SET 2: ESSAY- National Security vs Personal Privacy: A

Modern Dilemma for Nation State

ilp2018.iasbaba.com/forum/set-2-essay-national-security-vs-personal-privacy-a-modern-dilemma-for-nation-state

Forum › Category: ESSAY › SET 2: ESSAY- National Security vs Personal Privacy: A

Modern Dilemma for Nation State
0 Vote Up Vote Down

IASbaba Admin asked 8 months ago

Hello Friends,

Welcome to SET 2- Essay Practice.

TOPIC- National Security vs Personal Privacy: A Modern

Dilemma for Nation-State

This type of topic needs an analytical assessment. You can start a topic with an
anecdote/story / real-time examples/any news etc. Or you can also quote any
philosopher on the same.

As the topic itself talks about a dilemma, you should take a balanced stand instead of
taking an extreme stand.

While attempting essay, try to make a rough sketch in the form of chart/mind map etc.
It will help you to collect your thoughts and to make a proper structure in your mind.

Here, we are giving you an example of mind map which you can use a reference
point to ponder more.

Right Click on image to open in new tab

Conclusion: Your conclusion should indicate towards a balance approach though

you can tilt your conclusion mildly in the favour of your arguments given in the essay.

Excerpts from Justice Chandrachud’s judgement on

1/9
JUSTICE K S PUTTASWAMY (RETD.), VERSUS
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. Case (Right to privacy)
(Few good paragraphs to read..It may help you in writing better
answers/essay!)

