💥Join UPSC 2027,2028 Mentorship (August Batch) + XFactor Notes & Microthemes PDF
Talk to Mentor

Civilsdaily

Login

Subject: Polity

  • India at 75 is ready for a sedition-less future

    Context

    Chief Justice of India N V Ramana has ignited a passionate debate during a preliminary hearing concerning whether “sedition” should be an offence at all, and how to prevent its misuse or abuse, were it to remain

    Issues with the sedition under Section 124A

    • Against fundamental right: The meandering meanings of expressions such as “disaffection” towards the government, “hatred”, “contempt” etc. constitute an unreasonable restriction on the fundamental right to free expression guaranteed under Article 19(1)(a).
    • Neither the framers of the Constitution nor the authors of the amended Article 19(2) included “sedition” as a ground for “reasonable restriction” to freedom of speech and expression.
    • Colonial past: CJI Ramana in preliminary hearings has pointedly asked the Attorney General whether “sedition under Section 124A of the Indian Penal Code is still required after 75 years of independence from colonial rule.
    • Prone to misuse: The lack of definition of terms used in the section leaves vide the scope for interpretation and thus rampant misuse and abuse.

    Way forward

    • Some law luminaries have found new stirrings of hope in the Supreme Court to strike it down.
    • Find means to prevent misuse and abuse: Alternative way,as the learned attorney general observed is to find constitutional ways and practical means to prevent the abuse and misuse of law.
    • Forbid rampant private complaints:  A most immediate step is to forbid rampant private complaints by citizens and authorise only very senior police officials to take appropriate action.

    Conclusion

    What Gandhiji said — the law may not be used to “manufacture affection” under pain of a penal sanction — was as true then as it remains now. It is high time to realise that the law of “sedition” must go, even when it may strictly not even exist!

  • Explained: Creamy Layer in OBCs

    A proposal to revise the criteria for defining the “creamy layer” among OBCs has been pending for years, and MPs have raised the issue during the ongoing Monsoon Session of Parliament.

    What is the Creamy Layer?

    • Creamy Layer is a concept that sets a threshold within which OBC reservation benefits are applicable.
    • While there is a 27% quota for OBCs in government jobs and higher educational institutions, those falling within the “creamy layer” cannot get the benefits of this quota.

    Basis of Creamy Layer

    • It is based on the recommendation of the Second Backward Classes Commission (Mandal Commission).
    • The government in 1990 had notified 27% reservation for Socially and Educationally Backward Classes (SEBCs) in vacancies in civil posts and services that are to be filled on direct recruitment.
    • After this was challenged, the Supreme Court in the Indira Sawhney case (1992) upheld 27% reservation for OBCs, subject to exclusion of the creamy layer.

    How is it determined?

    • Following the order in Indra Sawhney, an expert committee headed by Justice (retired) R N Prasad was constituted for fixing the criteria for determining the creamy layer.
    • In 1993, the Department of Personnel and Training (DoPT) listed out various categories of people of certain rank/status/income whose children cannot avail the benefit of OBC reservation.
    1. For those not in government, the current threshold is an income of Rs 8 lakh per year.
    2. For children of government employees, the threshold is based on their parents’ rank and not income.
    3. For instance, an individual is considered to fall within the creamy layer if either of his or her parents is in a constitutional post; if either parent has been directly recruited in Group-A; or if both parents are in Group-B services.
    4. If the parents enter Group-A through promotion before the age of 40, their children will be in the creamy layer.
    5. Children of a Colonel or higher-ranked officer in the Army, and children of officers of similar ranks in the Navy and Air Force, too, come under the creamy layer.
    6. Income from salaries or agricultural land is not clubbed while determining the creamy layer (2004).

    What is happening now?

    • MPs have raised questions about the pending proposal for revising the criteria.
    • They have asked whether the provision of a creamy layer for government services only for OBC candidates is rational and justified.

    Has it ever been revised?

    • Other than the income limit, the current definition of the creamy layer remains the same as the DoPT had spelled out in 1993 and 2004.
    • The income limit has been revised over the years.
    • No other orders for the definition of the creamy layer have been issued.
    • While the DoPT had stipulated that it would be revised every three years, the first revision since 1993 (Rs 1 lakh per year) happened only in 2004 (Rs 2.50 lakh), 2008 (Rs 4.50 lakh), 2013 (Rs 6 lakh), and 2017 (Rs 8 lakh).
    • It is now more than three years since the last revision.

