24 ms·

Right to Privacy a Fundamental Right, Says Indian Supreme Court

• j0hnM1st 9y ago
  This is such a relief ... Also this is the man behind the fight https://barandbench.com/expecting-unanimous-decision-justice-ks-puttaswamy-right-privacy-verdict/ https://barandbench.com/expecting-unanimous-decision-justice...
• eklavya 9y ago
  Not sure what will happen, I want both this and Aadhar.
  • srean 9y ago
    Could you elaborate on your definition of 'Aadhaar', or stated in other words what is it that you want 'Aadhaar' to provide ?
    • eklavya 9y ago
      The plea is also about invalidating Aadhar, if that is also done it would be a huge setback to all developmental activities. A safeguarded, private Aadhar is the way to go in my opinion.
      • saifalfalah 9y ago
        Any development activity that can be done with Aadhar, can be done without it too.
        • eklavya 9y ago
          That has been tried for decades with rampant corruption and needy missing the aid.
          • srean 9y ago
            And why would that change with Aadhaar ? Corruption is hardly a technology issue, especially in an environment where corruption is so passe and enjoys patronage from the entirety of the polictical spectrum. Example, to disrupt the blackmarket of kerosene they started dyeing it, and that mattered zilch, because people were selling and buying dyed kereosene in the blackmarket without batting an eyelid. Everyone looked the otherway... wink wink.
            • eklavya 9y ago
              It's not a matter of would, it already has. So many subsidy/benefits accounts have been closed. Just search for news stories on this.
              • srean 9y ago
                I doubt that is anything new. Political parties in power try to squelch the money stream of its competitors. Aadhaar or no Aadhaar they will find a way and have (sometimes they would rather look the otherway and share the 'profits'). On a related but tangential set of events: none of the bigwigs caught in the demonetization net had connections with the current party in power, but had patrons among the others. It is possible that the current party (/alliance) is so pristine and pure that they none of their members have any link with the illegal cash hoarders and there is no actionable evidence. I just dont find that a realistic explanation. A claim like that will need a lot stronger evidence. But anyway, you did not comment on the fact that corruption is not a technological problem and technology will not solve it (and has not solved it). It still would be great to know why would Aadhaar succeed where others have not. BTW I am sincerely willing to be convinced, but I do swear by the guideline that exceptional claims need comparably exceptional evidence or a reason.
                • eklavya 9y ago
                  You may think I don't have an argument and rightfully so, but honestly I don't care enough to search for all the news items where this was established.
• bhhaskin 9y ago
  As it should be. The world is quickly approaching a very Orwellian feature unless we take steps to stop it. Right to privacy should be right up there with the right to free speech.
  • galloway 9y ago
    It is, according to the article 12 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights [0]. It just gets conveniently sidetracked when money is to be made. [0] http://www.un.org/en/universal-declaration-human-rights/ http://www.un.org/en/universal-declaration-human-rights/
• trhway 9y ago
  seems like they had a good session - from other news they took down that instant Muslim divorce. As one can guess that divorce procedure isn't gender symmetric. https://www.nytimes.com/2017/08/22/world/asia/india-muslim-divorce-triple-talaq.html?mcubz=3 https://www.nytimes.com/2017/08/22/world/asia/india-muslim-d... "In India, Muslim men have been able to end their marriages by saying the word “talaq” — Arabic for “divorce” — three times. They could do this in person, by letter or even over the phone."
• denzil_correa 9y ago
  Here's what the Attorney General - the government counsel - argued > He said that in developing countries, something as amorphous as privacy could not be a fundamental right, that other fundamental rights such as food, clothing, shelter etc. override the right to privacy. It's a question which has alway bothered me. What happens when two fundamental rights clash with each other?
  • robinphilip1989 9y ago
    I think it comes down to whether citizens are coerced to part with their personal information or not. If I need access to state programs of food, clothing, shelter, I should be willing to abide by regulations that make it easier to deliver these benefits. Aadhaar as of now is a direct coercion to part with biometrics and has inadequate features to protect against identity theft. Not having aadhaar means not getting driving license, passport, marriage license etc.
    • eklavya 9y ago
      I am sure you meant marriage certificate, everybody has an undeniable license to marry :D
      • devnonymous 9y ago
        While I know you were making fun of the word 'license', what you claim is not true legally in India.
        • eklavya 9y ago
          What do you mean?
          • devnonymous 9y ago
            Well, gay people cannot marry, so that's definitely not everybody.
• srinathrajaram 9y ago
  It says a lot about where we are headed that the Supreme Court had to say this.
