NCSG-DISCUSS Archives

NCSG-Discuss

NCSG-DISCUSS@LISTSERV.SYR.EDU

Options: Use Forum View

Use Monospaced Font
Show Text Part by Default
Show All Mail Headers

Message: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Topic: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Author: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]

Print Reply
Subject:
From:
"Mueller, Milton L" <[log in to unmask]>
Reply To:
Mueller, Milton L
Date:
Sat, 26 Aug 2017 02:37:34 +0000
Content-Type:
text/plain
Parts/Attachments:
text/plain (1 lines)
Dear Mishi and other Indian colleagues:

 

News of this decision has been spread far and wide - I even saw a notice of it in the Atlanta USA Department of Driver Services as I waited for my son to get a learner's permit! 



But I have a question: what action or dispute motivated this decision? Is this just an abstract debate about whether there is a constitutional right or is it a dispute about a specific activity or program of the government, such as Aadhar or Whois in .IN, that might be declared illegal because of this ruling? 



Thanks,



Dr. Milton L. Mueller

Professor, School of Public Policy

Georgia Institute of Technology









> -----Original Message-----

> From: NCSG-Discuss [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of

> Mishi Choudhary

> Sent: Thursday, August 24, 2017 12:43 PM

> To: [log in to unmask]

> Subject: Right to privacy-India

> 

> In a momentous judgment delivered in the case of K. S Puttaswamy (Retd.) &

> Anr. v. Union of India & Ors. [Writ Petition (Civil) No. 494 of 2012] today, the

> Supreme Court of India affirmed that citizens have a fundamental right to

> privacy. The nine-judge Constitution bench comprising Chief Justice of India

> (CJI) J.S Khehar, and Justices D.Y.

> Chandrachud, J. Chelameshwar, S.A. Bobde, A. Nazeer, R.K. Agrawal, R.F.

> Nariman, A.M. Sapre, and S.K. Kaul, held in a unanimous decision that Right to

> Privacy is protected as an intrinsic part of Right to Life and Personal Liberty

> under Article 21 of the Constitution and other freedoms guaranteed under

> Part III of the Constitution.

> 

> 

> SFLC.in Board members were petitioners in this historic case.

> 

> The nine-judge Bench was tasked with answering the specific question of

> whether the previous Supreme Court judgments in M.P. Sharma v. Satish

> Chandra [AIR 1954 SC 300] (an eight-judge Bench) and Kharak Singh v.

> State of Uttar Pradesh [AIR 1963 SC 1295] (a six-judge Bench) were correct in

> holding that the Constitution of India does not envisage a fundamental right to

> privacy.

> --

> Warm Regards

> Mishi Choudhary, Esq.

> Legal Director

> Software Freedom Law Center

> 1995 Broadway Floor 17| New York, NY-10023

> Direct: +1-212-461-1912| Main: +1-212-461-1900| Fax: +1-212-580-0898

> http://softwarefreedom.org/

> 

> 

> President and Founding Director

> SFLC.IN

> K-9, Second Floor, Jangpura Extn.| New Delhi-110014

> Main: +91-11-43587126 | Fax: +91-11-24323530

> http://sflc.in/ | https://internetshutdowns.in

> 

> 

> 

> The information contained in this email message is intended only for use

> of the individual or entity named above. If the reader of this message

> is not the intended recipient, or the employee or agent responsible to

> deliver it to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any

> dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is strictly

> prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please

> immediately notify us by email, [log in to unmask], and destroy

> the original message.


ATOM RSS1 RSS2