11–20 of 215 posts
edit: The judgement is now available here: http://supremecourtofindia.nic.in/pdf/LU/ALL%20WP(C)%20No.49...
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?
The implication seems to be that it's the collection of personal information in excess of that needed to perform the function appropriately - why do you need iris scans and fingerprints, when a name and a photo would arguably be sufficient?
Will this help push more privacy centric companies toward operating out of India?
Not sure what will happen, I want both this and Aadhar.
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…
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?
On the other hand, the Aadhaar program (which is the context the above argument was made for) can be viewed as impinging on the fundamental "Right to Constitutional Remedies" as its governing body the UIDAI is set up in such a way that the UIDAI itself has sole authority on whether or not a grievance needs the intervention of the established judicial system[1].
[0]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fundamental_Rights,_Directive_...
[1]http://www.firstpost.com/tech/news-analysis/the-uidai-has-in...
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?
I assume the counter-argument would be that a way should be found to provide food, clothing, shelter, etc., without violating privacy. The implication seems to be that it's the collection of personal information in excess of that needed to perform the function appropriately - why do you need iris scans and fingerprints, when a name and a photo would arguably be sufficient?