DT
PT
Subscribe To Print Edition About The Tribune Code Of Ethics Download App Advertise with us Classifieds
search-icon-img
search-icon-img
Advertisement

Justice Sapre: Right to privacy stays till death

  • fb
  • twitter
  • whatsapp
  • whatsapp
Advertisement

New Delhi, August 24

Advertisement

The right to privacy of an individual is a natural, cherished, inseparable and inalienable right which is born with a human being and extinguishes with it, the Supreme Court said.

Justice Abhay Manohar Sapre, who wrote a separate but concurring judgement, said it could not be conceived that an individual enjoyed a meaningful life with dignity, without such a right. However, he also said that this right was not absolute and was “subject to certain reasonable restrictions.” which the state was entitled to impose.

Advertisement

Observing that it was one of the cherished rights which every civilised society recognised, Justice Sapre held that “right to privacy” was part of the fundamental right but “it is not an absolute right and is subject to certain reasonable restrictions which the state is entitled to impose on the basis of social, moral and compelling public interest in accordance with law.

“... Right to privacy of any individual is essentially a natural right, which inheres in every human being by birth. Such right remains with the human being till he/she breathes last. It is indeed inseparable and inalienable from human being. In other words, it is born with the human being and extinguishes with human being,” Justice Sapre said in his 24-page judgement, which formed part of the 547-page verdict.

Advertisement

“Indeed, it is one of those cherished rights, which every civilised society governed by the rule of law recognises in every human being and is under obligation to recognise such rights in order to maintain and preserve the dignity of an individual regardless of gender, race, religion, caste and creed. “It is, of course, subject to imposing certain reasonable restrictions keeping in view the social, moral and compelling public interest, which the state is entitled to impose by law,” he said.

The Judge held that right to privacy had multiple facets, and it had to go through a process of case-to-case development as and when any citizen raised his grievance, complaining of infringement of his alleged right. — PTI

Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
tlbr_img1 Classifieds tlbr_img2 Videos tlbr_img3 Premium tlbr_img4 E-Paper tlbr_img5 Shorts