  • moh_maya 9y ago
    I think this is needless alarmism. I am glad due process was followed, and what was previously a grey area has now been made clear. You must read the judgement & the cases they cite before making such blanket, unsubstantiated assertions. There's been a history of cases that this judgement rests on, many of which guided & led to the conclusions drawn by this 9 panel of judges. [1] I don't understand what value a blanket statement such as this adds to the conversation. Do you believe things were better in the 1970s? 1980s? If so, please substantiate your belief with evidence. Do you subscribe to the trivial, cynical notion that our society is going to dogs? if so, let us have a conversation on why I disagree. But seemingly empty, vacuous but emotive statements such as these do not necessarily lend themselves to constructive discussion, IMO. [1] http://supremecourtofindia.nic.in/pdf/LU/ALL%20WP(C)%20No.494%20of%202012%20Right%20to%20Privacy.pdf http://supremecourtofindia.nic.in/pdf/LU/ALL%20WP(C)%20No.49...
    • wtmt 9y ago
      When considering the fact it took close to two years to even constitute a bench to hear this case, it doesn't really sound alarmist to me. Plus, many Aadhaar related cases have been pending hearing for years now while the government blatantly ignored multiple directives from the Supreme Court to keep it optional and not deprive anyone of any benefit "until the matter is decided one way or another" (paraphrasing what the court said). Aadhaar could still be a fait accompli for the government and continue, which would be sad in many ways. If you believe Aadhaar is the best thing since sliced bread and has no issues, please check Rethink Aadhaar [1] for the issues as well as the history of the cases and have a look at Scroll's Identity Project. [2] [1]: https://rethinkaadhaar.in https://rethinkaadhaar.in [2]: https://scroll.in/topic/38792/identity-project https://scroll.in/topic/38792/identity-project
• ruytlm 9y ago
  As an aside, this is a decent example of why some people oppose bills of rights. As I understand it, the argument is that a bill of rights is considered exhaustive; if it's not in the bill, it's not protected. By contrast, countries without a bill of rights are free to interpret their constitutions through implied rights, in ways that make sense in the context and allow the constitution to adapt to new or developing circumstances. See for example, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australian_constitutional_law#Implied_rights https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australian_constitutional_law#... Not entirely sure which side of that argument I'd sit on.
  • rayiner 9y ago
    At least in the U.S., that is not the real issue. Nobody disputes that the Bill of Rights is not exhaustive. But just because the Bill of Rights is not exhaustive does not mean that the Supreme Court may make up new rights over time. Legal conservatives in the U.S. adhere to the idea that for a right to exist, society must have recognized it as a right at the time the Constitution was written. In other words, you do not have to find the right in the Bill of Rights, but you do have to find it somewhere.
    • dvt 9y ago
      This is very reductive and borderline misleading. Federalist No. 84 discusses some very specific reasons why it may not be a great idea to have a bill of rights -- primary dealing with government overreach. I think placing the debate in the politically-charged context of "originalism vs living document" is pretty unfair.
    • lisper 9y ago
      > Nobody disputes that the Bill of Rights is not exhaustive. Unfortunately, that is not true. Robert Bork famously disputed it, even going so far as to deny the validity of the ninth amendment. Many conservatives support Bork's position today, e.g.: http://www.nationalreview.com/article/336142/judge-borks-ink-blot-ramesh-ponnuru http://www.nationalreview.com/article/336142/judge-borks-ink... They do this because it's a logical pre-requisite for overturning Roe v. Wade.
• vkrm 9y ago
  I'll wait for the full text of the judgements before celebrating. The ruling apparently consists of 6 judgements and should be available shortly. Hope this reins in the Aadhaar monster without leaving any wiggle room for the government to exploit. edit: The judgement is now available here: http://supremecourtofindia.nic.in/pdf/LU/ALL%20WP(C)%20No.494%20of%202012%20Right%20to%20Privacy.pdf http://supremecourtofindia.nic.in/pdf/LU/ALL%20WP(C)%20No.49...
  • sn41 9y ago
    What a fantastic document. Quotes from John Stuart Mill, precedents from India, UK, US, South Africa, Canada, and the European charter. Looks like a very scholarly judgment, worthy of study, worth every one of the 597 pages!!
    • wtmt 9y ago
      I've read only a few parts of the judgment, but it reads like poetry while at the same time being crisp and powerful! Even when the hearings were on, there were many references and discussions that showed the broad scope of accepting and considering jurisprudence from elsewhere and seeing what would benefit people. That this was an unanimous verdict makes it even better. I was apprehensive until today morning, and after hearing the verdict, I've been ecstatic!
