The right to privacy is not provided separately under the Indian Constitution, instead it is a part of Article 21 itself. In R. Rajagopal v State of Tamil Nadu, the Supreme Court has expressly held that the right to privacy is very much a part of the right to life and personal liberty. A citizen has a right to safeguard his own privacy as well as that of his family. Nobody can publish what he doesn't want to share.
A man has got every right to control the amount of information he wants to share with the public. He has got a right to guard zealously the most intimate moments of his life. A man, whether a known criminal or a public figure, has got a right to protect his private life from being invaded upon subject to the laws and morals of the society.
In State of Maharashtra v Madhulkar Narain, the Apex Court held that the right to privacy is available to even a woman of easy virtues. The Court observed that a woman has got every right to guard her privacy.
In People's Union for Civil Liberties v Union of India, the Supreme Court has held that tapping of telephones is a direct infringement of a man's right to privacy.
Further, in Mr. X v Hospital Z, the Apex Court observed that the right to privacy should not be extended in such a manner that it might infringe some other person's right to life. The Court observed that though the right to privacy is a fundamental right, it is not absolute and unrestricted. Being a part of Article 21, the right to privacy is subject to the 'procedure established by law' clause of the same. The right is subject to restrictions imposed for the prevention of crime, protection of health and life of others or the protection of rights and freedoms or morals of others.
A man has got every right to control the amount of information he wants to share with the public. He has got a right to guard zealously the most intimate moments of his life. A man, whether a known criminal or a public figure, has got a right to protect his private life from being invaded upon subject to the laws and morals of the society.
In State of Maharashtra v Madhulkar Narain, the Apex Court held that the right to privacy is available to even a woman of easy virtues. The Court observed that a woman has got every right to guard her privacy.
In People's Union for Civil Liberties v Union of India, the Supreme Court has held that tapping of telephones is a direct infringement of a man's right to privacy.
Further, in Mr. X v Hospital Z, the Apex Court observed that the right to privacy should not be extended in such a manner that it might infringe some other person's right to life. The Court observed that though the right to privacy is a fundamental right, it is not absolute and unrestricted. Being a part of Article 21, the right to privacy is subject to the 'procedure established by law' clause of the same. The right is subject to restrictions imposed for the prevention of crime, protection of health and life of others or the protection of rights and freedoms or morals of others.
No comments:
Post a Comment