Arguments Advanced :

Whether the Government of Singhara can interfere with the personal activities of citizens in
the name of public interest?

It is humbly submitted before this Hon’ble Court that Government of Singhara can interfere with the
personal activities of citizens in the name of public interest on account of the fact that

1.The State of Singhara has a Written Constitution with a full-fledged chapter on Fundamental Rights
in Part III of the Constitution.

2.The Constitution of Singhara guarantees the right to life or personal liberty under Article 21 and it
provides that “No person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty except according to procedure
established by law”.

It was held in the case of maneka Gandhi vs uoi “ that the ‘right to life’ as embodied in Article 21 is not
merely confined to animal existence or survival but it includes within its ambit the right to live with
human dignity and all those aspects of life which go to make a man’s life meaningful, complete and
worth living. It also ruled that the expression ‘Personal Liberty’ in Article 21 is of the widest amplitude
and it covers a variety of rights that go to constitute the personal liberties of a man”

3. The wording in Article 21 “According to procedure established by law” underscores the exception
of the right to personal liberty and the right to privacy enshrined in Article 21

4. The words Life and Personal liberty have various facets. The Right to privacy is one of the facets of
personal liberty.

In the case of Manohar Lal Sharma v. Union of India Writ Petition No. 314 of 2021, The court held
that the right to privacy which is guaranteed under Article 21, has been manifested in the multiple
facets in the personal and public lives of the citizens of India.{ 6Writ Petition No. 314 of 2021}

5 . The Right to privacy like any other facet is not absolute and reasonable restrictions can be placed
thereon in public interest Art 21 and Art. 19(5) r. It can be lawfully restricted for the prevention of
crime, disorder or protection of health or morals or protection of rights and freedom of others. A law
which encroaches upon privacy will have to withstand the touchstone of permissible restrictions on
fundamental rights. Absolute or uncontrolled individual rights do not and cannot exist in any modern
State.

In the case of Narayan Dutt Tiwari v Rohit Shekhar is was held that privacy is not absolute and can
be invaded to fulfil a larger interest.

In the case of Subramanian Swamy vs uoi it was held that the fundamental rights can be
reasonably restricted.
It was held in case of Om Kumar v Union of India, limitations on fundamental rights are constitutional
if the measures taken are necessary and proportional.

In Govind v. State of Madhya Pradesh , Mathew, J. accepted the right to privacy as an emanation
from Art. 19(a), (d) and 21, but right to privacy is not absolute right. “Assuming that the fundamental
rights explicitly guaranteed to a citizen have penumbral zones and that the right to privacy is itself a
fundamental right, the fundamental right must be subject to restriction on the basis of compelling
public interest”.

In Thalappalam Service Coop. Bank Ltd. v. State of Kerala, (2013) 16 SCC 82, a division bench of
Court held that the right to privacy was not an absolute right and can be regulated, restricted and
curtailed in larger public interest.

6 . Privacy constitutes the foundation of all liberty because it is in privacy that the individual can
decide how liberty is best exercised. Individual dignity and privacy are inextricably linked in a pattern
woven out of a thread of diversity into the fabric of a plural culture.”Privacy has both positive and
negative content. The negative content restrains the state from committing an intrusion upon the life
and personal liberty of a citizen. Its positive content imposes an obligation on the state to take all
necessary measures to protect the privacy of the individual

6 . Through a series of cases of india , it can be observed that the right to privacy was being
recognised, but its exceptions were also given due place

In the MP Sharma vs Satish Chandra case, the Supreme Court decided in favour of the practice of
search and seizure when contrasted with privacy

In 1962, while deciding the Kharak Singh vs State of UP (AIR 1963 SC 1295), the Court examined
the power of police surveillance with respect to historysheeters and it ruled in favour of the police

It was 1975 that became a watershed year for the right to privacy in India. The Supreme Court
while hearing the Gobind vs State of MP & ANR [1975 SCC(2) 148] case introduced the compelling
state interest test from the American jurisprudence. The court stated that right to privacy of an
individual would have to give way to larger state interest, the nature of which must be convincing

6. The fourth amendment to the American Constitution does not safeguard all expectations of
privacy, but only ones that are reasonable. Further, the right to privacy in the European Convention of
Human Rights is also not absolute and can be curtailed for the purpose of national security.

