Right to privacy: MP Sharma and Kharak Singh no longer good law [Read petitioner’s written submissions]

A 9-judge Bench of the Supreme Court is readying itself to hear the case on Right to Privacy and whether it is a Fundamental Right under our Constitution (Justice KS Puttaswamy (Retd.) & Anr. v. Union of India & Ors.). This determination would hold the key in deciding the validity of Aadhaar scheme..The petitioners in the matter, SG Vombatkare and Shanta Sinha have made written submissions to the Court..In the written submissions, they have contended that Right to Privacy has been recognised by the Supreme Court through “an unbroken line of decisions” since 1975..“It is submitted that this has recognised rights as facets of Article 21. Similarly, the Right to Privacy has also been recognised as flowing from article 21.”.The petitioners have further submitted that Right to Privacy cannot be defined with any specificity and there cannot be an exhaustive enumeration of aspects of the right and the same has to be determined on a case-to-case basis..“However, it extends to several aspects including:. Bodily integrity Personal autonomy Right to be left alone Informational self-determination Protection from State surveillance Dignity Confidentiality Compelled speech Freedom to dissent Freedom of movement Freedom to think”.According to the petitioners, Right to Privacy emanates from a “conjoint reading of the Golden Triangle of Articles 14, 19 and 21 of the Constitution”. The petitioners have also placed reliance on international conventions and treaties, particularly Article 17 of the International Convention on Civil and Political Rights..“It is an accepted proposition of law that rules of customary international law which are not contrary to the municipal law shall be deemed to be incorporated in the domestic law. Article 51 of the Constitution directs that the State shall endeavour to inter alia, foster respect for international law and treaty obligations…In this backdrop, Part III of the constitution, particularly Article 21 must be interpreted in conformity with international law.”.Importantly, it is the contention of the petitioners that law laid down by the Supreme Court in MP Sharma And Others v. Satish Chandra and Kharak Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh, is bad law in the light of subsequent decisions of the Supreme Court in Rustom Cavasjee Cooper v. Union of India and Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India..Read the written submissions below.