Internet Freedom Foundation's statement on the Right to Privacy judgement

Today, history was made as a nine-judge constitutional bench unanimously decided that the Right to Privacy was a Fundamental Right in the Indian Constitution. The Internet Freedom Foundation, that fights for a fair, open, and neutral internet, wholeheartedly welcomes this decision and thanks the Supreme Court for championing the rights of Indian citizens. We urge the government to now pass a citizen focused privacy and data protection bill, on the basis of this powerful statement from the Supr

24 August, 2017
1 min read

Today, history was made as a nine-judge constitutional bench unanimously decided that the Right to Privacy was a Fundamental Right in the Indian Constitution.

The Internet Freedom Foundation, that fights for a fair, open, and neutral internet, wholeheartedly welcomes this decision and thanks the Supreme Court for championing the rights of Indian citizens.

We urge the government to now pass a citizen focused privacy and data protection bill, on the basis of this powerful statement from the Supreme Court, and protect the rights of citizens over their data. The Privacy Bill has been pending since 2011, and there has never been a more urgent need for one.

We also congratulate every individual and every organisation involved in his fight. This is a victory only won by all of us collaborating and it's important for all citizens to come together to protect their rights. These fights are never truly over, and we look forward to continuing to defend such causes in the future.

IFF will seek to safeguard and strengthen our fundamental right to privacy, including before the constitutional bench on WhatsApp data sharing. You can learn more about our work here.

Subscribe to our newsletter, and don't miss out on our latest updates.

Similar Posts

1
Delhi High Court directs government to submit affidavit confirming lack of written records in Aarogya Setu’s development

Updates on Saurav Das’ writ petition before the Delhi High Court, where he is contesting the Central Information Commission’s decision to withhold information related to Aarogya Setu.

4 min read

2
Supreme Court refers challenge to constitutionality of sedition law to a larger Bench of at least 5 judges

Noting that the past cases under Section 124-A will not be affected on account of introduction of new Bills, a 3-judges bench of the Supreme Court led by the CJI has referred the petition challenging the constitutionality of Section 124-A to a larger Bench of at least 5 judges

5 min read

3
Shooting down bad ideas: Our response to TRAI’s consultation paper on OTT Regulation and Selective Banning

TRAI released a consultation paper on OTT regulation and selective banning. In our response, we expressed our view against the licensing and registration as well as selective banning of OTT communication services. See the post to read our detailed comments.

5 min read

Donate to IFF

Help IFF scale up by making a donation for digital rights. Really, when it comes to free speech online, digital privacy, net neutrality and innovation — we got your back!