7. Even the RTBF which emerges from the right to privacy under Article 21 and partly from
the right to dignity under Article 14 doesn’t mean that one is withdrawing from society. It is an
expectation that society will not interfere in the choices made by the person so long as they do not
cause harm to others. It is the right to have publicly available personal information removed from the
internet, search, databases, websites or any other public platforms, once the personal information in
question is no longer necessary, or relevant is not absolute and the same can be inferred from the
words “as long as they do not cause harm to others”and “ is no longer necessary or relevant”

8. The black law dictionary also throw light on the fact that the right is not absolute and the same can
be inferred from the words with which the public is not necessarily concerned.
Black’s Law Dictionary “right to be let alone; the right of a person to be free from any unwarranted
publicity; the right to live without any unwarranted interference by the public in matters with which the
public is not necessarily concerned”
9 . Article 8 of European Convention on Human Rights states elucidates the same and it can be
interpreted from the words “ except such as is in accordance with law and is necessary in a
democratic society in the interests of national security, public safety or the economic well-being of the
country, for the protection of health or morals or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of
others”

Article 8 of European Convention on Human Rights states “Everyone has the right to respect for his
private and family life, his home and his correspondence; there shall be no interference by a public
authority except such as is in accordance with law and is necessary in a democratic society in the
interests of national security, public safety or the economic well-being of the country, for the protection
of health or morals or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others

4. The word used in Article 21 is not “in due course of law” but “procedure established by law” which
shows that the intention of the makers of constitution was to give power to the legislation to
formulate any kind of laws which is crucial for the safety and interest of the public and the state of
Singhara.

In India too the words used are procedure establiseh by law But the draft constitution had contained
the words ‘due process of law’ but these words were later dropped and the present phraseology
adopted instead.11 This was strong evidence to show that the Constituent Assembly did not desire to
introduce into India the concept of procedural due process. This was done mainly to avoid the
uncertainty surrounding the due process concept in the U.S.A.

The expression "procedure established by law" means procedure laid down by statute or procedure
prescribed by the law of the state.6 It implies that there must be a law, which the legislature has
passed, that provides the procedure by which the "life" and "personal liberty" of an individual can be
taken away. If the procedure enshrined in the law has been followed properly, then a person can be
deprived of his life irrespective of the arbitrariness or unfairness of the procedure. Under this doctrine,
the Parliament has been lavished with wide powers.

In India , The advisory committee on Fundamental Rights presented draft article 15 (which later
became article 21 of the Indian Constitution) before the constituent assembly on 23 April, 1947 which
had the following clause-

"No person shall be deprived of his life, liberty or property without due process of law 7"

The members of the constituent assembly debated upon the terms used and when the final draft of
the Constitution was submitted in February 1948, the term "personal" was added before liberty and
"due process of law" was replaced by "procedure established by law". 8

Mr. B. N. Rao, Constitutional Advisor, was of the belief that judicial review would hamper the
introduction of beneficial social legislation. Rao met US Supreme Court Justice Felix Frankfurter
during his visit to USA. Justice Frankfurter told Rao that the power of judicial review implicit in the due
process clause was undemocratic and burdensome on the judiciary 99

99. Granville Austin, The Indian Constitution 103 (1966).

. This meeting fortified the beliefs of Rau. Consequently, he protested against the introduction of "due
process of law" in the Indian Constitution and persuaded the constituent assembly to replace it with
"procedure established by law" and was successful in doing so.
Whether the NCSS violate the right to privacy of the citizens which is guaranteed
under the Constitution:

