While I appreciate the legal perspectives offered, I’d like to respectfully challenge the assumption that society by-laws automatically override individual rights — especially when it comes to privacy and safety.
1. Right to Privacy is a Fundamental Right
As per the landmark judgment Justice K.S. Puttaswamy vs Union of India (2017), the Supreme Court clearly held that privacy is a fundamental right under Article 21 of the Constitution. Displaying flat numbers and society names publicly on vehicles exposes individuals to unnecessary tracking, profiling, or even targeted harm, especially in today's surveillance-heavy environment.
Making it mandatory to disclose such information in public spaces — even under the guise of "internal by-laws" — must pass the test of proportionality:
-
Is the action lawful?
-
Is there a legitimate aim (e.g., security)?
-
Is the least intrusive method being used?
-
Is there a balance between public interest and individual harm?
In this case, flat numbers on vehicles are not the least intrusive method for vehicle identification. Alternatives like barcodes, QR codes, or unique IDs exist and are used globally — proving that security can be maintained without compromising privacy.
2. By-Laws Cannot Override Constitutional Rights
By-laws, no matter how well-meaning, cannot overrule fundamental rights, especially in a democratic society. If a society insists on violating privacy in the name of enforcement, such by-laws can be challenged legally for being arbitrary, excessive, and disproportionate to the purpose.
3. Tenants and Temporary Residents Have Greater Exposure
For tenants, sticking permanent stickers with flat information is especially impractical. Stickers can damage windshields with sunfilm, and become obsolete if the flat is vacated. Denying access to a legal resident for refusing to comply with a questionable privacy policy can amount to harassment, and potentially a violation of the right to peaceful enjoyment of property.
4. Precedents Exist for Customizable or Voluntary Disclosures
Several housing societies across India have already shifted to scannable or coded stickers (without flat numbers) precisely to respect individual privacy while still enabling security personnel to verify vehicles. If others can balance this, why can't all?
5. Threat Perception Must Be Considered
Let's not trivialize potential risks. In today's environment — especially for women, whistleblowers, or individuals with safety concerns — publishing flat numbers on cars is an avoidable and potentially dangerous practice. In extreme scenarios, it can even facilitate targeted harm, stalking, or home surveillance.
6. Suggestion — Reasonable Middle Ground
Rather than enforcing a one-size-fits-all mandate, why not allow residents the option to:
-
Carry the sticker and show it on demand (which still satisfies security).
-
Or use an alternate identification method like a barcode, RFID, or society-issued code without a flat number.
Conclusion
Mandates without safeguards lead to overreach. If a rule unnecessarily compromises privacy when less intrusive alternatives exist, it must be questioned — even if it’s written into society by-laws. Rights don’t end at the society gate.
![Dr. MPS RAMANI Ph.D.[Tech.]](/img/avatars/my_avatars/84227.jpg)
