A law which encroaches upon privacy will have to withstand the. In the context of Article 21 an invasion of privacy must be justified on the basis of a law which stipulates a procedure which is fair, just and reasonable. The law must also be valid with reference to the encroachment on life and personal liberty under Article An invasion of life or personal liberty must meet the threefold requirement of i legality, which postulates the existence of law; ii need, defined in terms of a legitimate State aim; and iii proportionality which ensures a rational nexus between the objects and the means adopted to achieve them.
These three requirements apply to all restraints on privacy not just informational privacy. The first requirement that there must be a law in existence to justify an encroachment on privacy is an express requirement of Article For, no person can be deprived of his life or personal liberty except in accordance with the procedure established by law.
The existence of law is an essential requirement. Second, the requirement of a need, in terms of a legitimate State aim, ensures that the nature and content of the law which imposes the restriction falls within the zone of reasonableness mandated by Article 14, which is a guarantee against arbitrary State action.
The pursuit of a legitimate State aim ensures that the law does not suffer from manifest arbitrariness. Legitimacy, as a postulate, involves a value judgment. Judicial review does not reappreciate or second guess the value judgment of the legislature but is for deciding whether the aim which is sought to be pursued suffers from palpable or manifest arbitrariness. The third requirement ensures that the means which are adopted by the legislature are proportional to the object and needs sought to be fulfilled by the law.
Proportionality is an essential facet of the guarantee against arbitrary State action because it ensures that the nature and quality of the encroachment on the right is not disproportionate to the purpose of the law. Hence, the threefold requirement for a valid law arises out of the mutual interdependence between the fundamental guarantees against arbitrariness on the one hand and the protection of life and personal liberty, on the other. The right to privacy, which is an intrinsic part of the right to life and liberty, and the freedoms embodied in Part III is subject to the.
We now have cellular phones, which are different from cordless phones, which are different from what we used to think of as phones. But protecting privacy need not be fatal to security measures; it merely demands oversight and regulation. The law suffers from related problems. It seeks to balance privacy and security, but systematic problems plague the way the balancing takes place….
We can reach a better balance between privacy and security. We must. There is too much at stake to fail. The freedom of press, as one of the members of the Constituent Assembly said, is one of the items around which the greatest and the bitterest of constitutional struggles have been waged in all countries where liberal constitutions prevail.
Recently, in the case of Anuradha. In this context, one possible test of chilling effect is comparative harm. However, no evidence was put forth to establish that such other individuals were also restricted in publishing newspapers in the area.
On the other hand, the learned Solicitor General has submitted that there were other newspapers which were running during the aforesaid time period. In view of these facts, and considering that the aforesaid petitioner has now resumed publication, we do not deem it fit to indulge more in the issue than to state that responsible Governments are required to respect the freedom of the press at all times.
Journalists are to be accommodated in reporting and there is no justification for allowing a sword of Damocles to hang over the press indefinitely. Without such protection, sources may be deterred. We expect that when such a petition is filed in public interest and particularly by a member of the legal profession, it would be filed with all seriousness and after doing the necessary homework and enquiry. Admittedly, no such measures were taken by the petitioner. Further, the State of Uttar Pradesh had filed its affidavit a year earlier i.
Despite one year having elapsed after the filing of the affidavit by the Special Secretary to the Home Department of the Government of Uttar Pradesh, nothing seems to have been done by the petitioner.
The petitioner has not even controverted what is stated in the affidavit. Ordinarily, we would have dismissed such a misconceived petition with exemplary costs but considering that the petitioner is a young advocate, we feel that the ends of justice would be met and the necessary message conveyed if a token cost of rupees one thousand is imposed on the petitioner.
That said, after we indicated our reservations to the. In order that the right guaranteed by clause 1 of Article 32 be meaningful, and particularly because such petitions seek the protection of fundamental rights, it is imperative that in such proceedings the petitioners are not denied the information necessary for them to properly articulate the case and be heard, especially where such information is in the possession of the State.
To deny access to such information, without citing any constitutional principle or enumerated grounds of constitutional prohibition, would be to thwart the right granted by clause 1 of Article Further, inasmuch as, by history and tradition of common law, judicial proceedings are substantively, though not necessarily fully, adversarial, both parties bear the responsibility of placing all the relevant information, analyses, and facts before this Court as completely as possible.
In most situations, it is the State which may have more comprehensive information that is relevant to the matters at hand in such proceedings It is necessary for us to note that the burden of asserting, and proving, by relevant evidence a claim in judicial proceedings would ordinarily be placed upon the proponent of such a claim; however, the burden of protection of fundamental rights is primarily the duty of the State.
Consequently, unless constitutional grounds exist, the State may not act in a manner that hinders this Court from rendering complete justice in such proceedings. Withholding of information from the petitioners, or seeking to cast the relevant events and facts in a light favourable to the State in the context of the proceedings, even though ultimately detrimental to the essential task of protecting fundamental rights, would be destructive to the.
