BENGALURU: THE nine-judge bench Supreme Court ruling on Right to Privacy will have widespread ramifications, as the framework of the new law is likely to regulate the use of private data of an individual - by government or private parties. However, some feel that implementation of this landmark ruling will be a concern, as “culturally and socially” privacy was not valued by many citizens of the country. Speaking to Express, Pranesh Prakash, Policy Director, Center for Internet and Society said that one of the main implications was that the ruling had both a vertical application for the government and a horizontal application concerning its citizens.
The ruling also discusses data protection which relates privacy to private parties in possession of private data of individuals, not just government, he said. “Privacy according to the ruling is not just a right against the State, but also against non-State actors. Right to Privacy has been held as an inalienable right that cannot be waived off,” he said. Dr A Nagaratna, Associate Professor, Advanced Centre on Research, Development and Training in Cyber Law and Forensics, National Law School of India University, said that unless people are aware of the importance of privacy, implementation of laws will be a problem. “Culturally and socially, privacy is not valued by citizens. The judgement will be effective only if common people value their privacy,” she said.
“The judgement will empower State to regulate social media sites from making commercial use of a person’s data without his or her consent. How far the government can regulate is another question,” she said. The framework of right to privacy laid down by the bench will be essential in interpreting Aadhaar Act and Section 377, at least for a few years to come, she added. Colonel Mathew Thomas, privacy activist, lauded the judgment. “Right to privacy will now mean that a persons’ privacy cannot be infringed except by the due course of law. This will also mean that laws cannot be passed violating the right to privacy,” he added. For instance, unless an authority has independent evidence to show that a person is involved in some offence, they would have no right to tap the person’s telephone, he said. Col Thomas added that with respect to Aadhaar, if the scheme was presented on the grounds that it is mandated for people to avail benefits, it would fail to stand ground.