The apex court said that according to Section 2 (d) of the POCSO Act, the term “age” cannot include “mental” age as the intent of the Parliament was to focus on children, that is, persons who are physically under the age of 18 years.
The petitioners have challenged WhatsApp’s policy of sharing user data with its new parent company Facebook, saying it amounts to infringement of fundamental rights under Articles 19 (freedom of speech and expression) and 21 (right to life) of the Constitution.
The Centre today told the Supreme Court that data of users was “integral” to the Right of Life and Personal Liberty guaranteed under the Constitution and it would come out with regulations to protect it.
The BJP-ruled Gujarat and Jharkhand informed the court that action has been taken against those involved in violence related to cow vigilantism. The hearing was done amidst the recently held several attacks on people in the name of cow vigilantism.
According to the 54-page chargesheet, BJP leaders allegedly expressed their intention of constructing a temple publicly by way of political speeches over a highly disputed land since the 1950s. The apex court directed no fresh trial to take place and directed the Lucknow bench to hear the case on an everyday basis.
The impact of the Supreme Court’s decision on whether the right to privacy is a fundamental right on not will also have a significant impact on private players, such as Google and social media platforms. If privacy is a fundamental right, it can be claimed and asserted against the State by citizens.
Justice Chandrachud sought to know if the right to privacy would extend to one’s choice of family and sexual orientation. “If privacy is right to make choice, choice in what area — family, sexual orientation, gender identity, surveillance… what all?” he asked the petitioners.
Aadhaar case provides SC a magnificent opportunity to enshrine the right to privacy, which India desperately needs
“Liberty is the fundamental value of our Constitution.Life and liberty are natural existing rights which our Constitution has. Now can liberty be at all experienced without privacy. Can liberty be exercised without privacy atleast with regard to all the Fundamental Rights of the Constitution,” Gopal Subramanium said.
The new committee will replace the one headed by Justice R M Lodha (retired), which was constituted last year
Challenge to Aadhaar act: A five-judge Constitution Bench, which met to examine if the Aadhaar Act violates a person’s right to privacy, realised that the court will have to first answer if right to privacy constitutes a fundamental right under the Constitution before it takes up the main question.
A nine-judge Bench of the Supreme Court will decide whether privacy is a fundamental right. Indian Express summarises the view the Supreme Court has taken on this issue earlier
The Centre told the Supreme Court that opening another window for exchanging Rs 500 and Rs 1,000 demonetised notes will result in “any number of benami transactions and make it difficult to identify genuine cases from the bogus ones”.
As early as 1954, the apex court observed in a ruling that right to privacy is not a recognised right listed under Article 19 of the Constitution and held that it would not be possible to import the right by ‘strained construction’. But this did not bind the court to restrict the scope of Article 21 (right to life and personal liberty).
Alleging that field trials were being carried out without doing relevant tests, Bhushan sought a 10-year moratorium on them. He said a TEC report has pointed out that entire regulatory system was in shambles and a 10-year moratorium should be given.