|Originally posted by : upendra rai
||Its a serious matter, every where aadhar number is being made mandatory without any protection to privacy. Why aadhar number is necessary for fillng exam forms? how some institution can insist even after supreme court order for not making it mandatory?
Fully agree that it is a serious matter.
Privacy is an inherent human right and a requirement for maintaining the human condition with dignity and respect. Two proverbs say it best: Quis custodiet custodes ipsos? ("Who watches the watchers?") and "Absolute power corrupts absolutely."
Privacy protects us from abuses by those in power, even if we're doing nothing wrong at the time of surveillance. Cardinal Richelieu understood the value of privacy and surveillance when he famously said, "If one would give me six lines written by the hand of the most honest man, I would find something in them to have him hanged." Watch someone long enough and you'll find something to arrest or some material to blackmail with. Privacy is important because without it, surveillance information will be abused: to peep, to sell to marketers or to spy on political opponents, whoever they happen to be at the time.
We do nothing wrong when we indulge in some private moments or go to the bathroom for privacy. We are not deliberately hiding anything when we seek out private places for reflection or conversation. We keep private diaries, sing in the privacy while bathing in bathroom, or write letters to secret lovers and then burn them. Thus privacy is a basic human right. That is why Article 12 of Universal Declaration of Human Rights recognizes privacy as a fundamental human right. Similarly that is why Article 17.1 of International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights recognizes privacy as a fundamental human right. The Section 2(1)(f) of Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993, recognizes International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and thus clearly acknowledges privacy as fundamental human right necessary for life of dignity.
Similarly Part III of the Constitution is an inspiration from Universal Declaration of Human Rights that is why privacy is embedded in Article 21. The same privacy is flowing into Identification of Prisoners Act 1920. Since privacy is a fundamental human right recognized by Article 21, and thus privacy cannot be invaded unless someone is criminally accused or convicted, that is why under the Sections 3, 4 and 5, the fingerprints, photographs and other bodily measurements, can be taken only of those who are criminally accused or convicted persons. Similarly since these measurements and photographs belong to the accused are held in trust in fiduciary capacity, when released without trial or discharged or acquitted by any Court, then as a matter of right of privacy and dignity of such person, the Section 7 mandates that all measurements and all photographs are be destroyed or made over to the person released without trial or discharged or acquitted. When fingerprints, biometrics or other bodily measurements of citizens are taken by State coercion of those who are neither accused or convicted, the State is reducing the dignity of the innocent to level of criminally accused or convicts, the State is changing the foundations of sovereign dignified relationship of citizens with the State, from masters of the State to it's slaves.
Fundamental rights are those rights without which our lives becomes miserable. Without right of privacy our lives will become miserable. Can the State or any court say(erroneously) that since privacy is not a fundamental right, the right to wear clothes to cover ones body or stay in privacy of home is not allowed and have to live and roam publicly fully naked? Savages do not have any privacy right that is why they live and roam about naked. With the progress of civilization, the respect and sanctity of right of privacy has increased and not gone town downwards the direction of savages and early man.
Since privacy is so foundational for our being as humans, that is why a future in which privacy would face constant assault was so alien to the framers of the Constitution that it never occurred to them to call out privacy as an explicit right. Privacy was inherent to the nobility of their being and their cause. Of course being watched in your own home was unreasonable. Watching at all was an act so unseemly as to be inconceivable among gentlemen in their day. You watched convicted criminals, not free citizens. You rule your own self and body. It's intrinsic to the concept of liberty. Too many wrongly characterize the debate as "security versus privacy." The real choice is liberty versus control. Tyranny, whether it arises under threat of foreign physical attack or under constant domestic authoritative state scrutiny, is still tyranny. The very purpose of creating a State with Constitutional guarantees is to safeguard liberty. Liberty requires security without intrusion, security plus privacy. Widespread police surveillance under any color or pretext, is the very definition of a police state. And that's why we should champion privacy even when we have nothing to hide.
What can be done since the matter is already with Supreme Court? Collect the evidence of coercion and provide directly to Supreme Court or contact the existing petitioners or their lawyers. Also provide the legal facts mentioned in this post so that can be told to Supreme Court that privacy is indeed a fundamental right beyond any doubt. May visit the following websites, contact the relevant persons to further this matter and share this post with them -
May also contact Advocate Shyam Divan who is probably fighting the ongoing Supreme Court case of K. Puttaswamy v. Union of India and share the points mentioned in this post, so the same can also be told to Supreme Court.