    What does the government propose to do about the revision?

    • A draft Cabinet note has stated that the creamy layer will be determined on all income, including salary calculated for income tax, but not agriculture income.
    • The government is considering a consensus on Rs 12 lakh but salary and agriculture income are also being added to the gross annual income.

  • NEET’s All India Quota, and OBC & EWS reservation

    The Union government has approved reservations for the OBC and EWS (Economically Weaker Section) categories within the All India Quota (AIQ) for NEET, the uniform entrance examination for medical and dental colleges across the country.

    What is NEET?

    • The National Eligibility-cum-Entrance Test (NEET) is the entrance examination for entry to all undergraduate (NEET-UG) and postgraduate (NEET-PG) medical and dental courses in the country.
    • Until 2016, the All India Pre-Medical Test (AIPMT) was the national-level entrance examination for medical colleges.
    • State governments used to hold separate entrance tests for seats that were not contested at an all-India level.
    • NEET was held for the first time in 2003, but discontinued the following year.
    • On April 13, 2016, the Supreme Court upheld the newly inserted section 10-D of the Indian Medical Council Act.
    • This provided for a uniform entrance examination to all medical educational institutions at the undergraduate level and postgraduate level in Hindi, English and various other languages.
    • Since then, NEET has been the uniform entrance test for medical courses across the country.

    What is the All-India Quota?

    • Although the same examination is held across the country, a chunk of the seats in state medical/dental colleges is reserved for students domiciled in their respective states.
    • The remaining seats —15% in UG and 50% in PG — are surrendered by the states to the All India Quota.
    • The AIQ scheme was introduced in 1986 under the directions of the Supreme Court to provide for domicile-free, merit-based opportunities to students from any state to study in a good medical college in any other state.
    • A student domiciled in Uttar Pradesh, for example, may be eligible for admission to a seat in a state government medical college in West Bengal, provided she scores high enough in the national merit list.
    • If her score is not high enough for AIQ, she may still hope for admission under the state quota in her home state.
    • In deemed/central universities, ESIC, and Armed Forces Medical College (AFMC), 100% seats are reserved under the AIQ.

    What was the reservation policy followed so far?

    • Until 2007, no reservation was implemented within the All-India Quota for medical admission.
    • On January 31, 2007, in Abhay Nath v University of Delhi and Others, the Supreme Court directed that reservation of 15% for Scheduled Castes and 7.5% for Scheduled Tribes be introduced in the AIQ.
    • The same year, the government passed the Central Educational Institutions (Reservation in Admission) Act, 2007 providing for 27% reservation to OBC students in central government institutions.
    • While state government medical and dental colleges provide reservations to OBCs in seats outside the All India Quota, this benefit was so far not extended to seats allocated under the AIQ in these state colleges.
    • The 10% EWS quota under the Constitution (One Hundred And Third Amendment) Act, 2019, too, has been implemented in central educational institutions, but not in the NEET AIQ for state institutions.

    What led to the decision?

    • The denial of OBC and EWS reservations has been the subject of protests for years.
    • In July last year, the Madras High Court ruled that OBC students too can avail reservation in the AIQ.
    • It held that the reservation could not be implemented for the then academic year for want of time, and can be implemented from 2021-22.

  • Promoting fiscal federalism

    Context

    States are facing financial constraints in the backdrop of lockdown and consequent dwindling revenue collection. The situation also highlights the issues of fiscal federalism in India.

    Issues facing fiscal federalism in India

    1) Issue of 14% compensation

    • As per the Constitution (One Hundred and First Amendment) Act, compensation on account of the implementation of GST will be available for a period of five years.
    • 14% increment assurance: At the time of introducing the Goods and Services Tax (GST) law assured States a 14% increase in their annual revenue for five years (up to July 1, 2020).
    • But the Union government has deviated from the statutory promise and has been insisting that States avail themselves of loans.
    • The future interest liability of these loans should not be placed on the shoulders of the States.
    • Borrowing limits built into loan: Moreover, the borrowing limit of States, as per the Fiscal Responsibility and Budget Management Act, should not be built into these loans.

    2) Conditional increase in borrowing limit

    • Last year, the Union government increased the borrowing ceiling of the States from 3% to 5% for FY 2020-21.
    • But conditions are attached to 1.5% of the 2% of increased ceiling.
    • Attaching conditions for expenditure out of the borrowed amount would clip the wings of the States and goes against the principle of cooperative federalism.

