Opinion Parameters of privacy

Privacy is distinct from defamation. If the facts stated about a person are false,then the person responsible may be sued for libel. Privacy is invaded when without consent there is disclosure of information about a person’s private life,which is true,but causes the person embarrassment and distress. Truth is no defence to breach of privacy.

Right to privacy is not absolute. It can be curtailed depending on different situations. For example,in the case of some public officials,privacy has to yield to the public’s right to know about their personal traits and proclivities which could have a direct bearing upon the performance of their official duties and their fitness to occupy their present official positions. For example,addiction to alcohol or constant commingling with disreputable characters or consorting with foreign call girls may well render a public official unfit to retain a sensitive post in the defence or nuclear establishment as he can become a security risk because of the possibility of his blackmail. In such clear exceptional cases, the press would be justified in revealing relevant information. But not so in the case of a lawyer or a doctor or a writer or an actor or a politician however eminent or well-known,if his functions and activities have no repercussions on national security or public interest. The cherished fundamental right to privacy cannot be violated to satisfy idle or prurient curiosity especially of the self-appointed moral brigade. Orwell’s Animal Farm should be banned entry into our society.

Salutary HIV/AIDS legislation

Prejudice against HIV affected persons is pervasive and results in blatant discrimination against them. These persons are refused entry to hotels or restaurants,denied purchase or renting of a house and are generally shunned by society. This attitude is mainly owing to the misconception that HIV is contagious and the spurious notion that HIV/AIDS persons are immoral with whom decent people should not mingle.

In this context the introduction of the HIV/AIDS (Prevention & Control) Bill is welcome. A salutary provision is that no person can be forced to take a HIV test for getting employment or other benefits. Again,no HIV positive person can be subjected to medical treatment unless he has been informed about the risks and benefits of the treatment and his consent is obtained. Moreover,the HIV positive persons would enjoy guaranteed confidentiality and no person can be compelled to disclose his HIV status except under a court directive. The Bill contemplates an ombudsman in every state,as the forum to adjudicate upon cases of discriminatory practices. This will help the aggrieved party to secure relief without adopting time consuming legal proceedings. In order to combat rampant prejudice,the Bill prescribes a jail term of three months to two years and also a fine up to Rs 1 lakh for any spoken or written word,or display of information or advertisement,which could expose HIV positive persons to any form of hostility.

The Bill is not perfect. However,it is a much needed initiative to prevent or at least mitigate the gross discrimination suffered by HIV/AIDS persons. Ultimately,the success of this Bill or any similar legislation will depend upon the public’s acceptance of the need for such legislation emanating from an informed and sympathetic mind set.