Right to privacy

The Supreme Court unanimously observed that the right to privacy is a right under Article 21 of the Constitution and is absolute in nature, it cannot be suspended even during emergency. While declaring the right to life to be a fundamental right, the various judges also observed that the government has no right to dictate what a person can eat or wear. They also observed that the right to privacy covers all aspects of human life and relations including their sexual orientation.
The judgement will have an effect on other legal issues like decriminalizing homosexuality under Section 377 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, linking of aadhaar cards and making them mandatory, the government control over what is published over social media as well as the DNA profiling bill.
By covering sexual orientation in the purview of privacy, the Court has laid down the foundation for decriminalizing homosexuality and sought to protect the rights of the LGBT community. The Court observed that the issue of making aadhaar card mandatory which involves taking finger print and retina scan of individuals, will be taken over by another bench. Critics of aadhaar card have observed that by keeping a person's information in the digital database makes it vulnerable to be leaked by a cyber attack. Freedom over the social media is covered under freedom of speech under Article 19(1)(a) and is subject to restrictions under Article 19(2) but how much can the government read those posts will be judged by the rulings of the instant case. The DNA profiling Bill,2017, seeks to establish a DNA bank where the samples from criminals, unclaimed dead bodies, volunteers will be kept. The Bill seeks to help tracing of missing persons easy but it can encroach upon a person's privacy by keeping all his information in the government database. By covering a person's food habits, the present judgement hits at the government's beef ban.
While the order has to be lauded as a need of the hour to protect the citizens from intrusions in their private life, by making the right absolute, it can hinder the intelligence agencies seeking to control terrorist activities or anti national activities. Still, it is an important step towards protecting citizens from government scrutiny over their private life and choices.

Triple talaq

Talaq ul biddatt, is the practice whereby the muslim husband divorces his wife by the pronouncement of talaq in a single sitting. It is irrevocable and does not grant time for reconsideration. Talaq ul biddat or triple talaq as it is often called, does not have any source in the Quran or even in the Sunnat of the Holy Prophet, rather it was legalized during the period of the second calph, Umar. It is not recognized under many sects of muslims including the Shias. The Hanafi school of Sunni law recognizes the legality of this form of talaq but considers it sinful.
The Supreme Court by a majority of 3-2 held that Section 2 of the Shariat Act, 1937, as far as it covers the practice of triple talaq or talaq ul biddat is void as being arbitrary. The majority view held that since this form of pronouncing talaq does not give any chance of reconsideration or arbitration between the parties, it is arbitrary in nature and hence void. The minority view held that the practice of triple talaq is not against the principles enshrined under Articles 14, 15 or 21, it is covered under the protection of Article 25 as not being hit even by the exceptions of public order, health or morality, but it considered issuing an injunction for a period of six months during which the Parliament should pass a law covering the issue.

The right to abort

In India, it is illegal to abort a fetus and the circumstances under which a pregnancy can be terminated are governed by the terms of the Medical Termination of Pregnancy Act, 1971. Section 3 of the Act provides that where the term of pregnancy is less than 12 weeks then if it is the opinion of one medical practitioner and where it is longer than 12 weeks but less than 20 weeks and two medical practitioners are of the opinion that the pregnancy may be:
(1) harmful to the life of the mother or cause her grave mental or physical injury
(2) the child that will be born would have such physical or mental abnormality that it will be handicapped
(3) the pregnancy is a result of rape (explanation 1 puts it under the category of mental injury to the mother)
(4) the pregnancy is a result of failure of contraceptive methods (explanation 2 puts it under the category of injury to mental health)
the pregnancy can be terminated at a hospital established or maintained by the government or any place approved by the government for this purpose.(section 4)
The law further provides that in case of the pregnant woman being a minor, pregnancy cannot be terminated without the consent of her guardian.
The purpose of this law is to prevent sex selective abortions but it has not proved successful in that case as a large number of illegal abortions are rampant. The law has not prevented female feticide but has rather brought hardship to people who genuinely want to end a pregnancy for reasons other than those expressly mentioned including any social or economic hardships that the pregnancy may result in.
Still, the law permits the abortions in cases of rape or abnormality in the fetus, so if the courts refuse to grant permission to abort where the rape survivor is a minor or where fetus carries genetic disorders, it goes against the letter and spirit of law.
The right to abort should be more pro choice as every person has different circumstances and may not be capable of bringing another life into this world or would have faced great hardships because of the child birth. Instead of banning abortions, government should lay greater emphasis on contraceptive means, lay stress on sex education in schools and promote a safer atmosphere for children.