Saturday 26 August 2017


In less than 3 months, WE THE PEOPLE OF INDIA are going to celebrate the 1st anniversary of the demonetization of Rs.500/- & Rs.1000/- currency notes. Many mega claims of deposit of demonetized currency such as, “these much lakh crores” etc. were made by the Prime Minister, Finance Minister, etc. right from the day one of the demonetization. However, the erudite and efficient RBI Governor on 12-7-2017 made a statement to the Parliamentary Committee that the demonetised notes deposited after the demonetisation was still being counted. This revelation prima facie go against the huge claims of the Prime Minister and others about the deposit received on account of the demonetization. Whether it means, Government of India is running the business without any knowledge of the money in its account. These are the old currency already replaced either by new currency or by crediting the value in the accounts of the respective depositors. So there are two ways to calculate the amount, either what is received or what is paid. So who is telling lies to the Parliament, Governor of Reserve Bank of India or the Prime Minister/Finance Minister of India? If so for what purpose?

The main issue projected by RBI for not releasing the final figure of demonetization is non completion of counting of currency. It is only a lame excuse and with a purpose to divert attention. Money is already collected by the banks by counting and equal amount is also credited to the respective individual account or returned in cash. Here only a reconciliation problem may occur. But in this digital era, that much time is not required for reconciliation.

Therefore, the real issue could be to accommodate black money of big sharks. It can also be corroborated with the recent incidents of seizure of demonetized currency in bulk while in transit. What for these demonetized notes are being transported? To be sold as waste paper? It is being transported with a clear purpose. The more possible purpose could be to put it into the account through back door at higher level to avoid notice because at lower level it would be leaked out and the names of big sharks would be out. If the account is closed and final figure is out, this plan could not be executed. Therefore, there is possibility that this could be the biggest scam of India.

If the claim of the RBI that the money deposited till the end of December2016/March2017 is not yet counted is accepted, then the financial accuracy of the budget and appropriation is at risk similar to the fodder scam and security scam went on without notice for a long time due to lack of timely reconciliation of accounts.

A similar exercise done earlier was during the previous Government is elaborately described in chapter 4 of my book “A FRAUD IN THE INDIAN CONSTITUTION” of which a copy is available with the Finance Ministry : 

In this regard, my earlier blogs listed below may also be referred to:


Thursday 24 August 2017


RIGHT TO PRIVACY IS A FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT, IT IS INTRINSIC TO RIGHT TO LIFE. Government cannot peep into the bedrooms and toilets of individuals.
There are 6 judgments of the 9 member Constitutional Bench of the Supreme Court of India which was delivered on 24-8-2017. Below is the text of the order. Below order, main parts of the 6 seperate judgments as mentioned in the order is given for more clarity.

JUSTICE K S PUTTASWAMY (RETD.),  AND ANR.                          ..Petitioners
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.                                    ..Respondents

1 The judgment on behalf of the Hon’ble Chief Justice Shri Justice Jagdish Singh Khehar, Shri Justice R K Agrawal, Shri Justice S Abdul Nazeer and Dr Justice D Y Chandrachud was delivered by Dr Justice D Y Chandrachud.  Shri Justice J Chelameswar, Shri Justice S A Bobde, Shri Justice Abhay Manohar Sapre, Shri Justice Rohinton Fali Nariman and Shri Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul delivered separate judgments. 
2 The reference is disposed of in the following terms: 
(i) The decision in M P Sharma which holds that the right to privacy is not  protected by the Constitution stands over-ruled;
(ii) The decision in Kharak Singh to the extent that it holds that the right to privacy is not protected by the Constitution stands over-ruled;
(iii) The right to privacy is protected as an intrinsic part of the right to life and personal liberty under Article 21 and as a part of the freedoms guaranteed by Part III of the Constitution. 
 (iv) Decisions subsequent to Kharak Singh which have enunciated the position in (iii) above lay down the correct position in law.   
New Delhi; AUGUST 24, 2017  

1ST combined judgment of 4.

Our Conclusions
1.     The judgment in M P Sharma holds essentially that in the absence of a provision similar to the Fourth Amendment to the US Constitution, the right to privacy cannot be read into the provisions of Article 20 (3) of the Indian Constitution. The judgment does not specifically adjudicate on whether a right to privacy would arise from any of the other provisions of the rights guaranteed by Part III including Article 21 and Article 19. The observation that privacy is not a right guaranteed by the Indian Constitution is not reflective of the correct position. M P Sharma is overruled to theextent to which it indicates to the contrary.

