The BJP-ruled Maharshtra government has argued before the Supreme Court that privacy is not a fundamental right but only a “concept.”
The State contended that the Supreme Court cannot inject privacy into the Constitution as a new fundamental right, and this can only be done through a constitutional amendment.
Senior advocate C.A. Sundaram, for the State, argued that the Constitution makers had considered and rejected the idea of privacy as a fundamental right.
For something to be a fundamental right, it has to be tangible and exact. Privacy has no exactitude, in fact, the concept of privacy varies from person to person. If made a fundamental right, it would open a flood of litigations, Mr. Sundaram argued.
Here, Justice Rohinton Nariman intervened, saying dignity is also not defined in the Constitution.
“Dignity is part of life and liberty,” Mr. Sundaram replied.
“How do you define life then?” Justice S.A. Bobde asked.
Mr. Sundaram said life is the antithesis of death.
“If a man has to die with dignity, he has to have some privacy,” Justice Bobde observed.
Mr. Sundaram said the attempted definition of privacy was the right to be ‘left alone’, but seclusion is the antithesis of society.
Here, Justice D.Y. Chandrachud observed that the “essence of human life is when I want to choose solitude, I can choose it. And if I want to socially co-habit, I can do it.”
Mr. Sundaram argued after Attorney-General K.K. Venugopal, concluded for the Centre, saying personal liberty is composed of a multitude of rights of which privacy is just one.
Mr. Venugopal submitted that privacy depends entirely on a man’s thoughts of what his privacy is and, thus, cannot be elevated to the status of a fundamental right.