      • srean 9y ago
        Sorry that someone down voted you. I used to get puzzled by such behavior, now no more. I just upvotes it back to compensate, if only partially. Lot of partisan voting going on here
        • wtmt 9y ago
          Thanks. I'm kinda used to that on HN since many people who read my comments seem to be absolutely pro-Aadhaar/pro-government and don't seem to like any critique of the system and how it's putting people in danger (existentially and otherwise).
• godzillabrennus 9y ago
  Will this help push more privacy centric companies toward operating out of India?
  • senatorobama 9y ago
    I hope Mozilla opens an office there.
  • sgift 9y ago
    It didn't really help push them to operate out of Germany, and the German constitutional court established privacy as a fundamental right in 1983. So ... hopefully, but I wouldn't hold my breath.
• vsviridov 9y ago
  But they also prohibit use of strong encryption, so that internet traffic could be snooped upon...
  • _jgdh 9y ago
    Are you confusing the Indian govt/courts with some other country?
    • vkrm 9y ago
      This is currently a grey area. All ISPs in India have to abide by their licensing terms with the Department of Telecommunication which restricts encryption to 40 bit RSA or equivalent. Any higher grade encryption can only be used with special permission and requires the decryption keys to be submitted to the DoT. Whether or not this restriction also applies to end users and non-ISP organizations hasn't yet been tested in the judicial system AFAIK.
      • _jgdh 9y ago
        You have a link to that? Either way, I'm not sure how that would be implemented, other than outright blocking sites that are HTTPS-only. But I don't think blocking Google, Facebook, Whatsapp and other major websites is going to fly. I have no doubt that the Indian government would like to read people's communications and internet history, but that's not possible today.
        • vkrm 9y ago
          https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/how-india-regulates-encryption https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/how-india-reg... AFAIK, the government has not attempted to prosecute anyone for using stronger encryption, and other government departments/organizations have made conflicting recommendations, especially when it comes to online banking and capital markets. Barring new regulations that clarify the government's position, the status quo is that ISPs cannot apply strong encryption themselves, but are not obligated to prevent their users from doing so. At least one ISP has gone beyond this mandate and tried to block the use of stronger encryption by their customers[0]. [0]https://www.privateinternetaccess.com/blog/2017/07/indian-isp-wont-let-users-use-128-bit-256-bit-encryption/ https://www.privateinternetaccess.com/blog/2017/07/indian-is...
• modi15 9y ago
  I for one, have no idea what this really means. Can anyone explain why this ruling is not totally useless ?
  • helloindia 9y ago
    Currently, Indian govt is making it mandatory for everyone to have AADHAR card(enrolment of which requires biometric scan) for basic services like opening bank account, provident fund, filing income tax returns etc, making it necessary for everyone to enroll for AADHAR. This judgement will be used for removal of AADHAR requirement.
    • modi15 9y ago
      Biometric is just stronger identity. This can be done in a weaker way using Passport/PAN card. Does Right to Privacy mean that the govt. cannot identify individuals ? How does it then provide differential services ?
      • srean 9y ago
        Thats moot unless every significant access point has a means and financial viability to verify the biometrics. Even with such existing 'weaker' identities we are nowhere close to the quality of service that such 'weak' identies can support. Lets address the problem and not divert the issue with "shiny tech... look a squirrel". I would be more sympathetic if we are already in the ballpark of the quality of service that these 'weak' identities can support and we are getting bottlenecked there. To put it charitably, with Aadhaar we are optimizing something that is not the bottlneck.
        • helloindia 9y ago
          Right to privacy here mean, govt cannot force citizens to give up their biometric for simple things like creation of bank accounts. Till now, PAN card was the only identification needed.
• msravi 9y ago
  A word of caution before being carried away by the words "fundamental right". According to the judgement, the right to privacy is fundamental (as an offshoot of the fundamental rights of freedom of life and personal liberty guaranteed under Article 21 of the Indian Constitution). Asserting it as a "fundamental right" raises the bar on what restrictions can be put. But reasonable restrictions can still be put. A separate bench of the SC is now going to test the validity of the Aadhaar Act on the basis of whether the restrictions are reasonable in the light of privacy being a fundamental right. Edit: The Aadhaar Act is an act that allows for the government to collect biometric and other personal data that can be used to identify an individual for various services (including but not limited to governmental benefits).
  • product50 9y ago
    At least put in some effort to explain on what you mean. You didn't mention what type of restrictions can be put in as well as why getting carried away by the words fundamental right is something to be cautious about.
