The ability of an individual to make choices lies at the core of the human personality”. The government must also expedite its efforts to bring in a robust data protection regime.Beyond legalese, the court has addressed many larger and fundamental philosophical questions. The concept is founded on the autonomy of an individual. To quote Justice Chandrachud: “In a social welfare State, the government embarks upon programmes wholesale Flame-retardant nonwoven fabric which provide benefits to impoverished and marginalised sections of society. On the question of sexual orientation, the court was particularly blunt: “That a miniscule fraction of the country’s population constitutes lesbians, gays, bisexuals or transgenders is not a sustainable basis to deny the right to privacy”.
Quite clearly, under the awning of pronouncing on the right to privacy, the jurisprudential majesty of the Supreme Court has specifically included a great many other issues that will greatly strengthen the fabric of our democracy.On the right to be left alone, Justice Sanjay K. The conditions necessary for realising or fulfilling socio-economic rights do not postulate the subversion of political freedom”. Echoing the plaintive but powerful plea of the Polish poet, Justice Chandrachud pronounced: “Privacy postulates the reservation of a private space for the individual, described in the right to be let alone. On matters like the beef ban, Justice Chelameshwar said: “I don’t think anybody would like to be told by the State what they should eat or how they should dress…” On abortion, the court was of the view that “a woman’s freedom of choice whether to bear a child or abort her pregnancy fall in the realm of privacy”.
On the other hand, if the information that I voluntarily and in my own interest part with, is misused for mala fide purposes by State authorities, such as for illegal surveillance, I would have strong objections. Kaul made the far-reaching comment that “an individual who is no longer desirous of his personal data to be processed or stored should be able to remove it from the system, where it is no longer necessary, relevant, or is incorrect”. The Supreme Court has, therefore, said that digital platforms that work towards this end are valid.Similarly, if I am the legitimate beneficiary of certain monetary welfare measures of the government, I will not be averse to cooperating in a system, such as the biometric based Aadhaar, to ensure that such benefits reach me, and are not diverted to someone else, as used to happen rampantly in the past.Thanks to this landmark Supreme Court judgment, we are now in a position to distinguish between the two, and fight for our rights to do so.
留言列表
