(This story originally appeared in on Aug 03, 2017)

NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court on Wednesday outlined a three-tier, graded approach to the question whether privacy is a fundamental right by examining the issue through its intimate, private and public aspects even as it reserved its verdict in the case.Prior to completion of the two-week-long hearing that attracted arguments for and against conferring fundamental right status to privacy but which saw all parties accepting its intrinsic importance for an individual, a nine-judge bench headed by Chief Justice J S Khehar said privacy could be configured into three zones.Justice D Y Chandrachud set out the tentative thought process and drew support from Justice R F Nariman. He said, “The first zone could be the most intimate zone of privacy concerning marriage, sexuality, relations with family and the law should frown upon any intrusion. The state could still intrude into this intimate zone in extraordinary circumstances provided it met stringent norms.“The second zone would be the private zone, which involved parting of personal data by use of credit card, social networking platforms, income tax declarations. In this sphere, sharing of personal data by an individual will be used only for the purpose for which it is shared by an individual.“The third is the public zone where privacy protection requires minimal regulation . Here, the personal data shared will not mean the right to privacy is surrendered. The individual will retain his privacy to body and mind.” The formulation suggests right to privacy may not be unfettered.The bench, also comprising Justices J Chelameswar, S A Bobde, R K Agrawal, A M Sapre, Sanjay Kishan Kaul and S Abdul Nazeer, realised the difficulty in a straitjacket interpretation of constitutional status of right to privacy, it being linked to liberty which has visible footprints on several fundamental rights guaranteed in Part-III of the Constitution.The fledgling service sector, which is growing at a faster pace than the industrial sector, provided food for thought. Justice Chandrachud said, “We are dealing with an issue that has an impact on what constituted India as a powerhouse for growth of service sector. The analysis of choices and personal preferences of 1.4 billion and the analysis of this generates demand in the service sector. In defining the right to privacy, we must keep in mind this critical sector which depends on personal data of Indians using a particular service.”When the bench was stressing on the sacrosanct tag attached to right to privacy in the US constitution, senior advocate Rakesh Dwivedi, arguing for Gujarat government, said, “If right to privacy was so sanctified in the US constitution, how could US forces invade privacy of a house (in Pakistan ) to eliminate Osama bin Laden? Privacy is a fluid term incapable of being defined, for it changes contours depending on situations.”He agreed with the bench that privacy was intrinsic to many fundamental rights. “If privacy is intrinsic to many fundamental rights, where is the necessity of defining it as a standalone fundamental right? Can the Supreme Court fathom all hues of privacy to present it as a homogeneous right capable of standing alone and aloof from other fundamental rights,” he asked.