    • vkrm 9y ago
      "Reasonable restrictions" are not very well defined in the Indian constitution. They are quite broad and open to interpretation on a case-by-case basis. "... the State can impose reasonable restrictions in the interests of the sovereignty and integrity of India, the security of the State, friendly relations with foreign States, public order, decency or morality or in relation to contempt of court, defamation or incitement to an offence."
      • product50 9y ago
        Can reasonable restrictions be put on fundamental rights as well? So you are suggesting that the right to life has reasonable restrictions -- that in order to be friendly to a foreign state, the nation state can murder their citizens?
        • 9y ago
• arc_of_descent 9y ago
  I'm not sure what this has to do with Aadhaar, although the initial petition mentions it I think. Aadhaar is setup as a way of proof of identity and not proof of citizenship. I for one did not get an Aadhaar until a week ago! The only reason I had to was a company that I applied to, said that please use your full name as mentioned on your Aadhaar card. India is a bureaucratic mess. And as UG Krishnamurti put it very succinctly, India is a failed country. As mentioned elsewhere in this thread, we desperately first need to focus on poverty first.
  • 0x8BADF00D 9y ago
    > India is a bureaucratic mess. And as UG Krishnamurti put it very succinctly, India is a failed country. As mentioned elsewhere in this thread, we desperately first need to focus on poverty first. Poverty is difficult to address in a nation as large as India. Such a problem quickly approaches intractability. What are some solutions you envision to help alleviate poverty? There could very well be a huge opportunity for a startup in this space. I feel like without requiring Aadhaar for benefits, it's impossible to ascertain or measure who is really under the poverty line or not.
  • modi15 9y ago
    All bureaucracies are a mess. Just because UG K. was succinct, doesnt mean he was right. India is actually doing better relatively to ANY other country at the moment.
  • wtmt 9y ago
    > Aadhaar is setup as a way of proof of identity and not proof of citizenship. Yet, Aadhaar is officially accepted by the Ministry of External Affairs as proof of identity and proof of address to issue a passport (which is signed by the president of India and is a proof of citizenship). [1] So any resident in India who qualifies for Aadhaar can also get a passport. Aadhaar is sneaky and messy in more ways than one. [1]: http://passportindia.gov.in/AppOnlineProject/docAdvisor/attachmentAdvFreshInp http://passportindia.gov.in/AppOnlineProject/docAdvisor/atta...
• ap46 9y ago
  Finally some good news after the countless train pile-ups.
  • mdns33 9y ago
    how does this even add to the discussion?
  • skbohra123 9y ago
    Did you miss the yesterday's judgement regarding the Triple Talaq?
• vkrm 9y ago
  Full text of the judgement is available[0] Fair warning: its pretty long (547 pages!) [0]http://supremecourtofindia.nic.in/pdf/LU/ALL%20WP(C)%20No.494%20of%202012%20Right%20to%20Privacy.pdf http://supremecourtofindia.nic.in/pdf/LU/ALL%20WP(C)%20No.49...
• eqtn 9y ago
  Copy of the judgement https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B8zp4Q3w9CfqRTA0YUd4clY1RFE/view https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B8zp4Q3w9CfqRTA0YUd4clY1RFE...
• thrw000 9y ago
  On the one hand Aadhar is so convenient. If I want a phone number or a bank account, I can simply identify myself with my thumbprints and iris scans and get it activated immediately without paperwork. This has really made things easier for people. Using biometrics also reduces fraud when claiming benefits from the government and maybe makes the process easier as there is again no paperwork, and it is easy to make claims. But on the other hand, all this makes it so easy to track anyone. All your bank accounts, cards, phone numbers, internet connections would be linked to your Aaadhar number and would be centrally accessible. This is a privacy nightmare. I am already getting frequent messages from my phone company to link my phone number with my Aadhar number, or let it be deactivated. All this information would be in the hands of government officials. The Indian bureaucracy is notorious for the corruption everywhere. What if you could purchase somebody's data through an "agent" - get access to everything that they do, everything they buy, everyone they transact with, everyone they communicate with, contents of every message they send to anyone at all - imagine the kind of possibilities this opens up for negative minds. Besides this, someone could just hack the data and maybe leak all of it. Someone recently created an app that would let you get anyone's details including their phone number, address, etc. by typing in their Aadhar number. It was taken down a month ago. I'm not sure about the exploit but it was related to using plain http instead of https somewhere. I checked one of the Aadhar linked projects and found that they were using an open source library in the backend which wasn't up to date, and the version being used had some documented security vulnerabilities. I wonder how safe peoples' data really is. A large number of Aadhar numbers have already been leaked thanks to government websites. It is possible to extract a person's fingerprint or iris scan using photos of their hands or the face in specific conditions. If the person has linked their bank account with Aadhar which is getting compulsory, one could take out money from their accounts by impersonating their prints or iris scans. Fortunately there is an option to protect yourself from this - go to the Aadhar website and lock your biometrics data. If used regularly this can protect people from "biometrics theft", but the biometrics are unlocked by default, and for 99% of the people they are going to stay that way.
