New Delhi: Just imagine, a person has been falsely accused of robbery. Even if there is no evidence, he should be declared a 'history sheeter'. Policemen kept knocking on the door of his house throughout the night. Same thing happened with Kharak Singh. In 1962, Kharak Singh had approached the Supreme Court of the country. The Supreme Court considered the rule of knocking the door at midnight wrong, but did not say anything specific about the right to privacy. Many decades passed. Now technology has advanced a lot. Some time ago, Nigerian citizen Frank Vitus was released on bail in Delhi, but the condition was that he would have to tell the police his location. When the matter reached the Supreme Court, the court said that this was wrong. No one can be tracked continuously. This is a violation of the right to privacy.
Why these decisions are important: These decisions tell us how important our personal life is to us and that the government or the police cannot take it away. In today's era, with the help of technology, it has become very easy to keep an eye on our every activity. These decisions remind us that we must be conscious of our rights even when using technology.
Constant surveillance unconstitutional: In the Frank Vitus case the Supreme Court was concerned that such conditions in bail orders forced a person to remain under constant surveillance. The Supreme Court said that keeping the accused under constant surveillance is unconstitutional. Doing so will violate the right to privacy and the right to life and personal liberty given in Article 21 of the Constitution. The Court argued that keeping a person under 'constant surveillance' amounts to imprisonment.
The troubled past of the right to privacy: The right to privacy has always been a controversial topic in India. This right has been debated many times since independence. Earlier, the right to privacy was not directly recognized in the Constitution of our country. But a big change came in the year 2017. The Supreme Court ruled that the right to privacy is a part of the right to life and personal liberty under Article 21 of our Constitution. Earlier, in cases like Kharak Singh, the right to privacy was not given so much importance. But now the Supreme Court has made it clear that the personal life of every person should be respected.
Constitutional norms are evolving: More importantly, the decision is a timely reminder of the enduring benefits of treating the Constitution as a living document that is alive to current challenges. At that time no one would have even thought that technology would be used to keep an eye on people. But the makers of our Constitution had made it very thoughtfully. He prepared such a framework that the solution to any problem that might arise in the future could be found within the framework of the Constitution.
Strength of the Constitution: Right to privacy, these rights are derived from the right to life and personal liberty given in Article 21 of our Constitution. The special thing is that the concerns which Kharak Singh had expressed in 1962 are still present to a great extent. What has changed is that this concern can now be dealt with more seriously. The right to privacy is undoubtedly influenced by new technological advances. But as the Frank Vitus judgment reminds us, the Constitution is capable of dealing with the contradictions of technological progress in the 21st century. The Constitution is alive.
PressNews24 provides latest news, bollywood news, breaking news hollywood, top tech news, business standard news, indian economy news, world economy news, travel news, mumbai news, latest news mumbai loksabha election 2024, video viral news, delhi news, Only at PressNews24.in
