On the second day of arguments to determine whether the right to privacy constitutes a fundamental right under the Constitution, the nine-judge Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court argued the hypocrisy of data sharing in India.

If 99 per cent of the citizens are unconcerned about sharing their data, how is it different if the State also collects the same, the Supreme Court questioned on Thursday. "You say there are 35 crore Internet users and 18 crore telephone users, but 99% of people are not concerned... When you operate your iPad with your thumbprint, your data is public..." said Justice DY Chandrachud.

"The moment you want to travel from Mumbai to Delhi, you will get 100 suggestions. Your private and personal data is in private hands, so is there anything qualitatively different when the State has it? You have surrendered your personal life to private parties, but here we are saying that State should be restricted from having it," Justice Chandrachud addressed senior advocate Sajan Poovayya, appearing for the petitioners.

Replying to this argument about the "unconcerned" citizen, Mr. Poovayya said that even if one citizen was aware and concerned about how, where and who uses his personal data, it is an obligation under the Constitution to protect his dignity and privacy.
 

"Right to privacy does not stand on the pedestal of secrecy, it holds forth from the pedestal of dignity," he submitted.

"Apple even has watches monitoring my heartbeat. My informed surrender of data to a private player in this digital age is not my surrender of my personal data to all. If this private player takes my data and gives it to all on the Internet, then I can sue him for breach of contract. But if I give it to the State, where are the corresponding restrictions and deterrents" Mr. Poovayya asked the court.

The court will hear arguments by the Union on Tuesday.

ALSO READ:
Rajya Sabha accepts BSP Supremo Mayawati's Resignation

Right To Privacy Is Not Absolute entitlement, Observes Supreme Court

A 9 bench committee to decide the constitutionality of “Right to Privacy”