Right to privacy is sacrosanct: SC on Pegasus row

Satya Prakash

Tribune News Service

New Delhi, October 27

The Supreme Court on Wednesday said right to privacy was sacrosanct even as it clarified that such a right can’t be said to be an absolute as the Constitution envisaged certain limitations on it.

“Members of a civilised democratic society have a reasonable expectation of privacy. Privacy is not the singular concern of journalists or social activists. Every citizen of India ought to be protected against violations of privacy,” a three-judge Bench led by Chief Justice of India NV Ramana said while ordering an independent probe into Pegasus snooping allegations.

“It’s this expectation which enables us to exercise our choices, liberties, and freedom,” it said, adding “The right to privacy is directly infringed when there is surveillance or spying done on an individual, either by the State or by any external agency.”

Referring to K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India (2017) case – in which right to privacy was declared a fundamental right – the top court said the verdict has recognised that “the right to privacy is as sacrosanct as human existence and is inalienable to human dignity and autonomy”.

However, the Bench clarified that, “Although declared to be inalienable, the right to privacy of course cannot be said to be an absolute, as the Indian Constitution does not provide for such a right without reasonable restrictions. As with all the other fundamental rights, this Court therefore must recognize that certain limitations exist when it comes to the right to privacy as well. However, any restrictions imposed must necessarily pass constitutional scrutiny.”

It said any violations of privacy, if done by the State, must be justified on constitutional grounds. “This Court is cognisant of the State’s interest to ensure that life and liberty is preserved and must balance the same,” it added.

“For instance, in today’s world, information gathered by intelligence agencies through surveillance is essential for the fight against violence and terror. To access this information, a need may arise to interfere with the right to privacy of an individual, provided it is carried out only when it is absolutely necessary for protecting national security/interest and is proportional,” it said.

The top court emphasised that, “The considerations for usage of such alleged technology, ought to be evidence based. In a democratic country governed by the rule of law, indiscriminate spying on individuals cannot be allowed except with sufficient statutory safeguards, by following the procedure established by law under the Constitution.”

It said, “We live in the era of information revolution, where the entire lives of individuals are stored in the cloud or in a digital dossier. We must recognize that while technology is a useful tool for improving the lives of the people, at the same time, it can also be used to breach that sacred private space of an individual.”