2.     Kharak Singh has correctly held that the content of the expression ‘life’ under Article 21 means not merely the right to a person’s “animal existence” and that the expression ‘personal liberty’ is a guarantee against invasion into the sanctity of a person’s home or an intrusion into personal security. Kharak Singh also correctly laid down that the dignity of the individual must lend content to the meaning of ‘personal liberty’. The first part of the decision in Kharak Singh which invalidated domiciliary visits at night on the ground that they violated ordered liberty is an implicit recognition of the right to privacy. The second part of the decision, however, which holds that the right to privacy is not a guaranteed right under our Constitution, is not reflective of the correct position. Similarly, Kharak Singh’s reliance upon the decision of the majority in Gopalan is not reflective of the correct position in view of the decisions in Cooper and in Maneka. Kharak Singh to the extent that it holds that the right to privacy is not protected under the Indian Constitution is overruled.

3.                (A) Life and personal liberty are inalienable rights. These are rights which are inseparable                     from a dignified human existence. The dignity of the individual, equality between human                     beings and the quest for liberty are the foundational pillars of the Indian Constitution;
(B)Life and personal liberty are not creations of the Constitution. These rights are recognised by the Constitution as inhering in each individual as an intrinsic and inseparable part of the human element which dwells within;
(C)Privacy is a constitutionally protected right which emerges primarily from the guarantee of life and personal liberty in Article 21 of the Constitution. Elements of privacy also arise in varying contexts from the other facets of freedom and dignity recognised and guaranteed by the fundamental rights contained in Part III;
(D)Judicial recognition of the existence of a constitutional right of privacy is not an exercise in the nature of amending the Constitution nor is the Court embarking on a constitutional function of that nature which is entrusted to Parliament;
(E)Privacy is the constitutional core of human dignity. Privacy has both a normative and descriptive function. At a normative level privacy sub-serves those eternal values upon which the guarantees of life, liberty and freedom are founded. At a descriptive level, privacy postulates a bundle of entitlements and interests whichlie at the foundation of ordered liberty;
(F)         Privacy includes at its core the preservation of personal intimacies, the sanctity of family life, marriage, procreation, the home and sexual orientation. Privacy also connotes a right to be left alone. Privacy safeguards individual autonomy and recognises the ability of the individual to control vital aspects of his or her life. Personal choices governing a way of life are intrinsic to privacy. Privacy protects heterogeneity and recognises the plurality and diversity of our culture. While the legitimate expectation of privacy may vary from the intimate zone to the private zone and from the private to the public arenas, it is important to underscore that privacy is not lost or surrendered merely because the individual is in a public place. Privacy attaches to the person since it is an essential facet of the dignity of the human being;
(G)         This Court has not embarked upon an exhaustive enumeration or a catalogue of entitlements or interests comprised in the right to privacy. The Constitution must evolve with the felt necessities of time to meet the challenges thrown up in a democratic order governed by the rule of law. The meaning of the Constitution cannot be frozen on the perspectives present when it was adopted. Technological change has given rise to concerns which were not present seven decades ago and the rapid growth of technology may render obsolescent many notions of the present. Hence the interpretation of the Constitution must be resilient and flexible to allow future generations to adapt its content bearing in mind its basic or essential features;
(H)          Like other rights which form part of the fundamental freedoms protected by Part III, including the right to life and personal liberty under Article 21, privacy is not an absolute right. A law which encroaches upon privacy will have to withstand the touchstone of permissible restrictions on fundamental rights. In the context of Article 21 an invasion of privacy must be justified on the basis of a law which stipulates a procedure which is fair, just and reasonable. The law must also be valid with reference to the encroachment on life and personal liberty under Article 21. An invasion of life or personal liberty must meet the three-fold requirement of (i) legality, which postulates the existence of law; (ii) need, defined in terms of a legitimate state aim; and (iii) proportionality which ensures a rational nexus between the objects and the means adopted to achieve them; and
(I)           Privacy has both positive and negative content. The negative content restrains the state from committing an intrusion upon the life and personal liberty of a citizen. Its positive content imposes an obligation on the state to take all necessary measures to protect the privacy of the individual.
4.                   Decisions rendered by this Court subsequent to Kharak Singh, upholding the right to privacy would be read subject to the above principles.
5.                   Informational privacy is a facet of the right to privacy. The dangers to privacy in an age of information can originate not only from the state but from non-state actors as well. We commend to the Union Government the need to examine and put into place a robust regime for data protection. The creation of such a regime requires a careful and sensitive balance between individual interests and legitimate concerns of the state. The legitimate aims of the state would include for instance protecting national security, preventing and investigating crime, encouraging innovation and the spread of knowledge, and preventing the dissipation of social welfare benefits. These are matters of policy to be considered by the Union government while designing a carefully structured regime for the protection of the data. Since the Union government has informed the Court that it has constituted a Committee chaired by Hon’ble Shri Justice B N Srikrishna, former Judge of this Court, for that purpose, the matter shall be dealt with appropriately by the Union government having due regard to what has been set out in this judgment.
6.   The reference is answered in the above terms.
           CJI                                             J                                      J                                                  J

