When the Empire SLAPPs Back

“Short of a gun to the head, a greater threat to First Amendment expression can scarcely be imagined”

-Nicholas Colabella J. of the New York Supreme Court, in Gordon v Marrone.

The above statement vividly describes what has come to be called a SLAPP suit – Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation. The term was coined by University of Denver Professors Penelope Canan and George Pring in their book ‘SLAPPs: Getting Sued for Speaking Out’.[1] SLAPPs are generally characterized by deep-pocketed individuals or entities pursuing litigation as a way of intimidating or silencing their critics.

The suit likely may have no merit, but the objective is primarily to threaten or coerce critics into silence, or in the alternative, impose prohibitive costs on criticism. SLAPPs also have the effect of suppressing reportage about initial claims.  Even if defendants win a lawsuit on merits, it would be at an immense cost in terms of resources. This experience is likely to deter them, and others from speaking out in the future. Faced with an uncertain legal process, defendants are also likely to seek settlement. While this allows them to avoid an expensive process, it usually entails them having to abandon their opposition as well.  By in effect chilling citizen participation in government, SLAPP suits strike at the heart of participatory democracy.

SLAPPs have also come to be employed in India, in a number of instances. These are usually large corporates, powerful individuals, and even private universities, dragging media houses and journalists, or academics to Court for unfavorable reportage. Recent instances indicate that SLAPPs can also be employed by influential people accused of sexual assault or harassment. The aim appears to be to suppress media coverage, and deter victims from publically speaking out.

Defamation suits tend to be the weapon of choice for SLAPPs. In India, where defamation can also be a criminal offence, this can be a particularly effective strategy, especially since it may be pursued concurrently with a civil claim. Another tactic to make the process more punitive, is to file the suit in a remote, inconvenient location where the offending publication may have been made available. In the context of the internet, this could theoretically be anywhere.

There have not been many instances where the judiciary have demonstrated awareness of this phenomenon. In Crop Care Federation of India v. Rajasthan Patrika, reports had been published in the Rajasthan Patrika about the harmful effects of pesticides. Crop Care Federation of India, an industry body of pesticide manufactures, sued the newspaper and its employees for allegedly defaming its members. In response, the defendant filed an application for the rejection of plaint, under Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. It was argued that the plaintiff was an association of manufacturers, and not a determinate body, which was a necessary requirement to constitute a cause of action in a defamation suit. Justice Ravindra Bhat dismissed the suit on the above ground but also explicitly called out the petitioner’s suit as a SLAPP, with a reference to Justice Nicholas Colabella’s dictum in Gordon v. Marrone. He went on to note that, “in such instances the plaintiff’s goals are accomplished if the defendant succumbs to fear, intimidation, mounting legal costs or simple exhaustion and abandons the criticism. A SLAPP may also intimidate others from participating in the debate.”

Several jurisdictions have enacted ‘anti-SLAPP’ legislations in an attempt to protect defendants from such practices. Broadly, such legislations provide the defendant an opportunity to seek dismissal of the suit early in the proceedings. In most anti-SLAPP statutes in the United States, if the defendant demonstrates that the statements were within the exercise of free speech, and on matters of legitimate public interest, the burden shifts onto the plaintiff to establish a probability of success of their claims. Failing to do so would lead to a dismissal, with the petitioner having to compensate the defendant’s legal costs. Typically, the discovery process is halted while the motion is being adjudicated upon. This further mitigates the financial toll that the proceedings might otherwise take.

In a similar vein, one of the recommendations in India has been to introduce procedure into Order 7 Rule 11 that allows suits that bear the mark of a SLAPP to be summarily dismissed. Broader reforms to the law of defamation may also limit the impact of SLAPPs. It has been proposed that Sections 499 and 500 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, which criminalize defamation, should be repealed. It is widely held that, despite the Supreme Court’s contrary view, the imposition of penal consequences for defamation runs counter to the free speech ideals enshrined within our Constitution. There are also suggestions to codify civil defamation, with higher thresholds for statements regarding public officials or public figures, as well as a stricter requirement of demonstrating harm. There are also proposals to allow for corrections and apologies to be offered as remedy, and for damages designed to be primarily restorative, and not punitive.