    Way forward

    • Introduce special rate: A special rate could be levied for a specified period in order to raise additional resources to meet the challenges posed by COVID-19 with the approval of the GST Council.
    • As per Section 4(f) of Article 279A, the Union government can consider introducing any special rate to raise additional resources during the pandemic (any natural calamity or disaster).
    • The present GST compensation period will end in 2021-22.
    • Increase the period beyond five years:  Compensation beyond five years requires a constitutional amendment.
    • If this period is not increased, it will create serious financial stress to the States, especially to those which require higher compensation.

    Conclusion

    There is a need for measures on part of the Central government to consolidate fiscal federalism in the aftermath of pandemic and implementation of the GST regime in India.

  • Supreme Court strikes down part of Constitution Amendment on cooperative societies

    Context

    In Union of India vs Rajendra N. Shah, the Supreme Court of India partially struck down the 97th Constitutional Amendment.

    Background of the 97th Constitutional Amendment

    • The 97th Constitutional Amendment came into effect from February 15 2012.
    • The amendment added “cooperative societies” to the protected forms of association under Article 19(1)(c), elevating it to a fundamental right.
    • It also inserted Part IXB in the Constitution which laid down the terms by which cooperative societies would be governed, in more granular detail than was palatable.

    Why was the Amendment struck down?

    • The Constitution can be amended only by the procedure provided in Article 368.
    • The amendment procedure requires a majority of the total strength of each of the Houses of Parliament and two-thirds majority of those present and voting.
    • A proviso to the Article lists out some articles and chapters of the Constitution, which can be amended only by a special procedure.
    • The special procedure requires that the amendment will also have to be ratified by the legislatures of half of the States.
    • It is precisely on the grounds of violation of this additional requirement that the 97th Constitutional Amendment was challenged.
    • The Gujarat High Court struck down the amendment in 2013 on the grounds that it had failed to comply with the requirements under Article 368(2) by virtue of not having been ratified by the States and had also given an additional finding that the 97th Amendment violated the basic structure of the Constitution.
    • The Union Government challenged the Gujarat High Court judgment before the Supreme Court, arguing that the amendment neither directly nor effectively changed the scheme of distribution of powers between the Centre and the States.
    • The court took the example of the 73rd and 74th Amendments which were similar in impact on the legislative power of the States, had been passed by the special procedure involving ratification by State legislatures.
    • Procedural lacuna: The court noted that the procedure had not been followed in this case.
    • The Supreme Court clarified that the does not go into the question of the amendment being violative of the basic structure of the Constitution.
    • The judgment makes a distinction between cooperative societies operating in one State and multi-State cooperative societies and holds that while a ratification by half the State legislatures would have been necessary insofar as it applies to cooperative societies in one State.

    Increasing control of the Union government

    • Union government has been acquiring incrementally greater control of cooperative societies over the years.
    • Cooperative banks have been brought under the purview of the Reserve Bank of India.
    • Union Government recently established Union Ministry for Cooperation.

    Issues with Central control over cooperative sector

    • Domain of States: The idea that the cooperative sector ought to be controlled at the State level and not at the central or Union level goes back all the way to the Government of India Act, 1919 which placed cooperatives in the provincial list.
    • Part of State list: Entry 32 of the State List in the Seventh Schedule of the Constitution confer power on the State legislatures to make laws pertaining to incorporation, regulation and the winding up of cooperative societies.
    • The cooperative sector has always been in the domain of the States or provinces.
    • Different organising principles: The organising principles and mechanism of these cooperatives differ from area to area and depend on the industry or crop which forms the fulcrum of the cooperative.
    • Homogeneity nor require: Homogeneity in this area would only result in the creation of round holes in which square pegs no longer fit.
    • They also would not really serve to break the control some political interests have taken over cooperatives.

    Conclusion

    It is best that the Government takes this judgment in the right spirit and stays away from further meddling in the cooperative sector, notwithstanding the creation of the new Ministry.

  • Assam-Mizoram Boundary Dispute

    Five Assam police personnel were killed in an exchange of fire with the Mizoram Police after the protracted border row between the two northeastern States took a violent turn.