• jpelecanos 9y ago
  Would this verdict affect Joint Cipher Bureau's SIGINT ops?
• Abishek_Muthian 9y ago
  “Privacy is about the freedom of thought, conscience and individual autonomy and none of the fundamental rights can be exercised without assuming certain sense of privacy”. argued Mr.Subramaniam. It would be interesting to see if there are more specifics w.r.t data security in the judgements. I smell a criminal lawyer cooking up the ways this judgement would aid his clients for not opening their computer, smartphones to police! The judgement would be widely shared worldwide, the people outside India who isn't familiar with Supreme court judgements from India; keep Merriam-Webster nearby.
• abhi3 9y ago
  A lot of comments in this thread are misleading. What the Supreme Court has done is that it has expanded the interpretation of an existing Fundamental Right ('Right to life') to include a 'Right to Privacy'. Now this means that if any law is made that infringes on an individuals privacy then it'll be tested for reasonableness. So before this judgment, the legislature could have for example made a law requiring all internet activity to be reported to the government or criminalized homosexuality (existing law) and anyone challenging the law could not claim that the law violated his privacy as such a right was not recognized. After this judgment, such an argument could be made and the courts would test whether the violation of one's privacy is a reasonable restriction or not. So a law requiring you to have number plates on your car to be captured by traffic cams, or KYC norms for Bank accounts, reporting of your financial data to tax authorities could be held to be a reasonable restriction whereas laws such as criminalizing one's sexual orientation could be held unreasonable. What prompted this constitutional reference was the governments 'Aadhar Scheme' which compelled 1.2 billion citizens to hand over their private biometric data to the government if they wanted to claim any government services. This judgment provides the test to be used while deciding whether the law and its applications are constitutional. Most likely the scheme will not be struck down in total but specific instances will be tested on a case by case basis. (eg. Aadhar can't me made compulsory for getting health services but can be made so for a Gun Licence as the latter seems reasonable but the former may not)
• ribasushi 9y ago
  An amazing talk from couple weeks ago on the details of Aadhaar and how it was "implemented" and why this court ruling is super important both in India and closer to the west: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iCkhupMROZU https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iCkhupMROZU
• deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
• sreeni_ananth 9y ago
  The Indian government has been mandating all utility providers to link the biometric details of the subscribers to their account. With the rising number of criminal cases due to misuse of laws such as those used in marital disputes, the government can easily control what services to provide or deny its citizens based on centrally available biometric database which it could not have done before. Of course this is just a crazy theory for now which can hopefully never happen due to this much needed judgement.
• dalbasal 9y ago
  A lot of conversations about expanding rights, end up with a distinction between positive and negative rights. A right to water, is different to free speech. For everyone to have a right to water, someone needs to provide the water or be held accountable for not providing it. A default, state culprit needs to be designated. Privacy though, privacy is like speech or equality before the law or presumption of innocence. You have it by default and if it’s denied there is a culprit. Even in this case, we seem to have a hard time expanding rights. I say expanding, but privacy is a right in many places, formally. But, the interpretation of that right is very weak. Anyway… if we’re to make privacy a right with serious intent then there needs to be a willingness to break eggs, bear a cost. The right to free speech, conscience, affiliation , assembly and other political freedoms mean we need to tolerate and protect the proverbial nazis’ rights to try and spread their politics. Bitter pill for anyone scared of a proverbial nazi takeover. Are we willing to bear the (fear-based, mostly) costs in the fight against the terrorism demon. The economic costs that will be claimed by companies relying on data? If we have a strong yes, I think we can start building the real framework of laws and conventions that will secure a right to privacy for the next few generations. Absolute principles require some sacrifice.
  • rmc 9y ago
    > A lot of conversations about expanding rights, end up with a distinction between positive and negative rights. Correct. Right to a fair trail is also a positive right. To uphold it, the state must pay for a lawyer if you don't have one, the state must pay for enough judges (& associated costs) to ensure your trail isn't delayed ("Justice delayed is justice denied" and all that). > The right to free speech, conscience, affiliation , assembly and other political freedoms mean we need to tolerate and protect the proverbial nazis’ rights to try and spread their politics. Plenty of legal systems have those rights, and also ban nazis or similar groups. It's not an either/or.