It is humbly submitted before this Hon’ble Court that the NCSS does not violate the right to privacy of
the citizens which is guaranteed under the Constitution, by virtue of the facts that ,

1. According to Webster dictionary, Surveillance means “keeping a close watch on someone or

something.” Surveillance is an essential tool for maintaining the sovereignity, integrity and
security of the state. It prevents the threats to the national security such as terrorism and
espionage. It also used to investigate and detect crimes

2.The Government of Singhara has recently implemented a comprehensive surveillance program called the
"National Citizen Surveillance System" hereinafter NCSS.

3.The NCSS is designed to track and analyse the digital activities of citizens, aiming to bolster national security
by pre-emptively identifying potential threats to public safety.

4.Under this system, all digital communications, including emails, social media interactions, and online
transactions, are monitored and stored in a centralized database

5.The data collected through NCSS is secure, and stringent measures are in place to prevent unauthorised
access.

6. NCSS is a critical tool to combat terrorism and maintain public order

7 . NCSS affirmed the four sub-tests for determining proportionality of a state action that were adopted in a 2016 decision
in Modern Dental College and Research Centre v. State of Madhya Pradesh .

The state can interfere subjected to meeting the following criteria: (a) the goal must be legitimate (the legitimacy stage); (b) it
must be a suitable means of achieving the goal; (c) there must be no less stringent but equally effective alternatives; and (d) the
measure must not have a disproportionate effect on the right holder (balancing stage).

7.1Legitimate Aim: The aim of NCSS is to bolster national security by preemptively identifying potential threats
to public safety .Thus, The government's aim to enhance national security is legitimate.

7.2 Suitability/Rational Connection: NCSS tracks and analyzes digital activities to identify threats.

7.3 Necessity: there is no less stringent but equally effective alternatives

7.4. Balancing/Proportionality :The benefits in preventing threats outweigh the privacy concerns and proper

safeguards are in place thus it passes the test of balancing too.

8. M.P. Sharma v. Satish Chandra4 in 1954.

In that case, the Court upheld search and seizure in the following terms:

“A power of search and seizure is in any system of jurisprudence an overriding power of the State for the
protection of social security and that power is necessarily regulated by law. When the Constitution makers have
thought fit not to subject such regulation to Constitutional limitations by recognition of a fundamental right to
privacy, analogous to the American Fourth Amendment, we have no justification to import it, into a totally
different fundamental right by some process of strained construction.”

here the Court did not reject a right to privacy altogether – it only rejected it in the context of searches and
seizures for documents

In 1962, in Kharak Singh v. State of UP12, the court examined the question relating to the power
of Police in surveilling the acquitted criminals. In this case, the petitioner was a dacoity accused
who was acquitted by the court, citing lack of evidence for conviction. However, the Police
officials regularly surveilled him, thereby infringing his Right to Privacy. So, the petitioner
claimed to enforce his right under Article 21. But, the court following its previous decision in MP
Sharma v. Satish Chandra, ruled in favour of the Police, saying that the Right to Privacy is not
an absolute fundamental right guaranteed by the Constitution,

In Govind v. State of Madhya Pradesh , Mathew, J. accepted the right to privacy as an emanation from Art. 19(a), (d) and 21, but right to
privacy is not absolute right. “Assuming that the fundamental rights explicitly guaranteed to a citizen have penumbral zones and that the right to
privacy is itself a fundamental right, the fundamental right must be subject to restriction on the basis of compelling public interest”. Surveillance by
domiciliary visits need not always be an unreasonable encroachment on the privacy of a person owing to the character and antecedents of the
person subjected to surveillance as also the objects and the limitation under which the surveillance is made. The right to privacy deals with
‘persons not places’

Most specific to communication surveillance are the safeguards resulting from People’s Union for Civil Liberties
(PUCL) v. Union of India32. In this case, the Indian Supreme Court declared, that “the right to hold a telephone
conversation in the privacy of one’s home or office without interference can certainly be claimed as ‘right to
privacy’…telephone conversation is an important facet of a man’s private life”.33 The court ruled that
telephone tapping would violate Article 21 of the Indian Constitution unless it was permitted by the procedure
established by law, and that it would also violate the right to freedom of speech and expression under Article
19 unless it came within the restrictions permitted by Article 19(2).

