The issue of privacy is apparently a thorny one. In 2017, a nine-judge bench of the Supreme Court had ruled that privacy is a fundamental right for citizens. This judgment was of overwhelming importance. Recently, while sitting on a plea for the extension of the police custody of Telangana’s former intelligence bureau chief in a phone-tapping case, the Supreme Court said — this came as a bit of a surprise — that people with nothing to hide need not be afraid of surveillance. This was an “open world” so snooping should not bother people with clear hearts and minds. The implication of the court’s statements seemed to be that since nobody is in a closed world, surveillance did not matter. Given the Supreme Court’s earlier judgment regarding privacy, the recent remarks were deeply puzzling. Privacy is an extension of the right to life. Every citizen had the right to a private space; what he or she considered private is a matter of personal choice. The State cannot interfere with or enter into that private space. Privacy does not imply illegality, or the necessity to hide anything from the world. It just implies a healthy balance in a citizen’s life between the private and the public.
The state of Telangana debated the issue strongly and argued for the right of privacy for citizens. Illegal snooping is unacceptable. No one, not even the president, can allow that. The counsel mentioned the 2017 judgment and stated that the question is not of living in an open or closed world. The right to be protected against illegal surveillance by the State is a basic one. The counsel asked the court if its remarks meant that every government had a free hand to put people under surveillance. It is to be inferred that the honourable court had not implied that. The remarks were probably made with reference to the case in question. At the same time, the debate raises some important questions regarding the issue. The counsel asked if illegal surveillance can be done at all. But whatever is illegal cannot be acceptable; the courts would be the first to reject it. To make surveillance legal, it would have to be transparent, which would not make it surveillance at all. So either privacy is a basic right, or it is not: there is no middle way.