According to Pring and Canan, SLAPPs are a way for petitioners to transform a “a public, political controversy into a private, legalistic one.”[2] Defamation, and SLAPP suits in general, have become a tool to deter public scrutiny and criticism of those in power. Drawing reasonable inferences from fact is essential to the functioning of the press, and the internet has provided citizens an avenue to express their opinions and grievances. Both are likely to limit the legitimate exercise of their free speech if they run the risk of being dragged to court to mount a legal defense for their claims. Our legal framework seeks to deliver justice to all, but must also be cognizant of how it may be subverted towards nefarious ends.

[1] Penelope Canan and George Pring, SLAPPs : Getting Sued for Speaking Out (Temple University Press, 1996).

[2] Id., at 10.

Advertisements

CCG on the Privacy Judgment

Written by the Civil Liberties team at CCG

A 9 judge bench of the Supreme Court of India passed a landmark judgment two weeks ago, which unanimously recognized the right to privacy as a fundamental right under the Constitution of India. The Court found the right to privacy to be a part of the freedoms guaranteed across fundamental rights, and an intrinsic aspect of dignity, autonomy and liberty.

In 2012, a petition was filed before the Supreme Court by Justice K. S. Puttuswamy (Retd.), challenging the validity of Aadhaar. During the course of the hearings, the Attorney General argued that the Supreme Court in M.P. Sharma v. Satish Chandra (1954) and Kharak Singh v. State of U.P. (1962) had found that there was no fundamental right to privacy in India, because of which its position in the Indian Constitution was debatable. As a consequence, the Court in its order on August 11, 2015 referred the question to a Constitution bench of the Supreme Court. Last month, the Constitution bench decided to refer the matter to a 9 judge bench, in view of M.P. Sharma and Kharak Singh being decided by an 8 judge bench, and a 6 judge bench respectively. A timeline of events, from the filing of the petition, to the constitution of the 9 judge bench, may be found here.

During the proceedings, the petitioners broadly argued that M.P. Sharma, and Kharak Singh were no longer good law; that privacy was an essential component of liberty, dignity and other core aspects of the Constitution; and the fundamental right to privacy could be located in a combined reading of the rights under Part III of the Constitution. Further, they argued that India’s international obligations presented an imperative to recognize the right. The respondents argued, among other things, that privacy was a vague concept, of which only certain aspects could be elevated to the status of a fundamental right, if at all. They argued that the right could be protected through the common law, or by statute, and did not need the protection of a fundamental right. Further, that the right to life, and the concomitant duty of the state to provide welfare, must trump privacy. An index of our posts reporting the arguments is also available below.

The petition and reference posed some critical questions for the Court. The Court had to evaluate whether privacy, as argued, was just an alien, elitist construct unsuitable to India, or a necessary protection in a digital age. It was further tasked with defining its safeguards and contours in a way that would not invalidate the right. Chinmayi Arun’s piece specifically addresses these concerns here.

Fortunately, the Supreme Court also has an illustrious history of recognizing and upholding the right to privacy. The Centre for Communication Governance recently published an infographic, illustrating the Court’s jurisprudence on the right to privacy across 63 years.

The Court eventually decided on an expansive articulation of the fundamental right to privacy. However, the judgment raises a few crucial implications. We at the Centre for Communication Governance have presented our analysis of the judgment in various news media publications. Chinmayi Arun, our Research Director, has presented her views on the judgment as part of a panel of experts here, and in an interview, here. She also argues that the Court seems to have left a significant leeway, presumably for intrusion by the state. Smitha presents a detailed assessment of the implications of the right to privacy here. The judgment has also been lauded for its critique of the Suresh Kumar Koushal v. NAZ Foundation, which recriminalized consensual same-sex intercourse. As Arpita writes here, a strong formulation of the right to privacy, with its close connection to bodily integrity, can forge a more progressive expression of the rights of women and sexual minorities.

While the judgment is a step forward, its effect and implementation are yet to be seen. Recently, in the ongoing matter of Karmanya Singh v. Union of India (WhatsApp data sharing case), the Puttaswamy judgment was visited. Following from the judgment, the petitioners argued that the state should protect an individual’s right to privacy even when it is being infringed by a non-state actor.

