ADVERTISEMENT

Right To Privacy: Justice Chandrachud Says He Was Sure About Overruling Father’s Verdict

When I overruled ADM Jabalpur case, I hadn’t had the slightest doubt in my mind, says Justice Chandrachud.

A gavel sits on a stage. (Photographer: Daniel Acker/Bloomberg News)
A gavel sits on a stage. (Photographer: Daniel Acker/Bloomberg News)

Justice DY Chandrachud said he was sure when he overturned a 41-year-old ruling, co-authored by his father, as part of a constitution bench that delivered the landmark right to privacy verdict.

“When I had overruled Additional District Magistrate of Jabalpur (vs. Shiv Kant Shukla) case, I was sure that it had to be overruled. I hadn’t had the slightest doubt in my mind and I always felt it had to be overruled having gathered the knowledge of law over the years,” Justice Chandrachud said in an interview with catharsismagazine.com. “It wasn’t difficult in that sense. But yes, there was, of course, a little bit of the personal element involved, and I was conscious of the fact that I was overruling my father’s judgment, which I again did eventually, in the adultery judgment.”

Ultimately we all realise that as judges, nothing is personal to us, whether you’re overruling the view of some other judge or of the view of somebody who may be related to you, somebody who may be close to you. Just as in during our time in the High Court, we hold no objection to the Supreme Court overruling our views, because we can’t. You’re overruled not because you’re wrong but because there exists a higher court. The Supreme Court is final not because it is right, but it is right because it is final. So long as we understand that we are given that ability by the Constitution today to define it and that it calls for an introspection of the fact that times change and society changes and that possibly many of our views might come up for reconsideration in a distant or a not too distant future, we respect the part of the process. It is a reminder to us that we are not invincible as judges and that we are only humans and that as society changes, so must our views.
Justice DY Chandrachud (In an interview with Catharsis Magazine)

In the privacy verdict, Justice Chandrachud referred to the Jabalpur case, popularly known as the Habeas Corpus case—a legal battle over enforcement of fundamental rights during Emergency, a 21-month period between 1975 and 1977 when the rights of citizens were suspended.

Four of the five members of a 1976 Constitution bench had held that once Article 21 (Right to Life and Liberty) was suspended during Emergency, a person cannot move court to enforce his rights granted by it. Justice HR Khanna was the lone dissenting judge in that verdict. Justice Chandrachud’s father, Justice YV Chandrachud, had co-authored the majority verdict.

Still, Justice Chandrachud said with rapid technological transformations, a legal regime to adequately protect privacy is a work in progress.

“This is not going to be a battle but a work in progress because I don’t think at any point of time, we can say that we have arrived at a legal regime which will adequately protect privacy,” he said. “You can only deal with problems of yesterday. I’m not sure if a legal regime will be able to deal with the problems of today because by the time you start dealing with today’s problems in the legal regime, you’re already in the tomorrow. It’s a constant chase between the law and the dangers of technology. So, the law must be that efficient that it can deal with the problems faced today or even the problems which are going to come in future.”

He suggested a way out, too. “If we have an independent regulatory control and make that adequately free from the interference by the larger and more organised sections of the society, I believe that could help us safely enter the future and help us tackle the dangers to our privacy.”

Justice Chandrachud also spoke on a variety of issues ranging from constitutional rights to music and cricket.

On what should be the approach of a judge in cases that have political significance, he said, “The court does and must try to apply constitutional standards because so long as the judges apply constitutional standards, they attain the basic expectation of being apolitical. Even if they are deciding political disputes, they must meet these certain legal standards. That is the surest guarantee that judges can have while deciding political issues—the adherence to certain legal standards and principles.”

He also advised the law students to read and travel extensively and always have an open mind.