that they could not explain what they saw, describing the suspect as appearing there and not there at the same time, emphasizing the surreal and terrifying nature of the crime.

This shocking incident has left the Dallas community and Nagamallaiah’s family in deep distress, as authorities continue their investigation into the motive and circumstances surrounding the brutal murder.

Continue Reading

India News

AAP MP Sanjay Singh accuses J&K authorities of house arrest, Farooq Abdullah condemns move

Published

on

Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) MP Sanjay Singh on Thursday accused Jammu and Kashmir Lieutenant Governor Manoj Sinha of placing him under house arrest while he was in Srinagar to protest the detention of the party’s sole J&K MLA, Mehraj Malik.

Singh climbed the gate of a government guest house in Srinagar to meet National Conference (NC) chief Farooq Abdullah and later shared visuals of the interaction on social media. He said it was a very sad thing that Abdullah, who has served multiple terms as Chief Minister of Jammu and Kashmir, came to meet him at the guest house after learning about his alleged house arrest but was not allowed to do so. Singh further questioned the authorities’ actions, asking whether if this is not dictatorship, then what it is.

Malik, the MLA from Doda Assembly seat, has been detained under the Public Safety Act (PSA) on charges of disturbing public order. This marks the first instance of a sitting lawmaker being booked under the PSA, which allows authorities to detain individuals without charge or trial for up to two years. Singh alleged that Mr. Malik’s detention was retaliation for raising people’s issues in his constituency.

Abdullah also condemned the attempts to stop Singh from holding his protest. In a statement to news agency ANI, he said that preventing Singh from exercising his right to protest was absolutely wrong and accused the Lieutenant Governor Sinha of misusing his powers. He stressed that the right to protest is guaranteed by the Constitution of India, noting that Jammu and Kashmir being a union territory gives the LG significant authority, which, according to him, was being used for the wrong purposes. Abdullah questioned whether it was necessary to prevent Singh from speaking and asserted that this is not an autocracy, there is a constitution here.

Abdullah drew parallels with the recent unrest in Nepal, where protests led to the resignation of Prime Minister KP Sharma Oli, and cautioned that India must safeguard its Constitution to prevent similar circumstances. He urged the LG to uphold constitutional principles, warning that failure to do so could risk unrest, and emphasized the need to take care of the Constitution before such a fire breaks out in the country.

Other opposition leaders, including AAP chief Arvind Kejriwal and Shiv Sena (UBT) leader Sanjay Raut, also expressed concern over the move, condemning what they described as an infringement on democratic rights.

Continue Reading

Trending

© Copyright 2022 APNLIVE.com