Data collection does not invade privacy: SC

NEW DELHI: Data collection for handing social benefits doesn’t invade people’s privacy, the Supreme Court said on Thursday in a much-debated case on the government’s push to link Aadhaar with a string of services and schemes.

A nine-member constitution bench, headed by Chief Justice JS Khehar, made the remark hearing a bunch of petitions challenging the NDA government’s move to make Aadhaar, a 12-digit identification number, mandatory for people to become social welfare beneficiaries.

“Mere collection of data by the state to identify those who can benefit out of a socio-economic programme may not amount to impinging someone’s privacy,” it said. The petitioners argued that privacy is a fundamental right guaranteed by the Constitution and, hence, gathering a person’s personal and biometric details under the Aadhaar law breaches the privilege.

The court also revisited previous verdicts that rejected the idea of privacy being sacred.

Chief Justice Khehar proposed a formula to define right to privacy.

“I think whenever an action bothers one’s dignity we could probably say it violates that person’s privacy. Dignity flows out of liberty and privacy flows out of dignity,” he said.

“If government recognizes dignity then privacy has to be protected.”

On the second day of the hearing, the debate was on how far can a person assert his right to privacy and remain anonymous in this age of the all-intrusive internet.

Justice DY Chandrachud, a member of the bench, said all depends on whether the data were used for legitimate or illegal purposes.

“What is wrong if the government wants to put in place socioeconomic programmes and have data to identify people who can be the beneficiaries? But if profiling is done then that could impinge one’s privacy,” he told senior counsel Anand Grover, representing petitioner and social activist Aruna Roy.

Grover agreed that identification was not a problem, but trouble begins when the government starts tracking people through his Aadhaar details.

The counsel asked the court if it could specify parameters to determine privacy infringements.“It could be whether state interest is so compelling that one’s privacy has to be done away with,” he said.

I think whenever an action bothers one’s dignity we could probably say it violates that person’s privacy. Dignity flows out of liberty and privacy flows out of dignity JS KHEHAR, chief justice of India