Rajya Sabha MP Rajeev Chandrasekhar was one of the high-profile petitioners in the ‘Right to Privacy’ case. In an interview with BusinessLine , he shares his views on the Supreme Court judgment on Thursday which has ruled that privacy is a fundamental right.
What, according, to you is the biggest takeaway from this ruling?
As more and more Indians go online, and a lot more governance and private commerce go online — the citizens and consumers who had felt that they were vulnerable and without rights will feel more confident.
Even in the real world, citizens will find themselves with more rights, especially when dealing with State and government agencies that had no obligations or responsibilities with regard to privacy of individuals. Being a fundamental right, [privacy] will also be subject to exceptions, especially in national security and law and order situations.
Isn’t there a basic flaw here: by taking up the issue of privacy separately and delineating it from issues concerning Aadhaar?
No. Privacy is a fundamental issue that goes way beyond Aadhaar! The main issue is the seven-decade-old culture in our bureaucracy that citizens have no protective rights of privacy against the State. Aadhaar was another example of that old bureaucratic mindset. There are many other issues, including the obligations of private corporates that are impacted by citizens/consumers right to privacy.
Why did you implead yourself in the Right to Privacy case? What do you think of the stance of the Narendra Modi government that privacy is not a Fundamental Right? Have you communicated your stance and the reasons for it to the NDA government of which you are a member?
I was a petitioner in the Aadhaar case way back in 2013. It is that case that evolved into this review of privacy. So, I’ve been at it for a while. I can’t say I wasn’t disappointed with the initial stand of the then Attorney General. But the new Attorney General KK Venugopal’s position in this court was a more evolved one — where he was open to privacy being a fundamental right but not an absolute right.
You, along with Narendra Modi, were some of the earliest critics of Aadhaar, from the time of its inception. Since then, the stance has changed. The NDA is aggressively pushing its adoption now.I have always maintained that India needs a national identification platform to clean up the corruption in our benefits delivery system. I was a champion of the idea of Aadhaar idea from its early days. But it was terribly designed, loosely verified and thousands of crores of public money were spent by the UPA government without any scrutiny, debate or legislation. I opposed all these issues loudly. Unfortunately, not too many in media picked up on these issues then, caught up as they were in the hype and spin being put out. Almost 60 crore Indians were enrolled by UPA without any debate, discussion or scrutiny or even a law.
So, you suggested a few modifications...
Post NDA Govt, I was among those that suggested to the Prime Minister that Aadhaar not be junked and thousands of crores of public money not be wasted, that it be used by addressing its flaws. That is why the Parliament passed Aadhaar Direct Benefits Transfer Legislation. The issue of verification was tightened and [a system of] cleaning up fakes put into place. The Aadhaar that India has today shares very little with Aadhaar of UPA. I don’t share the view that proliferating Aadhaar use to all aspects of the subsidy and benefits economy is a bad thing. I don’t agree that mandatory Aadhaar for benefits identification is bad. I think it’s good and important to ensure the benefits reach the right people and not the corrupt.
My views on Aadhaar use going forward are already known to people in the government and so I wouldn’t want to share them here. Aadhaar, in its present form, and with these privacy rights, will be a solid accurate platform that will benefit citizens and the country.
Are there any areas in Thursday’s verdict that needs clarification?
The judgment is a 547-page judgment and will take time to digest and understand. But the core point is that the Supreme Court has reiterated that privacy is a fundamental right under Article 21 and Part III of the constitution, That is a big, big decision.