The Greek philosopher Aristotle spoke of a division between the public sphere
of political affairs (which he termed the polis) and the personal sphere of human
life (termed Oikos). This dichotomy may provide an early recognition of “a
confidential zone on behalf of the citizen”. Aristotle’s distinction between the
public and private realms can be regarded as providing a basis for restricting
governmental authority to activities falling within the public realm. On the other
hand, activities in the private realm are more appropriately reserved for “private
reflection, familial relations and self-determination”
John Stuart Mill in his essay, ‘On Liberty’ (1859) gave expression to the need to
preserve a zone within which the liberty of the citizen would be free from the
authority of the state. According to Mill: “The only part of the conduct of anyone,
for which he is amenable to society, is that which concerns others. In the part
which merely concerns himself, his independence is, of right, absolute. Over
himself, over his own body and mind, the individual is sovereign.” While
speaking of a “struggle between liberty and authority”, Mill posited that the
tyranny of the majority could be reined by the recognition of civil rights such as
the individual right to privacy, free speech, assembly and expression.
“Disclosure of even true private facts has the tendency to disturb a person’s
tranquillity. It may generate many complexes in him and may even lead to
psychological problems. He may, thereafter, have a disturbed life all through.
In a decision of a Bench of two judges of this Court in PUCL87, the Court dealt
with telephone tapping. The petitioner challenged the constitutional validity of
Section 5(2) of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885 and urged in the alternative for
adopting procedural safeguards to curb arbitrary acts of telephone tapping.
Section 5(2) authorises the interception of messages in transmission in the
following terms: “On the occurrence of any public emergency, or in the interest
of the public safety, the Central Government or a State Government or any
officer specially unauthorised in this behalf by the Central Government or a
State Government may, if satisfied that it is necessary or expedient so to do in
the interests of the sovereignty and integrity of India, the security of the State,
friendly relations with foreign States or public order or for preventing incitement
to the commission of an offence, for reasons to be recorded in writing, by order,
direct that any message or class of messages to or from any person or class of
persons, or relating to any particular subject, brought for transmission by or
transmitted or received by any telegraph, shall not be transmitted, or shall be
intercepted or detained, or shall be disclosed to the Government making the
order or an officer thereof mentioned in the order: Provided that press
2/9
messages intended to be published in India of correspondents accredited to the
Central Government or a State Government shall not be intercepted or
detained, unless their transmission has been prohibited under this sub-section.
Right to privacy is an integral part of the right to life. This is a cherished
constitutional value, and it is important that human beings be allowed domains
of freedom that are free of public scrutiny unless they act in an unlawful
manner. We understand and appreciate the fact that the situation with respect
to unaccounted for monies is extremely grave. Nevertheless, as constitutional
adjudicators, we always have to be mindful of preserving the sanctity of
constitutional values, and hasty steps that derogate from fundamental rights,
whether urged by Governments or private citizens, howsoever well-meaning
they may be, have to be necessarily very carefully scrutinised. The solution for
the problem of abrogation of one zone of constitutional values cannot be the
creation of another zone of abrogation of constitutional values… The rights of
citizens, to effectively seek the protection of fundamental rights, under clause
(1) of Article 32 have to be balanced against the rights of citizens and persons
under Article 21. The latter cannot be sacrificed on the anvil of fervid desire to
find instantaneous solutions to systemic problems such as unaccounted for
monies, for it would lead to dangerous circumstances, in which vigilante
investigations, inquisitions and rabble-rousing, by masses of other citizens
could become the order of the day. The right of citizens to petition this Court for
upholding of fundamental rights is granted in order that citizens, inter alia, are
ever vigilant about the functioning of the State in order to protect the
constitutional project. That right cannot be extended to being inquisitors of
fellow citizens. An inquisitorial order, where citizens’ fundamental right to
privacy is breached by fellow citizens is destructive of social order. The
notion of fundamental rights, such as a right to privacy as part of the right
to life, is not merely that the State is enjoined from derogating from them.
It also includes the responsibility of the State to uphold them against the
actions of others in the society, even in the context of the exercise of
fundamental rights by those others.”
The balance between transparency and confidentiality is very delicate and if
some sensitive information about a particular person is made public, it can have
a far-reaching impact on his/her reputation and dignity. The 99th Constitution
Amendment Act and the NJAC Act have not taken note of the privacy concerns
of an individual. This is important because it was submitted by the learned
Attorney General that the proceedings of NJAC will be completely transparent
and anyone can have access to information that is available with NJAC. This is
a rather sweeping generalization which obviously does not take into
account the privacy of a person who has been recommended for
appointment, particularly as a Judge of the High Court or in the first
instance as a Judge of the Supreme Court. The right to know is not a
3/9
fundamental right but at best it is an implicit fundamental right and it is
hedged in with the implicit fundamental right to privacy that all people
enjoy. The balance between the two implied fundamental rights is difficult to
maintain, but the 99th Constitution Amendment Act and the NJAC Act do not
even attempt to consider, let alone achieve that balance.
The rights, liberties and freedoms of the individual are not only to be protected
against the State, they should be facilitated by it. It is the duty of the State not
only to protect the human dignity but to facilitate it by taking positive steps in
that
No exact definition of human dignity exists. It refers to the intrinsic value of
every human being, which is to be respected. It cannot be taken away. It cannot
give. It simply is. Every human being has dignity by virtue of his existence