In the task of upholding of fundamental rights, the State cannot be an adversary. The State has the duty, generally, to reveal all the facts and information in its possession to the Court, and also provide the same to the petitioners. This is so, because the petitioners would also then be enabled to bring to light facts and the law that may be relevant for the Court in rendering its decision. In proceedings such as those under Article 32, both the petitioner and the State, have to necessarily be the eyes and ears of the Court.
Different forms of surveillance and data gathering by. Oberoi is also a. The Procedure of the Committee shall be as follows:. Open navigation menu. Close suggestions Search Search. User Settings. Skip carousel. Carousel Previous. Carousel Next. What is Scribd? Uploaded by PGurus. Did you find this document useful? Is this content inappropriate?
Report this Document. Flag for inappropriate content. Download now. Supreme Court Judgement - Pegasus - 27 Oct Related titles. Carousel Previous Carousel Next. What Exactly is the Definition of Confidentiality. Jump to Page. Search inside document. The present batch of Writ Petitions raise an Orwellian concern, about the alleged possibility of utilizing modern technology to hear what you hear, see what you see and to know what you do.
In this context, this Court is called upon to examine an allegation of the use of such a technology, its utility, need and alleged abuse. We make it clear that our effort is to uphold the constitutional aspirations and rule of law, without allowing ourselves to be consumed in the political rhetoric. However, at the same time, it has never cowered from protecting all from the abuses of fundamental rights.
All that we would like to observe in this regard is a reiteration of what had already been said by this Court in Kesavananda Bharati v.
A short conspectus of the events leading up to the present batch of petitions would not be misplaced to highlight the scope of the issues at hand. The report indicated that individuals from nearly 45 countries were suspected to have been affected. The Pegasus suite of spywares can allegedly be used to compromise the digital devices of an individual through zero click vulnerabilities, i.
Once the device is infiltrated using Pegasus, the entire control over the device is allegedly handed over to the Pegasus user who can then remotely control all the functionalities of the device and switch different features on or off.
On 15th June , Citizen Lab, in collaboration with the international human rights organization, Amnesty International uncovered another spyware campaign which allegedly targeted nine individuals in India, some of whom were already suspected targets in the first spyware attack. On 18th July , a consortium of nearly 17 journalistic organizations from around the world, including one Indian organization, released the results of a long investigative effort indicating the alleged use of the Pegasus software on several private individuals.
This investigative effort was based on a list of some 50, leaked numbers which were allegedly under surveillance by clients of the NSO Group through the Pegasus software. The above reports resulted in largescale action across the globe, with certain foreign governments even diplomatically engaging with the Israeli Government to determine the veracity of the allegations raised, while other governments have initiated proceedings internally to determine the truth of the same.
The Minister also stated that the Amnesty report itself indicated that the mere mention of a particular number in the list did not confirm whether the same was infected by Pegasus or not. Court of Appeal Birmingham P. W and C. W Court of Appeal Whelan J. Court of Appeal Edwards J.
Page 1 of 3. Secansky -v- Commissioner of An Garda Siochana. Ross -v- Director of Public Prosecutions. Hanley -v- Road Safety Authority. Director of Public Prosecutions -v- M. S -v- Health Service Executive. M- v- The Minister for Justice and Equality. Director of Public Prosecutions -v- Ormond. Kilduff -v- K. Hennelly -v- Governor of Mountjoy Prison. Gannon Maguire -v- O'Callaghan. Molyneaux -v- Financial Services and Pensions Ombudsman. Director of Public Prosecutions -v- P.
Katshibombo -v- Minister for Justice. Director of Public Prosecutions -v- O'Brien. Case Status : Filing Number How to 1. In the Year box, enter the Case Filing Year. Click on the Go button, to get Case satisfying the given Filing Number condition. Facility to search the Acts from the Act list is also provided, since the Act List is very long. All the Acts matching the search criteria are displayed in the Act Type select box.
Select the required Act Type from the select box. If no search criteria are specified then, all the Acts are displayed in the Act Type select box. In the Under Section box, enter the Section which you want to search under the selected Act. If the section is not entered in the Under Section box, then the Cases belonging to all the sections under the selected Act will be listed.
Search Act Search. Under Section. Pending Disposed. Click on the Go button, to get list of all the Cases satisfying the given Case Type condition. Click on the adjacent View button from the list, to see the Case History. Select the Case Type from the Select box. Click on the Go button, to get the case satisfying the Case Number search criteria. Click on the Go button, to get the Cases satisfying the above Court Number search criteria.
Click on the Order No. Enter the Party Name, in part minimum 3 characters or full - For e. Click on the Go button, to get the cases satisfying the above Order Date search criteria. CauseList may differ from the causelist that is generated locally. For further queries you may contact Court Administrators of the State. Caveat Search : By Anywhere How to 1. Caveatee Name:. Caveator Name Caveatee Name. First Appellate Court.
Trial Court. Order Date:. CC Applied Date:. CC Ready Date:.
0コメント