    Assam-Mizoram Boundary Dispute

    • At the heart of the dispute over the 165-km Assam-Mizoram boundary are two border demarcations that go back to the days of British colonial rule, and disagreement over which demarcation to follow.
    • British tea plantations surfaced in the Cachar plains – the Barak Valley that now comprises the districts of Cachar, Hailakandi and Karimganj — during the mid-19th century.
    • Their expansion led to problems with the Mizos whose home was the Lushai Hills.
    • In August 1875, the southern boundary of Cachar district was issued in the Assam Gazette.
    • The Mizos say this was the fifth time the British had drawn the boundary between the Lushai Hills and the Cachar plains, and the only time when it was done in consultation with Mizo chiefs.

    Creation of new states

    • But in 1933, the boundary between Lushai Hills and the then princely state of Manipur was demarcated – it said the Manipur boundary began from the trijunction of Lushai Hills, Cachar district of Assam and Manipur state.
    • The Mizos do not accept this demarcation, and point to the 1875 boundary which was drawn in consultation with their chiefs.
    • In the decades after Independence, states and UTs were carved out of Assam – Nagaland (1963), Arunachal Pradesh (UT 1972, formerly NEFA), Meghalaya (UT 1972), Mizoram (UT 1972).

    A matter of perception

    • Mizoram says Assam has been pushing its people 10-12 km inside their territory.
    • Mizoram’s official stand is that the boundary should be demarcated on the basis of notification in 1875 that distinguished the Lushai Hills (erstwhile district of Assam that became Mizoram) from the plains of Cachar.
    • The notification is based on the Bengal Eastern Frontier Regulation Act, 1873, which makes it obligatory for Indians beyond to possess a travel document to enter Mizoram.
    • Assam also has border disputes with Arunachal Pradesh, Meghalaya, and Nagaland.

  • Biocentric jurisprudence for nature

    Context

    In a recent ruling, the Supreme Court of India has sought to move away from an anthropocentric basis of law.

    Biocentrism Vs. Anthropocentrism

    • Anthropocentrism argues that of all the species on earth humans are the most significant and that all other resources on earth may be justifiably exploited for the benefit of human beings.
    • The philosophy of biocentrism holds that the natural environment has its own set of rights which is independent of its ability to be exploited by or to be useful to humans.
    • Biocentrism often comes into conflict with anthropocentrism.

    Supreme Court of India upholds biocentric principles

    • The Great Indian Bustard is a gravely endangered species, with hardly about 200 alive in India today.
    • The overhead power lines have become a threat to the life of these species as these birds frequently tend to collide with these power lines and get killed.
    • Recently, the Supreme Court in M.K. Ranjitsinh & Others vs Union of India & Others, said that in all cases where the overhead lines in power projects exist, the governments of Rajasthan and Gujarat shall take steps forthwith to install bird diverters.
    • In protecting the birds, the Court has affirmed and emphasised the biocentric values of eco-preservation.
    • A noteworthy instance of the application of anthropocentrism in the legal world is in that of the “Snail darter” case in the United States.
    • The Supreme Court of the United States of America in Tennessee Valley Authority vs Hill, had held that since the “Snail darter” fish was a specifically protected species under the Act, the executive could not proceed with the reservoir project.

    Human role in extinction of species

    • About 50 years ago, there were 4,50,000 lions in Africa. Today, there are hardly 20,000.
    • Indiscriminate monoculture farming in the forests of Borneo and Sumatra is leading to the extinction of orangutans.
    • Rhinos are hunted for the so-called medicinal value of their horns and are slowly becoming extinct.
    • From the time humans populated Madagascar about 2,000 years ago, about 15 to 20 species of Lemurs, which are primates, have become extinct.
    • The compilation prepared by the International Union for Conservation of Nature lists about 37,400 species that are gravely endangered; and the list is ever growing.

    Evolution of Right of Nature laws in Constitutions

    • Pieces of legislation are slowly evolving that fall in the category of the “Right of Nature laws”.
    • These seek to travel away from an anthropocentric basis of law to a biocentric one.
    • The Constitution of India is significantly silent on any explicitly stated, binding legal obligations we owe to our fellow species and to the environment that sustains us.
    • It is to the credit of the Indian judiciary that it interpreted the enduring principles of sustainable development and read them, inter alia, into the precepts of Article 21 of the Constitution.
    • In September 2008, Ecuador became the first country in the world to recognise “Rights of Nature” in its Constitution.
    • Bolivia has also joined the movement by establishing Rights of Nature laws too.
    • In November 2010, the city of Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania became the first major municipality in the United States to recognise the Rights of Nature.
    • These laws, like the Constitution of the countries that they are part of, are still works in progress.