Thus these cases elucidate that in interest of public the state of singhara is not violating the
constitutional rights

9
The "National Citizen Surveillance System" (NCSS) in Singhara, which monitors and stores digital communications for national sec
urity, is similar to India's surveillance framework under the Information Technology Act, 2000 (IT Act 2000) and the Indian Telegra
ph Act, 1885.

.Provisions in Indian Law:

• Indian Telegraph Act, 1885:

5(2)On the occurrence of any public emergency, or in the interest of the public safety, the Central Gov
ernment or a State Government, or any officer specially authorized in this behalf by the Central Govern
ment 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 record
ed 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 b
y any telegraph, shall not be transmitted, or shall be intercepted or detained, or shall be disclosed to t
he Government making the order or an officer thereof mentioned in the order: Provided that press mes
sages 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 u
nder this sub-section.

Section 69 of the Information Technology Act, 2000: Allows for the interception and monitoring of data for reasons li
ke national security, but mandates that such actions must follow due process and procedural safeguards.

Section 69: Power to issue directions for interception or monitoring or decryption of any information through a
ny computer resource:

69. (1) The Central Government or a State Government or any of their authorized officers may, if satisfied that it
is necessary or expedient so to do in the interest of sovereignty or integrity of India, the security of the State, fr
iendly relations with foreign States or public order or for preventing incitement to the commission of any cogni
zable offence relating to the above or for investigation of any offence, for reasons to be recorded in writing, by
order, direct any agency of the appropriate Government to intercept, monitor or decrypt or cause to be intercep
ted, monitored or decrypted any information generated, transmitted, received or stored in any computer resour
ce.

(2) The procedure and safeguards by which such monitoring or interception are carried out shall be the same a
s provided in the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885 (13 of 1885), and the rules made thereunder.

Thus ncss is constituitionally valid as it is for the interest of public safety, public order and national security
and is formulated with procedure established by law

Whether the Niradhaar Card system which collects and stores personal data without the consent of citizens
violate the right to privacy? Is the Government liable when data is misused by third parties?

It is humbly submitted before this Hon’ble Court the Niradhaar Card system which collects and stores
personal data without the consent of citizens does not violate the right to privacy, by dint of the facts
that

1.The Government of Singhara implemented a mandatory new personal identity card system known as the
Niradhaar Card for all citizens, linking it to various services and transactions.

2. The Niradhaar system enhances efficiency, reduces corruption, and ensures proper delivery of public services.

The provision of services and benefits ensure dignity and liberty of individuals.The Supreme Court
in Kesavanand Bharathi v. State of Kerala and the NALSA judgment say that the State has the positive
obligation to ensure the dignity of the citizens.

3.The Unique Identification Authority of Singhara, a statutory body constituted by the government of Singhara
was entrusted with the duty to issue the Niradhaar Card with a unique identity number

4 The Government insists that citizens use this Niradhaar Card number for all transactions regarding
governmental and non-governmental digital and non-digital activities like bank activities, issuing sim cards,
and other day-to-day personal activities.
5. The data collected through Niradhaar is secure, and stringent measures are in place to prevent unauthorised
access.The State has put in an enormous effort to ensure security and data security has been ensured
at every step. The Niradhaar Architecture takes into account every fear regarding the possible
invasion privacy.