40. I do not think that anybody in this country would like to have the officers of the State intruding into their homes or private property at will or soldiers quartered in their houses without their consent. I do not think that anybody would like to be told by the State as to what they should eat or how they should dress or whom they should be associated with either in their personal, social or political life. Freedom of social and political association is guaranteed to citizens under Article 19(1)(c). Personal association is still a doubtful area. The decision making process regarding the freedom of association, freedoms of travel and residence are purely private and fall within the realm of the right of privacy. It is one of the most intimate decisions. All liberal democracies believe that the State should not have unqualified authority to intrude into certain aspects of human life and that the authority should be limited by parameters constitutionally fixed. Fundamental rights are the only constitutional firewall to prevent State’s interference with those core freedoms constituting liberty of a human being. The right to privacy is certainly one of the core freedoms which is to be defended. It is part of liberty within the meaning of that expression in Article 21.
41. I am in complete agreement with the conclusions recorded by my learned brothers in this regard.
47. In view of the foregoing, I answer the reference before us in the following terms:
a. The ineluctable conclusion must be that an inalienable constitutional right to privacy inheres in Part III of the Constitution. M.P. Sharma and the majority opinion in Kharak Singh must stand overruled to the extent that they indicate to the contrary.
b. The right to privacy is inextricably bound up with all exercises of human liberty – both as it is specifically enumerated,across Part III, and as it is guaranteed in the residue under Article 21. It is distributed across the various articles in Part III and, mutatis mutandis, takes the form of whichever of their enjoyment its violation curtails.
c. Any interference with privacy by an entity covered by Article 12’s description of the ‘state’ must satisfy the tests
applicable to whichever one or more of the Part III freedoms the
interference affects.
94. This reference is answered by stating that the inalienable fundamental right to privacy resides in Article 21 and other fundamental freedoms contained in Part III of the Constitution of India. M.P. Sharma (supra) and the majority in Kharak Singh (supra), to the extent that they indicate to the contrary, stand overruled.
(R.F. Nariman)
35) In view of foregoing discussion, my answer to question No. 2 is that “right to privacy” is a part of fundamental right of a citizen guaranteed under Part III of the Constitution. However, it is not an absolute right but is subject to certain reasonable restrictions, which the State is entitled to impose on the basis of social, moral and compelling public interest in accordance with law.
36) Similarly, I also hold that the “right to privacy” has multiple facets, and, therefore, the same has to go through a process of case-to-case development as and when any citizen raises his grievance complaining of infringement of his alleged right in accordance with law.
37) My esteemed learned brothers, Justice J. Chelameswar, Justice S.A. Bobde, Justice Rohinton Fali Nariman and Dr. Justice D.Y. Chandrachud have extensively dealt with question No. 1 in the context of Indian and American Case law on the subject succinctly. They have also dealt with in detail the various submissions of the learned senior counsel appearing for all the parties.
38) I entirely agree with their reasoning and the conclusion on question No. 1 and hence do not wish to add anything to what they have said in their respective scholarly opinions.
83. Let the right of privacy, an inherent right, be unequivocally a fundamental right embedded in part-III of the Constitution of India, but subject to the restrictions specified, relatable to that part. This is the call of today. The old order changeth yielding place to new.