If private bodies can have data, why not State: SC
A court of the Supreme Court of nine judges heard the second day of arguments Thursday to determine whether the right to privacy is a fundamental right in the Constitution, has been investigated why citizens were sick in the exchange of personal information comfortable with The state when they had no problem with private agents.
“When someone uses an iPhone or iPad with a fingerprint logon, personal data are already in the public domain … Is there something qualitatively different when the state did the same (looking for personal information)” Justice DY Chandrachud , One of the judges in the bank headed by the chairman of the Supreme Court of India JS Khehar, asked the chief advisor Sajan Poovayya that appeared by the petitioners.
Poovayya replied that the problem does not refer to the exchange of information, the lack of controls and restrictions to ensure the security of the data.
“The state can not be entrusted to the data of citizens without proper supervision. Declaring the right to privacy is a fundamental right the first step to supervision,” he said.
It also refers to a taxi service-based application providers such as Uber, collecting information about the user, and said he was monitoring. This led the court to consider whether privacy would be violated if the state monitored a terrorist suspect and used the data for security purposes.
“If the state is followed in the process of apprehending a person who may be involved in terrorism, then the state may use this data,” the bank asked. Poovayya replied that the state could do “but there may be limits of the law”.
The bank then said: “At what point can we apply this rule, data collection or use? Because if we say by collecting data, even the state can collect data after a terrorist act.
Poovayya said there is a fear that the data collected by the state are put into private hands and are abusive. He said it could also be misused by governments when regimes change.
“The question is whether the delivery of private data rights to privacy. The delivery of information for some is not the delivery of information to all.
So if I get biometrics for the state, it should be used only for the purpose for which I have given, “he said, adding that this can be ensured that by providing that privacy is a fundamental right.
He said that it is not necessary to adjust the contours of the law from now on, and to evolve from one case to another.
Judge J Chelameswar, one of the judges at the bank, said it would be best if, if not all, to outline the right to privacy if the court decides that it is a fundamental right.
If the state is unable to protect the data, it should also stop charging said Poovayya and referred to the British example of the destruction of biometric data collected by the agencies.
The issue of privacy protection was raised in the hearing of petitions that questioned the constitutional validity of Aadhaar scheme.
Tuesday, referring to two previous decisions – by a panel of eight judges in 1954 and MP Sharma case by a bank of judges in six Kharak Singh in 1962 – the government said that the highest court ruled is important in these there is no right To privacy in the Constitution.
The nine-judge jury was established to examine the accuracy of these judgments.
Other judges at the bank are judges S K Kaul, R K Agarwal, S A Bobde, R F Nariman, S Abdul Nazeer and A M Sapre.
Early in the day, Judge Kaul was whether the right to privacy was available even against individuals, so that it would violate the freedom of others.