Our privacy’s worth

Our privacy’s worth

Article:

1. Shankar Naryanan, leads the Public Law vertical at the Vidhi Centre for Legal Policy, gave his arguments against criticism of the Srikrishna Committee report.

Important facts:

• The draft personal data protection Bill 2018, submitted by the Justice B.N. Srikrishna-headed expert panel has proposed that critical personal data of Indian citizens be processed in centres located within the country.

2. Critiques alleged that the Srikrishan Committee has undermined and reinterpreted the legal principles in the right of privacy judgment.
3. While this claim may seem provocative, it is based on a reading of the privacy judgment.

• It expressly stated the primacy of the individual as the beneficiary of fundamental rights.
• It rejected the argument that the right to privacy dissolves in the face of amorphous collective notions of economic development.

4. The critiques said that the report on data protection misinterprets the Supreme Court’s right to privacy judgment.
5. In Aug 2017, the Supreme Court declared the right to privacy a fundamental right and observed that informational privacy is a key facet of this right
6. The court ruled that States must create a regime for informational privacy which protects individuals from state and non-state actors.
7. Thought, the committee was constituted prior to the judgment, this was its task, as stated in its report
8. While defending the Srikrishan committee, the author raised the two important key points in this article:
9. Provocative claim:

• The apex court has held the individual is the beneficiary of fundamental rights.
• Much like other fundamental right, the right to privacy is a means to achieve collective goal of a free and just society.
• The Preamble of the Constitution speaks of a people who value liberty, equality, fraternity and justice.
• The Srikrishan committee report makes this point as succinctly as possible when it notes that the importance of a right in this account is not because of the benefit that accrues to the rights-holder but because that benefit is a public good.
• In other words, there is an important societal interest which is furthered by protecting the right to privacy.
• The author quotes Justice D.Y. Chandrachud who notes that the “individual is the focal point of the Constitution because it is in the realisation of individual rights that the collective well being of the community is determined”.
• It is to this effect that the Committee notes that it would be an error to view individual rights as deontological categories which protect individual interests.

2. Other argument raised in this article:

• In another argument the author said that the report endorses a view that the right to privacy dissolves in the face of amorphous claims of economic development.
• According to the author, the report actually dismisses the notion of such a binary.
• The Committee specifically emphasizes that protecting the autonomy of an individual for free and fair digital economy.
• The Committee expresses the view that protecting the autonomy of data principals is critical as it will encourage the flow of information.
• The committee observes that such an economy envisages a polity where the individual autonomously decides what to do with her personal data, in a manner that promotes overall welfare.
• The author said that Srikrishna Committee report and Bill are not perfect outcomes of a perfect process. However, they are honest attempts to provide rational solutions to real problems.