6.the Aadhaar scheme is in place to only carry out authentication, not surveillance

Through the Nirdhar , the State is furthering the following obligations under Part III and Part IV of the
Constitution and international obligations: a. The State has a positive obligation for securing socio-economic
rights like the basic right to food, shelter and livelihood of people arising out of Article 21, even though it is
worded negatively; b. The Supreme Court has observed in the case of [PUCL] vs uoi that civil & political rights
and socioeconomic rights in India are placed on the same pedestal . Aadhaar is a means of achieving the latter
set of rights. The proportionality analysis would therefore require a balancing of rights in this context;

7.The core effort of the Niradhaar is to bridge the gap between rich and poor. Massive corruption
results in the siphoning off a lot of sum by some people with malafide intent and sinister motive . The
poor people could not be deprived of their right under Article 21 for the privacy interests of the elite.
This is where the question of balance of rights lies. Therefore¸something had to be done, so the
Niradhaar was framed.
8. There a clash between two rights i.e the such as right to privacy which is the facet of personal
liberty and is not absolute and right to life and personal liberty’s other facets.

9. the Niradhaar is an ‘enabler’ for millions. It enables their right to food, livelihood, and what not . The
handful of petitioners wanted it to be struck down on grounds of privacy. However, the object of the
Act is the targeted delivery of benefits to public . This is in deference to the Article 21 and seeks to
advance the Directive Principles of State Policy

10. Niradhaar is the most robust way to achieve de-duplication. The aim was to serve this as proof of
identity, which is unique in nature, as each individual will have only one identity with no chance of duplication.
Another objective was that this number could be used for identification of beneficiaries for transfer of benefits,
subsidies, services and other purposes..

11. . Niradhaar is made for Legitimate state interests such as preventing the dissipation of social welfare
benefits, prevention of money laundering, black money , tax evasion, and protection of national security

12. It is a just, fair, and reasonable law. It is in pursuance of a larger public interest, including
preventing dissipation of social welfare benefits, restricting black money and money laundering,
preventing income tax fraud, and lastly, preventing terrorism – all legitimate state interests.

13. The Niradhaar satisfies the test of proportionality by ensuring that a “rational nexus” exists between the
objects of the program and the means adopted to achieve its objects.

14. Moreover , Niradhaar is the solution for many people who did not have a nationally acceptable
identification. Moreover, many IDs have their limitations. For instance, children cannot have voter IDs.
Obtaining a ration card was difficult because it required other IDs to be submitted. Moreover ids like
Voter ID and ration cards are region specific and not nationally accepted.
15. The Niradhaar enhances efficiency, reduces corruption, and ensures proper delivery of public services and
all these are traceable rights under Article 21 of the Constitution - such as the right to live with human dignity,
the right to food, right to shelter, right to employment, right to medical care and education. If these rights are
juxtaposed with the right to privacy, the former will prevail over the latter.

16.Moreover, as stated earlier privacy is not absolute, and a legitimate state interest could override it.
The objective of Niradhaar is part of the right to a life with dignity and should prevail over the right to
privacy.

For instance , the Right to Information acts as a reasonable restriction on privacy in the larger public
interest. As privacy is a fundamental right under Article 21, it is subject to the limitations of the same
article.

Mr. Venugopal argued the right to privacy and the other rights are competing, and the court must
balance the two competing rights. He argued that the right to food, employment, medical care and
other services take precedence over the right to privacy. He questioned how the right to privacy
could be invoked to deprive other sections of the society. He cited X v. Hospital Z where the right
to privacy was balanced against the right to information. A man suffering from HIV had the right to
non-disclosure, but the court had held that his fiancée’s right to know of his disease took
precedence.

Is the Government liable when data is misused by third parties?