On a careful consideration of the various aspects of the case, we are convinced

that the Parliament has no power to abrogate or emasculate the basic
elements or fundamental features of the Constitution such as the
sovereignty of India, the democratic character of our polity, the unity of
the country, the essential features of the individual freedoms secured to the
citizens nor has the Parliament the power to revoke the mandate to build
a welfare State and egalitarian These limitations are only illustrative and
not exhaustive. Despite these limitations, however, there can be no question
that the amending power is a wide power and it reaches every Article and every
part of the Constitution. That power can be used to reshape the Constitution to
fulfil the obligation imposed on the State. It can also be used to reshape the
Constitution within the limits mentioned earlier, to make it an effective
instrument for social good.
We are unable to agree with the contention that in order to build a welfare
State , it is necessary to destroy some of the human rights that, at any
rate is not the perspective of our Constitution. Our Constitution envisages
that the State should without delay make available to all the citizens of
this country the real benefits of those freedoms in a democratic way.
Human freedoms are lost gradually and imperceptibly and their destruction is
generally followed by authoritarian rule. That is what history has taught us.
Struggle between liberty and power is eternal. Vigilance is the price that we like
every other democratic society have to pay to safeguard the democratic
values enshrined in our Constitution.
Even the best of Governments are not averse to have more and more
power to carry out their plans and programmes which they may sincerely
believe to be in public interest. But a freedom once lost is hardly ever
regained except by revolution. Every encroachment on freedom sets a
pattern for further encroachments.
Privacy is at the heart of liberty in a modern state…Grounded in man’s physical
and moral autonomy, privacy is essential for the well-being of the individual. For
4/9
 this reason alone, it is worthy of constitutional protection, but it also has
profound significance for the public.
The restraints imposed on government to pry into the lives of the citizen
go to the essence of a democratic state.
Privacy of the individual is an essential aspect of dignity. Dignity has both an
intrinsic and instrumental value. As an intrinsic value, human dignity is an
entitlement or a constitutionally protected interest in itself. In its instrumental
facet, dignity and freedom are inseparably inter-twined, each being a
facilitative tool to achieve the other. The ability of the individual to protect a
zone of privacy enables the realization of the full value of life and liberty.
Liberty has a broader meaning of which privacy is a subset. All liberties may
not be exercised in privacy. Yet others can be fulfilled only within a private
sphere.
Privacy enables the individual to retain the autonomy of the body and
mind. The autonomy of the individual is the ability to make decisions on
vital matters of concern to life. Privacy has not been couched as an
independent fundamental right. But that does not detract from the constitutional
protection afforded to it, once the true nature of privacy and its relationship with
those fundamental rights which are expressly protected is understood.
Privacy lies across the spectrum of protected freedoms. The guarantee of
equality is a guarantee against arbitrary state action. It prevents the state from
discriminating between individuals. The destruction by the state of a
sanctified personal space whether of the body or of the mind is violative
of the guarantee against arbitrary state action. Privacy of the body entitles an
individual to the integrity of the physical aspects of personhood. The
intersection between one’s mental integrity and privacy entitles the
individual to freedom of thought, the freedom to believe in what is right, and
the freedom of self- determination.
When these guarantees intersect with gender, they create a private
space which protects all those elements which are crucial to gender identity.
The family, marriage, procreation and sexual orientation are all integral to
the dignity of the

Above all, the privacy of the individual recognises an inviolable right to determine
how freedom shall be exercised. An individual may perceive that the best
form of expression is to remain silent. Silence postulates a realm of privacy.
An artist finds reflection of the soul in a creative endeavour. A writer
expresses the outcome of a process of thought. A musician contemplates
upon notes which musically lead to silence. The silence, which lies within, reflects
on the ability to choose how to convey thoughts and ideas or interact with others.

The creation of new knowledge complicates data privacy law as it involves

information the individual did not possess and could not disclose, knowingly or
5/9
otherwise. In addition, as our state becomes an “information state” through
increasing reliance on information –such that information is described as the
“lifeblood that sustains political, social, and business decisions. It becomes
impossible to conceptualize all of the possible uses of information and resulting
harms.
The balance between data regulation and individual privacy raises complex
issues requiring delicate balances to be drawn between the legitimate concerns
of the State on one hand and individual interest in the protection of privacy on
the other.
The sphere of privacy stretches at one end to those intimate matters to which a
reasonable expectation of privacy may attach. It expresses a right to be left
alone. A broader connotation which has emerged in academic literature of a
comparatively recent origin is related to the protection of one’s identity. Data
protection relates closely with the latter sphere. Data such as medical
information would be a category to which a reasonable expectation of privacy
attaches. There may be other data which falls outside the reasonable
expectation paradigm. Apart from safeguarding privacy, data protection regimes
seek to protect the autonomy of the individual. This is evident from the
emphasis in the European data protection regime on the centrality of consent.
Related to the issue of consent is the requirement of transparency which
requires a disclosure by the data recipient of information pertaining to data
transfer and use.
Privacy is the terrorist’s best friend, and the terrorist’s privacy has been
enhanced by the same technological developments that have both made data
mining feasible and elicited vast quantities of personal information from
innocents: the internet, with its anonymity, and the secure encryption of
digitized data which, when combined with that anonymity, make the internet a
powerful tool of conspiracy. The government has a compelling need to exploit
digitization in defense of national security.
Apart from national security, the state may have justifiable reasons for
the collection and storage of In a social welfare state, the government
embarks
upon programmes which provide benefits to impoverished and marginalised
sections of society. There is a vital state interest in ensuring that scarce public
resources are not dissipated by the diversion of resources to persons who
do not qualify as recipients. Allocation of resources for human development is
coupled with a legitimate concern that the utilisation of resources should not be
siphoned away for extraneous purposes. Data mining with the object of
ensuring that resources are properly deployed to legitimate beneficiaries is
a valid ground for the state to insist on the collection of authentic But,
the data which the state has collected has to be utilised for legitimate
purposes of the state and ought not to be utilised unauthorizedly for extraneous

