The landmark Supreme Court judgment on the right to privacy wisely refrained from providing a laundry list of subjects that would fall under that bracket. “This court has not embarked upon an exhaustive enumeration or a catalogue of entitlements or interests comprised in the right to privacy. The Constitution must evolve with the felt necessities of time to meet the challenges thrown up in a democratic order governed by the rule of law… The Constitution cannot be frozen on the perspectives present when
it was adopted and it has to remain alive to changing times,” the verdict said.
The verdict offered abundant clarity on issues of conflict between the citizen and the state. It went on say that “privacy included at its core the preservation of personal intimacies, the sanctity of family life, marriage, procreation, the home and sexual orientation.” Privacy, the judgment said, “also connotes a right to be left alone. Privacy safeguards individual autonomy and recognises the ability of the individual to control vital aspects of his or her life.
Personal choices governing a way of life are intrinsic to privacy. Privacy protects heterogeneity and recognises the plurality and diversity of our culture.” The omnibus definition has the potential of opening up a whole new basket of micro issues requiring judicial attention. For example, are arranged marriages protected under its definition? How about the right to eat what a person likes? Or the right to challenge gender segregation in college buses as is the norm in a section of institutions in Tamil Nadu? Then there is the question of imposing dress codes in educational institutions.
How about a married woman’s right to reject procreation? Or the choice of deciding not to work for a living? Is your right to own a house, right to space, right to move freely protected at home and at public places? Much more grey areas on individual freedoms could emerge. It will be interesting to see how the whole debate pans out in the near future.