Right to privacy-India

[dorothy g]

Do not get too excited yet.  Aardhaar remains legally in place and it is
still the only way the poor can get their benefits.  These are opening
skirmishes - one battle won many more to go before the war is won.

best

On Sat, Aug 26, 2017 at 10:41 AM, Ayden Férdeline <icann at ferdeline.com>
wrote:

> 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.
>
> Sent 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/20170826/0fa600aa/attachment.htm>