The gathering sang, danced and celebrated as people from all walks of life, identifying with different sexual orientations and genders got together at Barakhamba metro station to march till Jantar Mantar.
The Supreme Court seems to have tread a course which marks a definitive, if not an entirely radical, departure from India’s original constitutional project of social transformation through state intervention.
Privacy is a space for art, for creativity in dignity; a space where every aspect of being – physical, intellectual, emotional and sexual – is liberated.
The World Bank’s estimate that Aadhaar has the potential to save $11 billion in subsidies every year has repeatedly been used by the Cente to justify the programme. But does this figure hold up under close scrutiny?
Is the Aadhaar system as a method of unique identification better than what we had before? Will it curb corruption and fraud even if India’s bureaucratic and administrative apparatus doesn’t play ball?
Former attorney general Mukul Rohatgi talks about the recent right to privacy judgment, his objections to it, paranoia surrounding the Aadhaar and more.
“I did not mean that, that privacy is nothing. I only placed the position of the Supreme Court judgements.”
The triple talaq and right to privacy rulings, as well as the Punjab and Haryana high court’s comment after the Panchkula violence, have shown the importance of judiciary in a functioning democracy – to assist, reflect and question.
To evaluate the role data plays, we need to understand if data in its modern avatar is more akin to being pey – a vampire-like evil spirit – or bhutham – a friendly ghost.
The constitution bench’s verdict in the Right to Privacy case encompasses many extraordinary achievements that show that our judiciary can and will correct errors of the past.
A fortnightly column from The Wire’s public editor. The pronouncements of the country’s highest court on issues of vital public interest become what could be termed “news-as-history”, in so far as they contain both the preoccupations and anxieties of the present moment as also the norms and values […]
While Justice Kaul’s opinion identifies a ‘right to be forgotten’, India’s upcoming data protection framework needs to resolve a number of hurdles before we carve out such a right.
The court’s judgment implies that the state will have to be cautious of its activities even before it begins implementing them. Projects or initiatives that involve collection of personal data would have to take into account explicit limitations on how such information can be used.
The last 24 hours have been witness to a fundamental shift in the way our legal regime considers our routine actions. However, the battle has just begun.
The judgment – in the way it defines privacy and dignity of an individual – has far reaching implications on the rights of LGBTQI individuals.
In conversation with Prasanna S., one of the lawyers who assisted senior counsel Shyam Divan in representing a group of petitioners challenging the Aadhaar project.
While the judgement does not strictly defines the right to privacy or catalogues all of its parts, it has attempted to address the broad arguments that are used in justification of and in opposition to privacy.
Digital privacy is a subset of the right to privacy, which can be fully exercised only if a good data protection system is in place.
The judgment makes it clear that in a democracy, the rights of minorities, especially discrete and insular ones, are as sacred as those conferred on citizens to protect their freedoms and liberties.
Justice A.P. Shah said, “There is very little scope now for those wanting to support Section 377…invading the bedroom can’t be considered reasonable restriction [on the fundamental right to privacy].”
The nine-judge bench has now asked the government to come up with a data protection mechanism that balances the rights of individuals and the interests of state.
The arguments advanced by the Modi government’s attorneys general over the last three years have consistently maintained that privacy cannot be viewed as a fundamental right.
Vinod Dua discusses the Supreme Court verdict on the right to privacy and the rape case against Gurmeet Ram Rahim Singh, the head of Dera Sacha Sauda.
The judgment will, however, allow citizens to legally challenge any government action deemed as a violation of privacy.
Does the right to privacy becoming a fundamental right mean the Aadhaar programme is unconstitutional or will be shut down? The Wire explains.
The judgment will need to reinvigorate a conversation on how today’s data protection models need to be reconsidered in light of the changing dynamics of information privacy.
Full text of the judgment by Justice Rohinton Fali Nariman declaring privacy to be a fundamental right.
Full text of the judgment by Justice A.M. Sapre declaring privacy to be a fundamental right.
Full text of the judgment by Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul declaring privacy to be a fundamental right.
Full text of the judgment by Justice J. Chelameswar declaring privacy to be a fundamental right.
Full text of the judgment by Justice S.A. Bobde declaring privacy to be a fundamental right.
Extracts from the judgement that impact Section 377 of the Indian Penal Code which criminalises homosexuality.
Full text of the judgment by Chief Justice J.S. Khehar and Justices R.K. Agrawal, D.Y. Chandrachud and S. Abdul Nazeer declaring privacy to be a fundamental right.
The judgment overrules the 1961 Kharak Singh verdict.
The ruling will be important not just for the immediate Aadhaar case but also numerous other matters to do with state intrusions, decisional autonomy and informational privacy.
Regardless of the Supreme Court’s final verdict, the false dichotomy between privacy and welfare must be expunged.
Each Sunday, we bring you a selection of the past week’s multimedia stories.
The Supreme Court’s upcoming verdict on the right to privacy could have a serious impact on society.
Decision on whether privacy can be considered a fundamental right is likely to come out by end of August.
The judges may still be able to articulate the manner in which limits for a right to privacy may be arrived at, without explicitly specifying them.