Right to privacy-India

[Ayden Férdeline]

A huge thanks to everyone who was involved in this fight; this is such a heartening victory. It is great to see rights being enhanced rather than usurped and marginalised!

Best wishes, Ayden Férdeline

> -------- Original Message --------
> Subject: Re: Right to privacy-India
> Local Time: 24 August 2017 8:03 PM
> UTC Time: 24 August 2017 19:03
> From: 0000055b426785d6-dmarc-request at LISTSERV.SYR.EDU
> To: NCSG-DISCUSS at LISTSERV.SYR.EDU
>
> It is a big win of democracy for Indians and Internet Non Commercial users community.
>
> S[ent from Yahoo Mail on Android](https://overview.mail.yahoo.com/mobile/?.src=Android)
>
>> Very interesting, Thanks for sharing.
>> regards
>> Karel
>>
>> On 24 August 2017 at 12:58, Sam Lanfranco <lanfran at yorku.ca> wrote:
>>
>>> Babasaheb Ambedkar would have been pleased with this ruling.
>>>
>>> Sam L (Advisor to the Ambedkar Centre for Justice and Peace)
>>>
>>> On 8/24/2017 12:42 PM, Mishi Choudhary wrote:
>>>
>>>> In a momentous judgment delivered in the case of K. S Puttaswamy (Retd.)
>>>> & Anr. v. Union of India & Ors. [Writ Petition (Civil) No. 494 of 2012]
>>>> today, the Supreme Court of India affirmed that citizens have a
>>>> fundamental right to privacy. The nine-judge Constitution bench
>>>> comprising Chief Justice of India (CJI) J.S Khehar, and Justices D.Y.
>>>> Chandrachud, J. Chelameshwar, S.A. Bobde, A. Nazeer, R.K. Agrawal, R.F.
>>>> Nariman, A.M. Sapre, and S.K. Kaul, held in a unanimous decision that
>>>> Right to Privacy is protected as an intrinsic part of Right to Life and
>>>> Personal Liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution and other freedoms
>>>> guaranteed under Part III of the Constitution.
>>>>
>>>> SFLC.in Board members were petitioners in this historic case.
>>>>
>>>> The nine-judge Bench was tasked with answering the specific question of
>>>> whether the previous Supreme Court judgments in M.P. Sharma v. Satish
>>>> Chandra [AIR 1954 SC 300] (an eight-judge Bench) and Kharak Singh v.
>>>> State of Uttar Pradesh [AIR 1963 SC 1295] (a six-judge Bench) were
>>>> correct in holding that the Constitution of India does not envisage a
>>>> fundamental right to privacy.
>>>
>>> --
>>> ------------------------------ ------------------
>>> "It is a disgrace to be rich and honoured
>>> in an unjust state" -Confucius
>>>  邦有道，贫且贱焉，耻也。邦无道，富且贵焉，耻也
>>> ------------------------------ ------------------
>>> Dr Sam Lanfranco (Prof Emeritus & Senior Scholar)
>>> Econ, York U., Toronto, Ontario, CANADA - M3J 1P3
>>> email:
>>> Lanfran at Yorku.ca
>>> Skype: slanfranco
>>> blog:
>>> [https://samlanfranco.blogspot. com](https://samlanfranco.blogspot.com)
>>> Phone:
>>> +1 613-476-0429
>>> cell:
>>> +1 416-816-2852
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ncsg.is/pipermail/ncsg-discuss/attachments/20170826/48e3538e/attachment.htm>