 Reports of arguments made before the Supreme Court:

An update on Sabu Mathew George vs. Union of India

Today, the Supreme Court heard the ongoing matter of Sabu Mathew George vs. Union of India. In 2008, a petition was filed to ban advertisements endorsing sex-selective abortions from search engine results. Advertisements endorsing sex selective abortions are illegal under Section 22 of the PNDT Act (The Pre-conception and Pre-natal Diagnostic Techniques Act), 1994 Act. Several orders have been passed over the last few years, the last of which was passed on April 13th, 2017. Following from these orders, the Court had directed the Centre to set up a nodal agency where complaints against sex selective ads could be lodged. The Court had also ordered the search engines involved to set up an in-house expert committee in this regard. The order dated April 13th stated that compliance with the mechanism in place would be checked hereinafter. Our blog posts covering these arguments and other issues relevant to search neutrality can be found here and here.

Today, the petitioners counsel stated that the nodal agency in question should be able to take suo moto cognisance of complaints, and not just restrict its functioning to the method prescribed previously. Currently, individuals can file complaints with the nodal agency, which will then be forwarded to the search engine in question. The relevant part from the order (16/11/16) is as follows:

“…we direct that the Union of India shall constitute a “Nodal Agency” and give due advertisement in television, newspapers and radio by stating that it has been created in pursuance of the order of this Court and anyone who comes across anything that has the nature of an advertisement or any impact in identifying a boy or a girl in any method, manner or mode by any search engine shall be brought to its notice. Once it is brought to the notice of the Nodal Agency, it shall intimate the concerned search engine or the corridor provider immediately and after receipt of the same, the search engines are obliged to delete it within thirty-six hours and intimate the Nodal Agency. Needless to say, this is an interim arrangement pending the discussion which we have noted herein-before…”

On the respondent’s side, the counsel stated that over the last few months, Microsoft had only received one complaint and Yahoo had not received any complaints, arguing that the nodal agency  would not have to take on a higher level of regulation. Further on the issue of suo moto cognisance, they stated that it would be untenable to expect a government agency to ‘tap’ into search results. As per the counsel, the last order had only contemplated checking with the compliance of the nodal agency system, and with constituting an expert committee, all of which had been established.

The petitioners stated that they would need more time and would suggest other measures for effective regulation.

The next hearing will take place on the 24th of November, 2017.

A judgment for the ages

ALL WP(C) No.494 of 2012 Right to Privacy

“Nine judges of this Court assembled to determine whether privacy is a constitutionally protected value. The issue reaches out to the foundation of a constitutional culture based on the protection of human rights and enables this Court to revisit the basic principles on which our Constitution has been founded and their consequences for a way of life it seeks to protect. This case presents challenges for constitutional interpretation. If privacy is to be construed as a protected constitutional value, it would redefine in significant ways our concepts of liberty and the entitlements that flow out of its protection.”

‘My Data, My Rules’ – The Right to Data Portability

Nandan Nilekani has recently made news cautioning against ‘data colonization’ by heavyweights such as Facebook and Google. He laments that data, which is otherwise a non-rival, unlimited resource, is not being shared freely, and is being put into silos. Not only does this limit its potential uses, users end up with very little control over their own data. He argues for ‘data democracy’ through a data protection law and particularly, one that gives users greater privacy, control and choice. In specific terms, Nilekani appears to be referring to the ‘right to data portability’, a recently recognized concept in the data protection lexicon.

In the course of using online services, individuals typically provide an assortment of personal data to service providers. The right to data portability allows a user to receive their data back in a format that is conducive to reuse with another service. The purpose of data portability is to promote interoperability between systems and to give greater choice and control to the user with respect to their data held by other entities. The aim is also to create a level playing field for newly established service providers that wish to take on incumbents, but are unable to do so because of the significant barriers posed by lock-in and network effects. For instance, Apple Music users could switch to a rival service without having to lose playlists, play counts, or history; or Amazon users could port purchasing history to a service that provides better recommendations; or eBay sellers to a more preferable platform without losing their reputation and ratings. Users could also port to services with more privacy friendly policies, thereby enabling an environment where services must also compete on such metrics.

The European Union’s General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) is the first legal recognition of the right to data portability. Art. 20(1) defines the right as follows:

“The data subject shall have the right to receive the personal data concerning him or her, which he or she has provided to a controller, in a structured, commonly used and machine-readable format and have the right to transmit those data to another controller without hindrance from the controller to which the data have been provided”

Pursuant to this right, Art. 20(2) further confers the right to directly transmit personal data from one controller to another, wherever technically feasible.