    • icebraining 9y ago
      Right to a fair trail is also a positive right. Ehh, I'm not sure. The actual right is better described as the right not to be unfairly tried, which is clearly negative. The distinction is more than semantic: if the State launches an investigation and then drops it, leaving suspicion in the public's mind, you can't force them to go to trial to present your case and clear your name.
• Abishek_Muthian 9y ago
  To HN readers outside India, who are unaware of the BG behind this historic judgement. It all started off with a series of litigations against the govt's mandate to link India's unique identity system - Aadhar (which includes biometric data) to existing Indian identification systems for different purposes. In HN fashion, if you are interested to know about how the govt pulled of the huge technical overhead of storing billion records; it could be seen in talk here by it's chief architect - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=08sq0y8V1sE https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=08sq0y8V1sE
• ahamedirshad123 9y ago
  This is what Indian government said: Citizens don't have absolute right on their body, privacy argument bogus, govt tells SC http://www.firstpost.com/india/aadhaar-mandatory-citizens-dont-have-absolute-right-on-their-body-privacy-argument-bogus-govt-tells-sc-3420398.html http://www.firstpost.com/india/aadhaar-mandatory-citizens-do...
• fwx 9y ago
  Can someone more well-versed in Indian law help me understand : Does this ruling prevent collection of biometrics or restrict it somehow under the Aadhar system? Also, I recall the Indian Government was pushing Aadhar Pay - a biometric fingerprint scan based PoS payment / verification system (likely it is already deployed, I don't live there so I don't know). What happens to that now?
  • ahamedirshad123 9y ago
    This is where you should go. https://twitter.com/aparatbar https://twitter.com/aparatbar "Aadhaar hearings were gridlocked, withtout this judgement. Now it's legality will be tested."
  • plinkplonk 9y ago
    (not a lawyer, but have friends who are) When the Government of India (GoI) mandated Aadhar for provision of many services (subsidies, marriage certificates, death certificates, collect taxes- people without aadhar can no longer pay income tax - etc) it was challenged legally in the courts. One of the main arguments was that Indian citizens had a fundamental right to privacy, and such 'enforced' collection of biometrics violated that right. The Attorney General (appearing for the government) argued that there was no such fundamental right, and that citizens had no right to privacy. This (whether or not privacy is a fundamental right) had to be resolved before these cases could move forward. So the question was 'forwarded' to a 9 judge 'constitutional bench' to rule upon. Today all 9 judges ruled that Indian citizens had a fundamental right to privacy. so now the Aadhar specific cases can go forward, now that there is a 'constitutional bench' ruling. A 5 judge bench will now consider those cases and rule upon the legality of Aadhar enforcement. This ruling, that privacy is a fundamental right, will obviously affect the outcome of the Aadhar specific case(s) but how exactly - including what restrictions if any, could be placed on biometric collection via aadhar - is not known (yet). That is my non lawyerly understanding of where things stand.
    • fwx 9y ago
      So, basically, this has opened the door to debate about the legality of collecting biometrics, but we still have to wait for official rulings to see if a stop is put to collecting that data under the Aadhar umbrella?
• ahamedirshad123 9y ago
  This is epidemic. SA government is trying this now. http://www.planetbiometrics.com/article-details/i/6211/desc/south-africa-to-protect-welfare-beneficiaries-with-biometric-id/ http://www.planetbiometrics.com/article-details/i/6211/desc/... http://www.planetbiometrics.com/article-details/i/6206/desc/zwipe-inks-deal-with-south-african-security-provider/ http://www.planetbiometrics.com/article-details/i/6206/desc/... http://www.planetbiometrics.com/article-details/i/6219/desc/south-african-rights-group-demands-end-to-biometric-cards/ http://www.planetbiometrics.com/article-details/i/6219/desc/...
• ngold 9y ago
  Thank goodness someone did it.
• known 9y ago
  Can we expect such Judgement from Chinese regime?
• joering2 9y ago
  I'm not sure if I read it here, but there was a great example given on how to answer people with approach of "if you are not doing anything wrong, you have nothing to hide". Using this logic, just recently I somewhat won an argument with my fiancee. She always believes that I'm hiding something on my phone because she doesn't have PIN to it and because I'm unwilling to give it to her, she assumes the worst. Therefore I made a bet. I asked her what is she doing in bathroom? She answered she does what everyone else's is doing: #1, #2 or showering. I replied you must be doing something wrong or maybe illegal, since you always not only close the door, but you lock it as well! We had short argument back and forth about obviously how it is not about hiding something, but rather about enjoying your own time in privacy, and I think she kind of got it. We have a bet in place for 3 months now that when she leaves the door wide open while in bathroom, I will give her code to my cellphone. So far I haven't had the need to give it out just yet :)
• jawns 9y ago
  I was a bit surprised by the fact that all of the judges' opinions, which are embedded in the article, were in English. But it turns out that English is the official language of the Indian Supreme Court, and the court has even gone so far as to rule that it need not provide a Hindi translation of its rulings: http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/politics-and-nation/court-language-is-english-says-supreme-court/articleshow/50080870.cms http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/politics-and-nation... It seems kind of bizarre to me that as an American English speaker half way across the world, I'm in a better position to read and comprehend the Indian Supreme Court's rulings than a great number of non-English-speaking Indians.
