---
title: "Government Of India Ties Itself In Knots In Righttoprivacy Case"
description: "*A Summary of Day 4 of the Nine-Judge Constitution Bench Hearing*
The 9-Judge Constitution Bench continued hearing the arguments of the Government of India to settle the question of whether there exis..."
pubDate: 2017-07-27
author: Rethink Aadhaar
category: Uncategorized
originalUrl: https://rethinkaadhaar.in/blog/government-of-india-ties-itself-in-knots-in-righttoprivacy-case
---

*A Summary of Day 4 of the Nine-Judge Constitution Bench Hearing*
The 9-Judge Constitution Bench continued hearing the arguments of the Government of India to settle the question of whether there exists a fundamental right to privacy in India. In August 2015, the Government of India denied that a fundamental right to privacy exists in India in the ongoing Aadhaar case. After the 9-judge bench finishes hearings on the limited question of whether Indians have a fundamental right to privacy, a 5-judge bench is then expected to rule on whether the Aadhaar scheme violates such a fundamental right and will thereby decide the fate of the Aadhaar project. 
On Thursday, arguing for the Union, the Attorney-General K.K, Venugopal began with reading out US Supreme Court decisions arguing that “informational privacy” can never be a fundamental right. In the discussion, Justice DY Chandrachud countered this position saying America lagged behind Europe in protecting informational privacy. In response, the Attorney-General reiterated that the right to privacy could not be determined without taking into account cultural and environmental norms, which he held the US courts had done, and that India should not imitate foreign jurisprudence.
Justice Chandrachud expressed the need to determine what kind of data gets protection under privacy laws, which in turn brought up the question of balancing compelling state interest and legitimate state interest. To the AG’s subsequent argument for the consideration of legitimate state interest (with which Justice Chandrachud and Nariman did not agree), Justice Chandrachud underlined the need for robust data security mechanisms. 
Subsequently, the Additional Solicitor-General Tushar Mehta read out provisions from the Aadhaar Act. 2016, dealing with information sharing. Justice Nariman asked if the discussion on privacy interests in the Aadhaar Act suggested a legal recognition of privacy. Choosing not to answer that directly, the ASG sought to assure the court that the Act protected both privacy and data. 
**Attorney-General K.K. Venugopal, however, jumped in with the claim that protecting privacy through a legislative Act meant that there was no fundamental right to privacy. He reiterated that if there was a fundamental right to privacy it could not be claimed in relation to Aadhaar.** 
In conclusion, he revisited the two cases at the heart of the Constitution Bench hearing - M.P. Sharma and Kharak Singh- and emphasized that the majority views in these should be upheld.