The first aspect of the right to data portability allows data subjects to receive their personal data for private use. Crucially, the data must be a in a format necessarily conducive to reuse. For instance, providing copies of emails in pdf format would not be sufficient. The second aspect is the ability to transfer data directly to another controller, without hindrance.

There are certain prerequisites for the applicability of this right:

a) it applies only to personal data that the data subject ‘provided’ to the controller. This would include data explicitly provided (such as age, or address, etc., through online forms), as well as data generated and collected by the controller on account of the usage of the service. Data derived or inferred by the controller would not be within the scope of this right.

b) the processing must be pursuant to consent or a contract. Personal data processed for a task to be performed in public interest, or in the exercise of official authority is excluded.

c) the processing must be through automated means. Data in paper files would therefore not be portable.

d) the right must not adversely affect the rights and freedoms of others.

The GDPR does not come into force till May 2018, so there remain ambiguities regarding how the right to data portability may come to be implemented. For instance, there is debate about whether ‘observed data’, such as heartbeat tracking by wearables, would be portable. Even so, the right to data portability appears to be a step towards mitigating the influence data giants currently wield.

Data Portability is premised on the principle of informational self-determination, which forms the substance of the European Data Protection framework.  This concept was famously articulated in what is known as the Census decision of the German Federal Constitutional Court in 1983. The Court ruled it to be a necessary condition for the free development of one’s personality, and also an essential element of a democratic society.  The petitioners in India’s Aadhaar-PAN case also  explicitly argued that informational self-determination was a facet of Art. 21 of the Indian Constitution.

Data portability may also be considered an evolution from previously recognized rights such as the right to access and the right to erasure of personal data, both of which are present in the current Information Technology (Reasonable security practices and procedures and sensitive personal data or information) Rules, 2011. TRAI’s recent consultation paper on Privacy, Security and Ownership of Data in the Telecom Sector also refers to data portability as a way to empower users. The right to data portability may be an essential aspect of a robust and modern data protection framework, and India is evidently not averse to taking cues from the EU in this regard. As we (finally) begin to formulate our own data protection law, it may serve us well to evaluate which concepts may be suitably imported.

 

SC 9 Judge Constitution Bench on the Fundamental Right to Privacy – Day III (Part II)

On the 19th of July, 2017, a nine-judge bench was constituted to determine whether there was a fundamental right to privacy. Hearings continued on the 20th and the 26th of July. Our post discussing the hearing on the 20th of July can be found here. Today, arguments were advanced on behalf of the petitioners and the respondents. The hearing has been covered under two posts, the first post can be found here. The first post covers arguments made by Senior Counsel Kapil Sibal, the second post covers arguments made by the Attorney General, appearing for the respondents.

Appearing for the respondents, Attorney General K.K. Venugopal started with addressing whether the right to privacy was a fundamental right under Article 21. He read out Article 21, and stressed on the exception of procedural requirements.

Relying on Maneka Gandhi vs. Union of India, he stated that Article 21 is restricted to life and personal liberty. Privacy has not been mentioned in this case, which according to the Attorney General, was a deliberate omission.

Focusing on the structure of Article 21, he stated that the deprivation of rights has been built into it. The principle of deprivation also applies to the right to life and liberty, as a result of which these rights are not absolute. Through the built-in exception, the state can take away the right to life and personal liberty, as is seen in instances of the death penalty and incarceration for crimes.

Referring back to Maneka Gandhi, the Attorney General stated that the procedure established by law has to be ‘just, fair and reasonable’.

At this point, Justice Chandrachud asked about the concomitant rights mentioned earlier, which included the right to travel and also the right to a clean environment and asked why those rights were qualitatively different from a right to privacy.

The Attorney General explained that the right to privacy was a specie of the genus, personal liberty. He went on to state that each fundamental right has several species and sub-species and that by virtue of being a specie, each right could not be elevated to the level of a fundamental right. Each specie would have to be scrutinised in its own context. Privacy may be a specie, but it could not be a fundamental right.

The Attorney General then argued on the assumption that right to privacy is in fact a specie of personal liberty. As an amorphous term, it would have its own sub-species. While stating that privacy had several sub-species of its own, he also forwarded the argument that each of these sub-species could not be elevated to the level of a fundamental right.

