Supreme Court Judge Observes 10 Points of Rights to Privacy is not absolute

Petioners said: Aadhaar Violates citizens privacy, a fundamental rights,
From Centre: Rights to to Privacy not in constitution not part of right of life.
"9 Judge hearing case related to petition's challenges to scheme.

New Delhi: On Wednesday: Supreme Court Judge said that the right to privacy is not absolute and cannot be catalogued as it include everything. Revisiting the questions of privacy by a nine judge bench of 55 years after the supreme court decided that it is not a basic right for citizens. The decision of the judges is pivotal to petions that challenge making the Aadhaar Scheme mandatory for millions of Indians.

Here's the 10  Big development In this Story.

1. Rights to privacy does not necessarily co-exist with data protection the courst crucially said.

2. " Can this Court defines Privacy? You cannot make a catalogue of what constitutes privacy. Privacy is so amorphous and includes everything.... If we make any attempt to catalogue Privacy it will have disastrous consequence," said the constitutions bench.

3. Justice DY Chandrachud, the Judge who made these observations, said ," if I decide to cohabit with my wife police cannot barge into my bedroom. That's my privacy because I have to send them to school under the rights to Education Laws.

4. Petitions argued that privacy is the heart and soul of the constitutions and is embedded in the rights to dignity and liberality.

5. To bolster their argument, they referred to the finance minister Arun Jaitley's statement in the Parliament in march " The present bill (Aadhaar) presupposes and is based on a preamble that it is too late in the day to continued that privacy is not a fundamental rights. So I do accept that probably privacy is a fundamental rights. "According to news Agency IANS, he told Rajya Sabha that " It is now accepted privacy is a part of individual liberty". Let us assume that privacy is a part of liberality and no person shall be deprived of privacy without due process of law.

6. Representing the petitions Senior lawyer Gopal Subramanium argued that the rights to life and liberty are preexisting natural rights.

7. Petitions challenge Aadhaar says data like iris scans and fingerprints taken by the state violates citizens privacy.

8. The centre has said in court that the rights to privacy is not in the constitutions and in no part of the rights to life.

9. An eight judge bench in 1954 and six judge bench in 1962 had both ruled there is no right to privacy. After the mid 1970s benches of two and three judges have consistently taken positions that the privacy is indeed a fundamental rights.

10. In past orders, the supreme court has expanded the rights to life to include the rights to clean air and even sleep. If the court doesn't rule that privacy is a fundamental rights, then all cases relating to the Aadhaa scheme will gp back to the original three judges benches or five judges benches.

Read also: Banks to be permanently banned.