  • michalskop 9y ago
    There are many languages in India, not just Hindi https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Languages_of_India https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Languages_of_India
  • pavanky 9y ago
    Most of the time the only common language between all the judges of the Indian supreme court is English. Writing the opinion in any other language would mean it reaches even fewer people than English would (except may be Hindi, but I don't know how many of the judges are fluent in Hindi to write opinions in that language).
  • orsenthil 9y ago
    Well, English is the inherited language for the majority of Indians. If we were to speak/read/write in vernacular, then we will need the article many languages (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Languages_with_official_status_in_India#List https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Languages_with_official_status...). And the language I speak at home is not in that list too.
  • anuraj 9y ago
    India has 22 official languages of which English is the one that works across the country.
  • jogjayr 9y ago
• craptocurrency 9y ago
  Guys your comments & discussions will not change court decisions. So accept it.
• shayna_walsh 9y ago
  Great judgement. Congratulations to all the judges for their unanimity. The totalitarian, surreptitious juggernaut has been stopped in its track. But let's get real and reflect: we shouldn't be complacent. There will doubtless be any number of attempts to find ways to scupper, at least shrink, citizens' rights and privileges. In a world driven by information technology, the possibilities are legion. We need to watch out and be ever vigilant.
• christa30 9y ago
  When the US Pentagon website has been hacked quite recently, some in this Government think they can make the Aadhaar data completely secure.
  • hadrien01 9y ago
    A website being hacked has nothing to do with private information being leaked. The website is just a facade, it doesn't contain Pentagon secrets.
• immanuel_huel 9y ago
  One must extend all rights and freedoms to their widest limits...without the concept of privacy a human being cannot become a person...in fact, the right to privacy is one of the foundations of modernity...
• tim333 9y ago
  Privacy is a tricky thing to make a right in terms of where you draw the line. Hidden cameras in the bedroom illegal, but a right to a private table at restaurants wouldn't be practical. I'm not quite sure where you'd set the boundaries.
• throwawaymanbot 9y ago
  Good News. Well done india!
• whack 9y ago
  "The petitioners, former Karnataka high court judge Justice K.S. Puttaswamy and others, had contended that the biometric data and iris scan that was being collected for issuing Aadhaar cards violated the citizen’s fundamental right to privacy" I find the above interpretation of privacy troubling. In order for the government to effectively distribute social services to the needy, cutting out corrupt/inefficient middlemen, it needs a way of effectively verifying someone's identity, so that people can't dual-enroll themselves. Having people provide biometric identifies such as Iris scans, if they want to qualify for government services, seems like a perfectly reasonable way to do this. I would also contend that when most people declare the importance of privacy, they are talking about their actions and lifestyle, not fingerprints or Iris scans. It would be sad if this ruling prevents the government from efficiently providing social services to help the poor.
  • satbyy 9y ago
    Not really. He means that govt cannot force every citizen to undergo iris scan etc. for obtaining Aadhar card. I would like to get Aadhar without iris scan (and am willing to let go of secondary benefits like LPG subssidy etc). Such an option doesn't exist as of today. I, as an individual, will exercise my right to privacy by deciding whether to give my biometrics or not. Govt should not decide on my behalf.
    • programmer_dude 9y ago
      An Aadhar card is just an identity document. You don't have to get one if you don't want any benefits linked to it. Just use some other ID.
      • satbyy 9y ago
        There are already "benefit" cards like LPG card, ration card, BPL card, etc to get those benefits. Why bother with Aadhar then? The answer is, consolidation. Aadhar is meant to be the identity card. I don't want to carry big passport book, etc. wherever I go.
• anuraj 9y ago
  After 70 years of independence - right to privacy is recognised as a fundamental right by the Supreme Court of India. Individual rights especially privacy underlie the cornerstone of democracy - Liberty. A small step for Indian Supreme Court - a giant leap for 1/5th of mankind! Welcome democracy. Bye bye mobocracy!