6/9
 purposes. This will ensure that the legitimate concerns of the state are duly
safeguarded while, at the same time, protecting privacy concerns.
Prevention and investigation of crime and protection of the revenue are
among the legitimate aims of the state. Digital platforms are a vital tool of
ensuring good governance in a social welfare state. Information technology –
legitimately deployed is a powerful enabler in the spread of innovation and
knowledge.

Other good links:

http://www.govtech.com/policy/Privacy-vs-Security-Experts-Debate-Merits-of-Each-in-
Tech-Rich-World.html

http://www.debate.org/opinions/is-privacy-more-important-than-security

http://debatewise.org/debates/3040-privacy-vs-security/

Bunny replied 8 months ago

NIHARIKA MISHRA replied 8 months ago
Thanks Baba ji for providing every possible good source

RRB
Thank You Baba g

replied 8 months ago

Thank you so much baba

Pankaj replied 8 months ago

Thanks baba ji

PAWAN SHARMA replied 8 months ago

Babaji ki jai

Raghuram B
Guys this is not a spam nor a business out of passion I have a started a youtube
channel for prelims oriented current affairs: https://youtu.be/fHeSuTC_dUs

14 Answers
Your Answer
0 Vote Up Vote Down

kwl sandhu answered 8 months ago

Thnk you sir

0 Vote Up Vote Down

[email protected] answered 8 months ago

7/9
thanx baba ji.Excellent effort.

0 Vote Up Vote Down

[email protected] answered 8 months ago

Thankyou

Iffy replied 8 months ago

[email protected]
agree

answered 8 months ago

Thanks IAS Baba Team

0
1

RAVINDER SANGWAN answered 8 months ago

AKSHAY KUMAR replied 8 months ago

MARVELLOUS BROTHER……BUT PERSONALLY I DIDNT LIKE WHAT YOU
HAVE WRITTEN IN INTRODUCTION,,,,OTHERWISE ITS PERFECT FOR ME

ROHIT KUMAR replied 8 months ago

replied 8 months ago
RAVINDER SANGWAN replied 8 months ago
@diksha hahaaa naah i do no mind stalking,,,,its not fair getting called a stalker by a
stalker himself

0 Vote Down

UDAYASRI answered 8 months ago

replied 8 months ago

UDAYASRI replied 8 months ago
ABHISHEK
0
-1 Vote Up Vote Down

DISHA SRIVASTAVA answered 8 months ago

DISHA SRIVASTAVA replied 8 months ago

kindly review….

AKSHAY KUMAR replied 8 months ago

nicely written

DISHA SRIVASTAVA replied 8 months ago

8/9
thanks for the review…

priyanshu replied 8 months ago

0 Vote Up Vote Down
PAL NEHA answered 8 months ago
1 Vote Down
Kaavya answered 8 months ago

Kaavya replied 8 months ago

ankit answered 7 months ago

9/9