This Morning, the Supreme Court ruled that Privacy is a Fundamental Right, gently correcting the Government that argued it was not.
(source : Times of India, May 3rd 2017)
The thought of the top most Legal Officer of the Government of India standing up in the Supreme Court and arguing that we, the free citizens of India, do not have the absolute right over over our bodies, is indicative of the sheer missionary zeal when it comes to the implementation of Aadhar. The Modi Government, has been imposing Aadhar for everything, the poorest and most vulnerable, by withholding of Government services – paid for by you and I – if the recipient of welfare did not have an Aadhar Number. There were stories about students being deprived the mid-day meal because of aadhaar; the Right to Food campaign had said t hat aadhar was disrupting food security (and not in a positive way) ; and more, and more, and more.
While the Government has a valid point – that delivering benefits to such a large chunk of the population without targeting the individual recipient is not just impossible, but even if it were possible, it would not be efficient – it was the way in which goalposts kept getting changed. From challenging the security of Aadhar, when in opposition to selling it as the Holy Grail in power, the Government of India has been relentless in the imposition, not just for targeting benefits, but everything else. You needed to link your Aadhar to your bank account, your mobile number, contracts are registered with Aadhar; your PAN Number needed to be linked; and more. And, while this was in progress, all questions of privacy, security, whether the biometric system could be hacked were brushed aside as minor inconveniences in the road leading to a technology enabled glorious future.
This creeping absolutism of a biometric linked card, for all services, was challenged. Shyam Divan, advocate representing one of the petitioners said
“The Aadhaar Act itself envisages free consent. The state cannot ask for my physical body unless a) with the citizen’s consent b) in limited circumstances where the state has a vested interest,”
Aslo, the emphasis on the rights of the individual being supreme in a Democratic Republic
We gave birth to the State. We are sovereign. Will we be put on an electronic leash for our entire lifetimes? If from birth onwards, the State knows everything about you, will the relationship between State and individual remain the same?”
He also argued that
The State cannot hold an individual citizen hostage, by compelling them to part with something that does not belong to the State….
This morning the Supreme Court ruled 9-0, that Privacy is, indeed a fundmaental right
#SupremeCourt declares #RightToPrivacy as fundamental right under the Constitution
— Press Trust of India (@PTI_News) August 24, 2017
They said that the Right to Privacy is “intrinsic to life and liberty” , enshrined in the Constitution, and protected by it.
It is not just us, but generations to come who will be eternally grateful to the petitioners, advocates, activists, journalists and ordinary citizens who fought the government, and got this landmark verdict, and to the judges in the Supreme Court. You have the absolute right over your body, and your life – and that is a good starting point for freedoms.
The right to privacy is the right to be who you want to be, without being compelled to doing anything, or thinking anything you don’t want to. The right to be free. The right to be.
(like every other fundamental right, this one too is subject to reasonable restrictions. 🙂 therefore, conditions apply )