The right to privacy, according to the Attorney General, is not a homogenous right.

Referring back to the rights under Article 21, specifically the right to food and shelter, the Attorney General stated that the right to life of others would take precedence over the right to privacy.

He stated that claiming a right to privacy would act against the interests of the 270 million starving people in the country. If the right to privacy would get in the way of the smooth functioning of the Aadhaar system, it would lead to the deprivation of food and shelter for millions, ensured by welfare schemes.

He referred to a World Bank report, which stated that a system like Aadhaar should be followed in every developing country. He also stated that biometric collection of data would not lead to fundamental rights being violated, since the right to life of others would be upheld.

He then went on to discuss the Constituent Assembly Debates and also referred to the 4th Amendment in the American Constitution, and how search and seizures were permitted under the amendment.

He stated that interpretation should be carried out in an object-oriented manner. On the matter of interpretation, Justice Chandrachud enquired if he was endorsing the ‘originalist’ school of interpretation, according to which the original intent of the framers, and not evolved jurisprudence had to be considered.

The Attorney General said that it could be interpreted as the Bench preferred.

Referring back to the point about poverty and deprivation, the Attorney General stated that the right to personal liberty could not exist without the right to life and therefore, if conflicts arose, the right to life would prevail over the right to personal liberty.

He then discussed the rise of privacy as a tort and how it was not “a simple matter”.  Referring to cases from the House of Lords, he stated that developments under privacy could not be contained under one single right.

By relying on case laws of several jurisdictions, he stated that courts have generally refused to formulate a specific right to privacy. Aspects of privacy could form common law rights, not fundamental rights.

The Attorney General once again, revisited arguments about poverty and the right to life of others.

At this point, Justice Chandrachud stated that privacy was not “an elitist construct” and that it was for the benefit of the masses as well.

He elaborated his statement with an example. Referring to health concerns of rural Indian women, he asked if forced sterilization of women with cervical cancer could be protected by any fundamental right other than privacy.

The Attorney General referred back to his previous argument, stating that if handing over biometric data was essential to save lives of other people, should you be allowed to not hand over your data?

On this point, Justice Chandrachud stated that one could not deny their obligation to hand over data, as long as certain conditions were met, stating that if it was going to be used by the state to meet legitimate ends, then the obligation could not be denied. He also stated that private organizations should not be allowed to access data without consent.

Referring back to the nature of the right to privacy, the Attorney General stated that the right was not a composite, homogenous right. He stated that one could not combine diverse sub-specie and refer to them under one nomenclature. The right way would be to investigate each sub-specie.

Justice Bobde enquired about the qualitative difference between a fundamental right to privacy and a common law right. He stated that they were both protected rights and enforceable by law.

The Attorney General stated that the common law right could not be a public law right, and one could only file a civil suit.

Justice Bobde stressed on the qualitative difference and clarified that the above mentioned points were matters of implementation.

The Attorney General stated that unlike fundamental rights, common law rights could not be tested against the constitution. Common law remedies are wide and they could be sought out by a civil suit and damages.  The action itself would be void.

Discussing the matter of pitting fundamental rights against each other, Justice Nariman described the various stages of the right to privacy being recognized, stating that at the first stage every sub-specie of privacy, under the right to personal liberty, would be protected under Article 21. At the second stage, a scheme like Aadhaar would be enacted and at the third stage, one would consider whether the validity of state action was ‘just, fair and reasonable’. He clarified that the process wouldn’t just be limited to pitting one fundamental right against another.

Referring to Article 25, he went on to state that even when there was an express hierarchy between different rights in the constitution, courts had held that those rights would have to be harmonized, and not isolated.

The Attorney General referred back to his contention, stating that the right to privacy could not be realized in a developing country like India. He also expressly stated that the Aadhaar scheme would not turn India into a totalitarian state.

He stated that the right to privacy was vague and amorphous – the construct of privacy was sociological and would not fit in the “jural” context.

At this point, the Bench asked if there could at all be a fundamental right, and clarified that this was a separate question from whether there was a specific right in this context. They clarified that the scope of the case was not considering whether the Aadhaar scheme was fundamental or not. The Bench further clarified that the issue of ‘sub-species’ was not going to be considered in this case either, and stressed on the scope of the case.

Justice Bobde clarified that the petitioners had already stated that the right was homogenous.

