Centre contradicts itself on right to privacy in SC

Satya Prakash

Tribune News Service

New Delhi, July 21

Having taken a stand before a nine-Judge Constitution Bench that right to privacy is not a fundamental right, the Centre today contradicted itself by telling another Constitution Bench hearing the WhatsApp privacy matter that personal data was an extension of one’s personality and hence a part of fundamental right to life.

“Data of a user is connected to his personality and it is an integral part of Article 21 (Fundamental Right to Life and Liberty),” Additional Solicitor General PS Narasimha told a five-Judge Bench headed by Justice Dipak Misra, which is examining issues arising out of the 2016 privacy policy of WhatsApp.

“If any contractual obligation impinges upon that, it will have ramifications. We will come out with regulations (on data protection),” Narasimha said.

On the face of it, the Centre’s stand in the WhatsApp case appears to be contrary to its categorical statement before the nine-Judge Constitution Bench headed by Chief Justice of India JS Khehar that right to privacy was not a fundamental right.

The Bench posted the matter for further hearing on September 6 after senior counsel Kapil Sibal, representing WhatsApp, pointed out that the verdict of the nine-Judge Bench on right to privacy would have a bearing on the matter and it should be heard only after the judgment was pronounced by the larger Bench.

Petitioners Karmanya Singh Sareen and Shreya Sethi had alleged WhatsApp’s decision to share all its subscribers’ data with Facebook impinged on privacy of 160 million Indian users.

The Delhi High Court had last year ruled that WhatsApp should delete all data in its possession till September 25, 2016, but said the company was free to share the data with Facebook post September 25, 2016, thus enabling subscribers to voluntarily withdraw from the service if they were not keen on sharing their data with Facebook.

The high court had asked the Centre and TRAI to examine the feasibility of bringing the messaging services under a regulatory regime in India. The petitioners challenged the HC verdict in the top court where the issue got referred to a Constitution Bench.