    Conclusion

    In times like this the Supreme Court’s judgment in M.K. Ranjithsinh upholding the biocentric principles of coexistence is a shot in the arm for nature conservation. One does hope that the respective governments implement the judgment of the Court.

  • Secrecy of Vote must in any election: SC

    The Supreme Court has again held that in any election, be it to Parliament or State legislature, the maintenance of secrecy of voting is “a must”.

    What is the Secret Vote?

    • The secret vote/ secret ballot is a voting method in which a voter’s choices in an election or a referendum are anonymous.
    • It aims for forestalling attempts to influence the voter by intimidation, blackmailing, and potential vote-buying.
    • The system is one means of achieving the goal of political privacy.

    What did the Supreme Court rule?

    • Secrecy is a part of the fundamental right of freedom of expression.
    • The confidentiality of choice strengthens democracy.
    • The principle of secrecy of ballots is an important postulate of constitutional democracy, the court said.
    • It is the policy of the law to protect the right of voters to the secrecy of the ballot.
    • Even a remote or distinct possibility that a voter can be forced to disclose for whom she has voted would act as a positive constraint and a check on the freedom to exercise of the franchise.

    Voter’s discretion is allowed

    • A voter can also voluntarily waive the privilege of non-disclosure.
    • The privilege ends when the voter decides to waive the privilege and instead volunteers to disclose to whom she had voted.
    • Nor can a complaint be entertained from any, including the person who wants to keep the voter’s mouth sealed as to why she disclosed for whom she voted said the court.

  • Right to be Forgotten in India

    A TV celebrity has approached the Delhi High Court with a plea saying that his videos, photographs, and articles, etc. be removed from the internet citing his “Right to be Forgotten”.

    What is the plea about?

    • The plea mentions that the posts and videos on the internet related to him have caused the petitioner psychological pain for his diminutive acts.
    • The plea also states that the petitioner’s mistakes in his personal life become and remains in public knowledge for generations to come.
    • Consequently, the values enshrined under Article 21 of the Indian Constitution and the emergent jurisprudential concept of the Right to be Forgotten becomes extremely relevant in the present case.”

    What is the ‘Right to be Forgotten’ in the Indian context?

    • The Right to be Forgotten falls under the purview of an individual’s right to privacy, which is governed by the Personal Data Protection Bill that is yet to be passed by Parliament.
    • In 2017, the Right to Privacy was declared a fundamental right by the Supreme Court in its landmark verdict.

    What does the Personal Data Protection Bill say about this?

    • The Personal Data Protection Bill was introduced in Lok Sabha on December 11, 2019, and it aims to set out provisions meant for the protection of the personal data of individuals.
    • Clause 20 under Chapter V of this draft bill titled “Rights of Data Principal” mentions the “Right to be Forgotten.”
    • It states that the “data principal (the person to whom the data is related) shall have the right to restrict or prevent the continuing disclosure of his personal data by a data fiduciary”.
    • Therefore, broadly, under the Right to be forgotten, users can de-link, limit, delete or correct the disclosure of their personal information held by data fiduciaries.
    • A data fiduciary means any person, including the State, a company, any juristic entity, or any individual who alone or in conjunction with others determines the purpose and means of the processing of personal data.

  • Surveillance Laws in India and Individual Privacy

    After alleged WhatsApp snooping cases the government has claimed that all interception in India takes place lawfully.

    Try this question in the comment box:

    Q.There should be some reasonable basis or some tangible evidence to initiate or seek approval for interception by State authorities. Critically comment with respect to individual privacy and surveillance laws in India. (250W)

    What are the laws covering surveillance in India?

    Communication surveillance in India takes place primarily under two laws:

    1. Telegraph Act, 1885: It deals with interception of calls.
    2. Information Technology Act, 2000: It was enacted to deal with surveillance of all electronic communication, following the Supreme Court’s intervention in 1996.

    [I] Telegraph Act, 1885

    • Call interception: Under Section 5(2) of this law, the government can intercept calls only in certain situations.
    • For sovereignty: They include the interests of the sovereignty and integrity of India, the security of the state, friendly relations with foreign states or public order, or for preventing incitement to the commission of an offense.
    • Free speech restrictions: These are the same restrictions imposed on free speech under Article 19(2) of the Constitution.
    • Exceptions for journalists: A provision in Section 5(2) states that even this lawful interception cannot take place against journalists.

