Right to privacy as Right to life 

Right to privacy as Right to life 

Context:

It is important for the courts to examine disability as a ground for the grant of bail

Introduction:

• In the Supreme Court’s right to privacy judgment (Justice K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India), Justice D.Y.Chandrachud held “Life and personal liberty are inalienable to human existence. The human element in the life of the individual is integrally founded on the sanctity of life.
• The court observed that a constitutional democracy can survive when citizens have an undiluted assurance that the rule of law will protect their rights and liberties against any invasion by the state and those judicial remedies to those deprived of these most precious rights.

Violation of right to life

• In 2014, Delhi University professor G.N. Saibaba was arrested under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act .
• In March 2017, he was convicted by the Gadchiroli session court to life imprisonment for alleged offences under the same act.
• The grounds of his conviction are debatable, the immediate concern is regarding the question of miscarriage of justice.
• He was suffered from severe disabilities and multiple related health conditions .
• Placing him in solitary confinement with no support violates his right to life, bodily integrity and autonomy under Article 21 of the Constitution, although his conviction only impose restraints on personal liberty.
• Prisoners in jail may be deprived of personal liberty according to procedure established by law, but that does not include a derogation of their right to dignity.
• The privacy Bench reiterated the words of Justice Krishna Iyer in the Prem Shankar Shukla case: “The guarantee of human dignity, which forms part of our constitutional culture, and the positive provisions of Articles 14, 19 and 21 spring into action when we realise that to manacle man is more than to mortify him; it is to dehumanise him and, therefore, to violate his very personhood, too often using the mask of ‘dangerousness’ and security…” and that the right to life cannot be restricted to mere “animal existence”.

Life, liberty and freedom

• The Supreme Court holds unequivocally that in adopting the Constitution, the people of India do not surrender the most precious aspects of the human persona — namely life, liberty and freedom — to the state on whose mercy these rights would depend.
• Each of these aspects — life, liberty and freedom — must be considered together and/or severally as the case may be.
• Where there is a sentence on personal liberty, the citizen does not surrender his life to the mercy of the state.

Entitled to bail

• In the light of the decision of the Supreme Court on the right to privacy, particularly its comments on the Suresh Kumar Koushal judgment on Section 377 of the Indian Penal Code and the habeas corpus case, one cannot help but hope that the Nagpur High Court, in considering Mr. Saibaba’s appeal against his conviction, similarly examines the judgment and deliberates on the relationship between fact, law, popular rhetoric and proportionality therein.
• The court examines disability as a ground for the grant of bail, as distinct from “medical grounds”.

Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2013:

• According to the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2013, “respect for inherent dignity, individual autonomy and independence of persons” and “accessibility”.
• Section 2(s) of the Act defines a person with disability as “a person with long term physical, mental, intellectual or sensory impairment which, in interaction with barriers, hinders his full and effective participation in society equally with others.”
• In conditions of custody, such persons must be protected from any hindrance to the exercise of bodily integrity and autonomy with dignity — this lies at the core of his right to privacy.
• Unavailability of such a guarantee within custodial facilities entitles the prisoner with disabilities to bail.

Right to privacy:

• The right to privacy judgment asserts privacy “as an integral part of the right to human dignity is comprehended within the protection of life as well.
• It is necessary for every court to develop a sensibility towards and understanding of what constitutes human dignity and protection of life for persons located differently in social order.

What are the various features of Right to Privacy?

• Privacy is a constitutionally protected right emerging primarily from the guarantee of life and liberty in Article 21 of the Constitution.
• It includes the preservation of personal intimacies, sanctity of family life, marriage, procreation, the home and sexual orientation.
• Privacy connotes a right to be left alone. It safeguards individual autonomy and recognizes one’s ability to control vital aspects of his/her life.
• Privacy is not an absolute right, but any invasion must be based on legality, need and proportionality.
• Informational privacy is a facet of this right. Dangers to this can originate from both state and non-state actors.

Right to privacy is an absolute right or not?

• The court ruled that Privacy is not an absolute right.
• The government can introduced a law which “intrudes” into privacy for public and legitimate state reasons.
• But an individual can challenge this law in any of the constitutional courts of the land for violation of his/her fundamental right to privacy.
• There are many grounds on which government can impose restrictions.

What are the various grounds on which restrictions can be imposed?

• The right to privacy can be restricted by procedure established by law and this procedure would have to be just, fair and reasonable.
• Reasonable restrictions can be imposed on the right to privacy on the following grounds:
• Interest of the sovereignty and integrity of India.
• The security of the State.
• Friendly relations with foreign State.
• Public order, decency or morality.
• In relation to contempt of court, defamation or incitement to an offence; (Article 19(2) of the Constitution of India, 1950).
• The right to privacy can be restricted if there is an important countervailing interest which is superior to it.
• The right to privacy can be restricted if there is a compelling state interest to be served.
• The protection available under the right to privacy may not be available to a person who voluntarily introduces him- or herself into controversy.

What are the constitutional provisions dealing with privacy?

Article 21

• The Constitution of India does not specifically guarantee a “right to privacy”
• However, Article 21 of the Constitution of India states that “No person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty except according to procedure established by law”.
• Article 21 interprets that the term ‘life’ includes all those aspects of life which go to make a man’s life meaningful, complete and worth living.