Right to Privacy verdict

==Judgement==

==Judgement==

On 24 August 2017, the Supreme Court of India gave the Right to Privacy verdict. In the case of Justice K. S. Puttaswamy (Retd.) and Anr. vs Union Of India And Ors. The Supreme court held that the Right to Privacy is a fundamental right protected under Article 21 and Part III of the Indian Constitution. The judgement mentioned Section 377 as a “discordant note which directly bears upon the evolution of the constitutional jurisprudence on the right to privacy.” In the judgement delivered by the 9-judge bench, [[Dhananjaya Y. Chandrachud|Justice Chandrachud]] (who authored for Justices [[Jagdish Singh Khehar|Khehar]], [[Rajesh Kumar Agrawal|Agarwal]], [[S. Abdul Nazeer|Abdul Nazeer]] and himself), held that the rationale behind the Suresh Koushal (2013) Judgement is incorrect, and the judges clearly expressed their disagreement with it. [[Sanjay Kishan Kaul|Justice Kaul]] agreed with Justice Chandrachud’s view that the right of privacy cannot be denied, even if there is a minuscule fraction of the population which is affected. He further went on to state that the majoritarian concept does not apply to Constitutional rights and the courts are often called upon to take what may be categorized as a non-majoritarian view, in the check and balance of power envisaged under the Constitution of India.<ref name=”:2a”>{{Cite news|url=http://sci.gov.in/pdf/LU/ALL%20WP(C)%20No.494%20of%202012%20Right%20to%20Privacy.pdf|title=Right to Privacy Judgement|date=24 August 2017|work=Supreme Court of India|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20170828075957/http://sci.gov.in/pdf/LU/ALL%20WP(C)%20No.494%20of%202012%20Right%20to%20Privacy.pdf|archive-date=28 August 2017|url-status=dead|pages=121, 123–24}}</ref>

On 24 August 2017, the Supreme Court of India gave the Right to Privacy verdict. In the case of Justice K. S. Puttaswamy (Retd.) and Anr. vs Union Of India And Ors. The Supreme court held that the Right to Privacy is a fundamental right protected under Article 21 and Part III of the Indian Constitution. The judgement mentioned [[Section 377]] as a “discordant note which directly bears upon the evolution of the constitutional jurisprudence on the right to privacy.” In the judgement delivered by the 9-judge bench, [[Dhananjaya Y. Chandrachud|Justice Chandrachud]] (who authored for Justices [[Jagdish Singh Khehar|Khehar]], [[Rajesh Kumar Agrawal|Agarwal]], [[S. Abdul Nazeer|Abdul Nazeer]] and himself), held that the rationale behind the Suresh Koushal (2013) Judgement is incorrect, and the judges clearly expressed their disagreement with it. [[Sanjay Kishan Kaul|Justice Kaul]] agreed with Justice Chandrachud’s view that the right of privacy cannot be denied, even if there is a minuscule fraction of the population which is affected. He further went on to state that the majoritarian concept does not apply to Constitutional rights and the courts are often called upon to take what may be categorized as a non-majoritarian view, in the check and balance of power envisaged under the Constitution of India.<ref name=”:2a”>{{Cite news|url=http://sci.gov.in/pdf/LU/ALL%20WP(C)%20No.494%20of%202012%20Right%20to%20Privacy.pdf|title=Right to Privacy Judgement|date=24 August 2017|work=Supreme Court of India|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20170828075957/http://sci.gov.in/pdf/LU/ALL%20WP(C)%20No.494%20of%202012%20Right%20to%20Privacy.pdf|archive-date=28 August 2017|url-status=dead|pages=121, 123–24}}</ref>

<blockquote><poem>Sexual orientation is an essential attribute of privacy. Discrimination against an individual on the basis of sexual orientation is deeply offensive to the dignity and self-worth of the individual. Equality demands that the sexual orientation of each individual in society must be protected on an even platform. The right to privacy and the protection of sexual orientation lie at the core of the fundamental rights guaranteed by Articles 14, 15 and 21 of the Constitution.<ref name=”:2a” />

<blockquote><poem>Sexual orientation is an essential attribute of privacy. Discrimination against an individual on the basis of sexual orientation is deeply offensive to the dignity and self-worth of the individual. Equality demands that the sexual orientation of each individual in society must be protected on an even platform. The right to privacy and the protection of sexual orientation lie at the core of the fundamental rights guaranteed by Articles 14, 15 and 21 of the Constitution.<ref name=”:2a” />