2024-09-29 05:13:27
New Delhi: Just imagine, a person is falsely accused of robbery. Even though there is no evidence, he should be declared a ‘history sheeter’. The policemen kept knocking on the door of his house all night long. Same thing happened with Kharak Singh. In 1962, Kharak Singh had approached the Supreme Court of the country. The Supreme Court considered the rule of knocking at midnight wrong, but did not say anything special about the right to privacy. Many decades have passed. Now technology has progressed a lot. Some time ago, Nigerian citizen Frank Vitus was released on bail in Delhi, but the condition was that he would have to tell his location to the police. When the matter reached the Supreme Court, the court said that this was wrong. No one can be tracked continuously. This is a violation of the right to privacy.
Why are these decisions important: These decisions tell us how important our personal life is to us and that the government or the police cannot take it away. In today’s era, with the help of technology it has become very easy to keep an eye on our every activity. These decisions remind us that we should be mindful of our rights even when using technology.
Constant surveillance unconstitutional: In the Frank Vitus case the Supreme Court was concerned that such conditions in bail orders force a person to remain under constant surveillance. The Supreme Court held that keeping the accused under constant surveillance is unconstitutional. Doing so would violate the right to privacy and the right to life and personal liberty given in Article 21 of the Constitution. The Court argued that keeping a person under ‘constant surveillance’ amounts to a form of imprisonment.
The troubled past of the right to privacy: The right to privacy has always been a contested topic in India. There have been many debates regarding this right since independence. Earlier, the right to privacy was not directly recognized in the Constitution of our country. But a big change came in the year 2017. The Supreme Court ruled that the right to privacy is a part of the right to life and personal liberty under Article 21 of our Constitution. Earlier, in cases like Kharak Singh, the right to privacy was not given that much importance. But now, the Supreme Court has made it clear that the personal life of every person should be respected.
Constitutional norms are evolving: More importantly, the decision is a timely reminder of the enduring benefits of treating the Constitution as a living document that is alive to current challenges. At that time, no one would have imagined that technology would be used to monitor people. But the makers of our Constitution had made it very thoughtfully. He created such a structure that the solution to any problem that may arise in the future can be found within the framework of the Constitution.
Strength of the Constitution: Right to Privacy, these rights derive from the right to life and personal liberty given in Article 21 of our Constitution. The important thing is that the concerns expressed by Kharak Singh in 1962 are still present to a great extent. What has changed is that this concern can now be dealt with more seriously. The right to privacy is undoubtedly affected by new technological advances. But as the Frank Vitus judgment reminds us, the Constitution is capable of dealing with the contradictions of technological progress in the 21st century. The Constitution is alive.