The first thing to know when talking about privacy in India is that most of the population does not always understand what that means. Sometimes it is confused with shame. It is also confused with the emotion we feel when we do something that does not meet our standards or our sense of what is right.
The modern languages of India seem to have an exact word that reflects a sense of privacy; There are usually some variations of words for isolation, privacy or confidentiality, again hinting at a conceptual confusion.
This explains the reactions of many who wonder what is important for privacy, because they have nothing to hide on the part of the government anyway.
Confidentiality, however, is not just something to hide or keep secret. It is essentially the right to be left alone. This does not mean that we withdraw from society. It is expected that the Company does not intervene in the decisions made by the person, as long as they do not harm others.
This means that the right to eat what we choose, the right to drink what we choose, the right to love and marry whom we choose to wear what we choose among others, are rights that the state can not interfere with.
In a society where adults are not necessarily exercising most of these choices on their own will (or by family, caste or social pressure), it is natural that the very notion of private life seems incomprehensible.
If you grew up in a society where everything you do is dictated by another person, and the cost of disobedience is high, you have the freedom to choose what you want in matters as important as fantasy.
But it is also a common mistake that not accommodated in India do not know or do not care about privacy. Millions of men and women reject daily oppression separated from their families and communities and fight for the freedom to make their own decisions.
They may not be the right word for him, but create a space for themselves to exercise the right to privacy. It is in this context that we must understand the Supreme Court hearings on the right to privacy.
Although the nine-judge jury was formed to decide whether there is a fundamental right to privacy protection protected by the Constitution in the specific context of the Aadhaar case, privacy has many more dimensions than simple protection or data monitoring by Of the state.
A fundamental right to privacy, enshrined and protected in the Constitution would mean that all persons have the right to be left alone by the State, unless such intrusion is necessary by a just, reasonable and equitable law.
It required the first court of nine judges in the first place, while several judgments had considered that there was a common right common to privacy (claimed that of other persons and entities), it was doubtful such a right could be claimed against the government.
Obviously, the Constitution does not use the word “privacy” or it will not hold hearings. Where, then, the right to privacy is a place in the Constitution?