Verdict puts citizen back at the centre

The apex court judgment is historic.  In modern circumstances, any development which shifts the balance of rights to citizenry from the mammoth state machinery is a welcome move, albeit with certain reasonable caution to be exercised for common good. Right to privacy has been bundled with the right to life and liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution. Justice H. R. Khanna, famously dissenting with the majority in the case of ADM Jabalpur v Shivkant Shukla, held that even when fundamental rights are suspended, right to life shall remain as it is a natural right which precedes the Constitution. The majority held that in the time of internal emergency the highest court cannot guarantee the right to life. Things have come very far at this juncture, when the right to life with guaranteed privacy has been held as a fundamental right.

The debate on the inalienability of fundamental rights was the subject of litigation before the Supreme Court in Golak Nath and Keshavananda Bharati cases. Most of the disputes arose due to litigants wanting protection for the right to property against state actions in furtherance to the implementation of Directive Principles.
Social equity and right to property came into conflict. This is now history, as the right to property, is no longer a fundamental right and only a legal right, courtesy the Constitutional amendments brought in by Janata Party government of 1977-79. Now, fundamental rights cannot be attacked under the guise of implementing progressive measures.

The right to privacy has a meaning only when food, clothing and shelter are ensured for everyone. A citizen without these entitlements has no privilege of privacy, whether it is a fundamental right or not. The bright side of the right to privacy as a fundamental right is that organised groups cannot interfere with eating habits and life routine for having children of perceived required health. On the flip side, there is a chance of individuals with undisclosed wealth claiming right to privacy for nondisclosure before public. Political parties are already claiming privacy from Right to Information. But, the right to privacy too, like all fundamental rights is to be subject to reasonable restrictions.

Right to Privacy as a fundamental right is an effective tool for the citizenry against any State authoritarianism. At the same time, one needs to guard against vested interests using it as a veil against transparency which calls for maximum disclosure. Already, the classic bureaucratic mindset considers right to information as an avoidable irritant. The long and short of the matter is that a potent weapon of rights in the hands of many can equally be attempted to be used as a shield to guard vested interests.  The spirit of the landmark judgment has to be protected by the pillars of an ever vigilant society.