Justice Nariman discussed different forms of privacy. He referred to privacy relatable to the body, the two sub-species related to mind, the dissemination of information and private choices. He then enquired as to which of these aspects would not fit under Article 21.

The Attorney General stated that it was circumstantial.

Chief Justice Khehar stated that circumstances would only come up if there was a fundamental right to privacy to begin with.

The Attorney General referred to a list of countries that did not uphold the right to privacy, to which Justice Chandrachud stated that there were several other countries where privacy is a recognized right. The Attorney General stated that only certain jurisdictions would have persuasive value though.

The Attorney General also stated that privacy is a derivative interest and is automatically secured by more concrete rights. Referring back to Justice Nariman’s query about bodily integrity and privacy relating to the mind, he stated that these could be secured by other rights, and that recourse need not be had to privacy. Stressing on the vague nature of privacy as a right, the Attorney General stated that the sub-species of privacy would have to be decided before the constitutional bench.

Justice Chandrachud discussed privacy interests in different contexts. Drawing on the example of an employment form, he stated that if a woman is asked how many children she has or whether she’s married, this may not amount to a privacy concern. But, if the same form asks a woman how many abortions she’s had, there could be a privacy interested involved.

Similarly, if a census form asks what marriage you were born of, this may involve a privacy interest.

However, he went on to state that in a few specific instances, such information could be relevant for legislative interests. As per a Maharashtra legislation, the third child in a family would not be allowed to contest elections. In this context, the state has a legitimate interest in knowing specific kinds of information. Concluding his remarks, Justice Chandrachud stated that the right to privacy was to be calibrated.

The Attorney General then stated that a right to privacy could not be claimed if the information in question is already in the public. He relied on examples of census information and information disclosed for elections.  On the point of elections, the Bench stated that elections would not be a relevant example in this context. This lead to a discussion on the right to privacy and right to information under the Representation of People Act, 1951.

The Attorney General went on to discuss the “essence of privacy” and the disclosure of information under Section 33 of the ROPA, by relying on State of West Bengal vs. Sri Pronab Kumar Sur and Ors, AIR 2003 SC 231. He read out relevant parts of the judgment:

“It has been contended with much force that the right to information made available to the voters/citizens by judicial interpretation has to be balanced with the right of privacy of the spouse of the contesting candidate and any insistence on the disclosure of assets and liabilities of the spouse invades his/her right to privacy which is implied in Article 21. After giving anxious consideration to this argument, I am unable to uphold the same. In this context, I would like to recall the apt words of analyzing the right to privacy as an ingredient of Article 21, it was observed:

“There can be no doubt that privacy- dignity claims deserve to be examined with care and to be denied only when an important countervailing interest is shown to be superior”…

…When there is a competition between the right to privacy of an individual and the right to information of the citizens, the former right has to be subordinated to the latter right as it serves larger public interest.”

The Attorney General went on to state that even if there is a right to privacy, it would have to function within certain limitations.

Chief Justice Khehar clarified that privacy was an undefined fundamental right. He stated that even defined fundamental rights had limitations, so if privacy is recognized as a fundamental right, there would be limitations built in.

The Attorney General referred back to the point of the marginalized sections of society in the country and how the right to life of others was paramount.

Justice Nariman interjected stating that similar ‘emotional pleas’ were made when the constitutionality of the right to property was being considered. The right to property was removed from the constitution, without due regard being had to the fact that marginalized sections of society would also benefit from such rights. Similarly, marginalized sections would also benefit from a right to privacy.

Justice Chandrachud agreed, stating that we must not “forget the little man’s right to privacy”. He stated that people who have been marginalized have also suffered terrible harms in the absence of a right to privacy, citing examples of forced sterilization of women after the Second World War.

The Attorney General asked to be allowed to argue the matter in front of the five judge bench. The Bench refused, stating that the reason the present bench was hearing the matter was because the respondents did not agree to argue in front of a five judge bench.

At this point, the Attorney General closed his arguments stating that the:

1) There is no fundamental right to privacy.

2) If there is a fundamental right to privacy, it must be a qualified right, since it consists of a diverse sub-species of liberty and every aspect will not qualify as a fundamental right.

At this point, counsel for UIDAI referred to ‘another dimension’ of the argument, stating that privacy may be a right, but it cannot be a fundamental right.

Arguments will continue tomorrow (27/7).