• Shivetya 9y ago
  They also made sexual orientation a right as well. read further into this ruling, it is just more than privacy at the top level. they went on to make sure people/prosecutors understand what they really mean
• AmIFirstToThink 9y ago
  Privacy : You have a right to try to keep things as private as you want. You should not be prosecuted for merely trying to keep things private. Your responsibility : 1. Don't share things that you want to keep private. 2. Carefully weigh the trade offs when you agree to share things about you. There is no retroactive privacy on things that you yourself shared. 3. You can attempt to retract what was shared about you, but you can't hold society responsible for successful retraction of that piece of information, from media or minds. You can add addendum e.g. an apology from someone, you can claim damages, but we can't rewind time. Government responsibility: 1. Don't criminalize people trying to keep things private. This would be similar USA Fifth Amendment, do not force people to share what they don't want to share. Government can ask "What crimes you committed in the privacy of your home?", but it can't force people to answer that question or punish for not answering it. 2. You can't plead fifth and deny proving your identity when you want to take food stamps from government, or when you get unearned tax credit. Just like in any transaction, Government can ask you to prove who you are and may demand increasing levels of proof depending on the transaction. Your choice would be to not participate in such transactions, in certain situations you implicitly give permission to Government to demand proof of identity from you, e.g. if you request a loan to dig a well or subsidy to buy fertilizer or collecting unemployment benefit. Security of exchange of money from government to people is Government's responsibility and it may demand increasing levels of identification depending on the nature of the transaction, as deemed appropriate by abused observed or potential for abuse. In places with high corruption rates, strong identification would be required and would be appropriate. I don't think people would be OK if someone collects their pension using just name, address and birth date, and government throwing hands in the air accusing you for not protecting your name, address and birth date. What you can't do: 1. Make the world forget what it already knows. Can't ask Google to delete a piece of information about you from entire internet, once you yourself post it on Blogger. You can delete the post from Google, you can delete your account, but you must realize that once something is not private, you have no control over who has seen it and how many formats/copies of that information got created. 2. Get into a contract to drop certain privacy and then deny fulfilling the contract because of privacy rights. E.g. a model can't say that she won't show her face on a fashion ramp because of privacy after taking payment. A storybook author can't say that she won't share her book with publisher because of privacy after taking payment. 3. Make a demand that a private entity, on its private premises, can't have monitoring equipment. A store may decide to have cameras at the self checkout lanes, and it may deny self checkout to folks with full face covering. Your choice would be to not shop at such places, you can't use law to shut down the business's ability to monitor their private premise as they wish. An employer may make alcohol breath analyzer test required e.g. for a surgeon before surgery, a pilot, air traffic control at the start of the duty, or a long distance train driver. The employees in this case can't claim privacy rights to deny such tests. 4. When you are in public place e.g. a sidewalk, you are participating in a public endeavor that comes with you dropping the privacy protection e.g. compared to what you would get in your bedroom. The rays of light that bounce off of you or your belonging are fair game to be captured. Photographers do not need to take your permission to capture rays of light that are travelling in their direction when they stand on a public place or a private place they own or a private place where the owner has given them permission to capture the rays. Those photographs can only be used for personal consumption or for non-profit activities e.g. an investigation, news reporting. Any commercial use of the photo e.g. in an product advertisement, would require release agreement from the person in the photo. I think Strong Privacy and Strong Identification both are required, for some things they are mutually exclusive, in some parts you trade one for another. Authentication/Authorization/Encryption/Non-Repudiation is needed to deliver these rights. Consider this, if privacy laws are absolute in every aspect of life then you can't have antitrust laws that stop competitors from fixing prices or agreeing to anti-competitive behavior. If privacy laws are absolute then smartphone apps that capture photo/video of an crime unfolding won't be allowed due to privacy concerns of the criminal. If you can keep something private (lock the door to your room, your safe deposit box), no one will force you to expose it, but one can't demand privacy in situations that naturally expose information to others, unless you explicitly set the expectation of privacy (attorney-client, doctor-patient, a service provider) as part of a contract. Government may make laws to cover most common situations e.g. your real estate agent sharing your budget with the seller of the property, your medical records etc. Privacy law is natural. What I draw and erase on a doodle board in the privacy of my home is my business, you can't force me to divulge it. What I say in my head to myself is my business, there is no thought crime. What I sing when on a trail is my business, no one can force me to say which song I sung. When government or corporation tries to invade the natural privacy, it should be stopped. In that regard, privacy is a fundamental right. But, privacy can't be claimed to hide criminal record from your neighbors or employers. More of me trying to sort it out in my own head.