    Supreme Court intervention

    • In Public Union for Civil Liberties v Union of India (1996), the Supreme Court pointed out the lack of procedural safeguards in the provisions of the Telegraph Act.
    • The court noted that authorities engaging in interception were not even maintaining adequate records and logs on an interception.
    • It noted that- tapping is a serious invasion of an individual’s privacy.
    • The Supreme Court’s guidelines formed the basis of introducing Rule 419A in the Telegraph Rules in 2007 and later in the rules prescribed under the IT Act in 2009.
    • Rule 419A states that a Secretary in the MHA can pass orders of interception in the case of the Centre, and a secretary-level officer who is in charge of the Home Department can issue such directives in States.

    [II] IT Act, 2000

    • Electronic surveillance: Section 69 of the IT Act and the IT (Procedure for Safeguards for Interception, Monitoring, and Decryption of Information) Rules, 2009 were enacted to further the legal framework for electronic surveillance.
    • Data interception: Under the IT Act, all electronic transmission of data can be intercepted.
    • Section 69 of the IT Act adds another aspect that makes it broader — interception, monitoring, and decryption of digital information “for the investigation of an offense”.

    Identifying the gaps

    • In 2012, the Planning Commission was tasked with identifying the gaps in laws affecting privacy.
    • It pointed out divergence in-laws on permitted grounds, “type of interception”, “granularity of information that can be intercepted”, the degree of assistance from service providers, and the “destruction and retention” of intercepted material.
    • Although the grounds of selecting a person for surveillance and the extent of information gathering have to be recorded in writing, the wide reach of these laws has not been tested in court against the cornerstone of fundamental rights.

    Only inference: Right to Privacy is not absolute

    • Only in such exceptional circumstances, however, can an individual’s right to privacy be superseded to protect the national interest.
    • In today’s times, when fake news and illegal activities such as cyber terrorism on the dark web are on the rise, the importance of reserving such powers to conduct surveillance cannot be undermined.

    What is our concern?

    • For Pegasus-like spyware to be used lawfully, the government would have to invoke both the IT Act and the Telegraph Act.
    • There is no comprehensive data protection law leaving ambiguities over several laws.
    • A comprehensive data protection law to address the gaps in existing frameworks for surveillance is yet to enact.

    What should be the basis for surveillance?

    • There should be some reasonable basis or some tangible evidence to initiate or seek approval for interception by State authorities.
    • Any action without such evidence or basis would be struck down by courts as arbitrary, or invasive of one’s right to privacy.
    • Any digression from the ethical and legal parameters set by law would be tantamount to a deliberate invasion of citizens’ privacy and make India a surveillance state.

    Way forward

    • The security of a device becomes one of the fundamental bedrock of maintaining user trust as society becomes more and more digitized.
    • There is an urgent need to take up this issue seriously by constituting an independent high-level inquiry with credible members and experts that can restore confidence and conduct its proceedings transparently.

    Conclusion

    • We must recognize that national security starts with securing the smartphones of every single Indian by embracing technologies such as encryption rather than deploying spyware.
    • This is a core part of our fundamental right to privacy.
    • This intrusion by spyware is not merely an infringement of the rights of the citizens of the country but also a worrying development for India’s national security apparatus.

    Back2Basics: Right to Privacy

    • Right to Privacy can be defined as:
    1. a right to be let alone;
    2. the right of a person to be free from any unwarranted publicity;
    3. the right to live without any unwarranted interference by the public in matters with which the public is not necessarily concerned”.
    • Article 21 states that “No person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty.
    • The right to privacy is not enumerated as a Fundamental Right in the Constitution of India.
    • After reading Article 21, it has been interpreted that the term ‘life’ includes all those aspects of life which go to make a man’s life meaningful, complete, and worth living.
    • The scope of this right first came up for consideration in Kharak Singh’s Case which was concerned with the validity of certain regulations that permitted surveillance of suspects.
    • The 1978’s judgment in Maneka Gandhi Case established the new doctrine that the distinct fundamental rights are not carved out from each other but overlap paving way for the Right to Privacy.
    • The latest interpretation included the Naz Foundation Case (2009) in which Delhi HC gave the landmark decision on consensual homosexuality.