It is humbly submitted before this Hon’ble Court that the Government can be held liable when data is
misused by third parties by virtue of the facts that ,

1. There is "a chance in a million" that data collected through both NCSS and Niradhaar will be misused
the third parties as it is secure, and stringent measures are in place to prevent unauthorised access.
2. The Ncss and the Niraadhar are made to ensure the public safety and in the interest of the state of
singhara
3. The programs assist in implementing fundamental rights and duties indirecty
4. furthermore, The Unique Identification Authority of Singhara, a statutory body constituted by the
government of Singhara was entrusted with the duty to issue the Niradhaar Card with a unique
identity number
5. The government can be held liable under various provisions of information technology 2000, some of
the key provisions are stated below

43A. Compensation for failure to protect data: Where a body corporate, possessing, dealing, or handling a
ny sensitive personal data or information in a computer resource that it owns, controls, or operates, is neglige
nt in implementing and maintaining reasonable security practices and procedures and thereby causes wrongfu
l loss or wrongful gain to any person, such body corporate shall be liable to pay damages by way of compensa
tion to the person so affected. { notification came }

72. Penalty for Breach of confidentiality and privacy.–Save as otherwise provided in this Act or any
other law for the time being in force, if any person who, in pursuance of any of the powers conferred
under this Act, rules or regulations made thereunder, has secured access to any electronic record,
book, register, correspondence, information, document or other material without the consent of the
person concerned discloses such electronic record, book, register, correspondence, information,
document or other material to any other person shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which
may extend to two years, or with fine which may extend to one lakh rupees, or with both.

72A. Punishment for disclosure of information in breach of lawful contract.–Save as otherwise

provided in this Act or any other law for the time being in force, any person including an intermediary
 who, while providing services under the terms of lawful contract, has secured access to any material
containing personal information about another person, with the intent to cause or knowing that he is
likely
to cause wrongful loss or wrongful gain discloses, without the consent of the person concerned, or in
breach of a lawful contract, such material to any other person, shall be punished with imprisonment
for a term which may extend to three years, or with fine which may extend to five lakh rupees, or with
both.

66C. Punishment for identity theft.–Whoever, fraudulently or dishonestly make use of the electronic
signature, password or any other unique identification feature of any other person, shall be punished
with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years and shall also be
liable to fine which may extend to rupees one lakh

Whether the NCSS and Niradhaar card System balance national security and the protection of individual
rights?

It is humbly submitted before this Hon’ble Court that the NCSS and Niradhaar card System balance
national security and the protection of individual rights

The Fundamental Rights in Singhara hold immense significance as they form the bedrock of democratic
principles and ensure the protection of individual liberties..

Thus, on the back of the same the government has introduced the program of ncss and niraadhar as both
assist to spur on the fundamental right especially Article 21 .

“No person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty except according to procedure established by law”.

1. Which in itself is a balaning act at the wordings ““No person shall be deprived of his life or personal
liberty” safeguards the interest individual rights as it starts with the words “no person”.
2. The words “Life” and “liberty” has a wide approach and has many facets . The motive of niraahar and
Ncss assists to fulfill those only.
3. 3.1 But the words “except according to procedure established by law” underscores national security
and keepting that into account
3.1 the state of singhara has designed NCSS to track and analyse the digital activities of citizens,
aiming to bolster national security by pre-emptively identifying potential threats to public safety and
as a critical tool to combat terrorism and maintain public order and,
3.2The Niradhaar which enhances efficiency, reduces corruption, and ensures proper delivery of public
services.

4. The programs are not violating the right to privacy which is facet of article 21 as the same is not absolute
and for the larger public interest they are acting as a reasonable restriction .

5. Also the contention of petitioners are potential , there is "a chance in a million" that data collected
through both NCSS and Niradhaar will lead to potential misuse, profiling, and infringement of their privacy. as
it is secure, and stringent measures are in place to prevent unauthorised access. Thus measures have been
taken to safeguard the right of privacy .

6. In India , In Subramanian Swamy v Union of India, the right to freedom of speech was balanced
against the right to reputation.

Therefore, “larger public interest” and “interest of the collective” must be the guiding factor to decide a
conflict of fundamental rights, especially if the conflict is within the same article (Article 21).