Latest news with #KSPuttaswamy
Time of India
4 days ago
- General
- Time of India
How court stood by queer couple's rights as a ‘chosen' family
In a quiet room of the Madras High Court , a young woman's freedom was restored. More than that, something beautiful unfolded. The court recognised that family, in its deepest and truest sense, is not always something we are born into. Sometimes, it is something we choose. And sometimes, it chooses us. This was the case of a young lesbian woman who was confined by her biological family. Her partner, brave and undeterred, approached the court seeking her release through a habeas corpus petition. What began as a personal struggle for one couple became a significant moment in India's legal history. The court ruled that under Article 21 of the Constitution, which guarantees the right to life and personal liberty, the right to form a "chosen family" is protected. The judgment came without fanfare. No front-page headlines, no breathless TV panels. Yet, its quiet compassion may make it one of the most meaningful verdicts for queer communities in India, perhaps for anyone who has ever felt out of place in their own home and longed for a different kind of belonging. What emerged from this case was not merely an order for release but a broader constitutional articulation, one that shifts the prevailing legal understanding of family in India. by Taboola by Taboola Sponsored Links Sponsored Links Promoted Links Promoted Links You May Like What She Did Mid-Air Left Passengers Speechless medalmerit Learn More Undo Traditionally, Indian statutes and jurisprudence have treated family as a legal unit formed through blood ties, marriage, or adoption. The judgment suggests that such a framework, while still operative, is no longer exhaustive. It affirms that emotional interdependence, mutual care, and voluntary association can constitute family, and that such relationships merit protection under the Constitution. The approach is grounded in landmark Supreme Court decisions: Justice K S Puttaswamy vs Union of India (2017) declared the right to privacy a fundamental right under Article 21, redefining liberty to include decisional autonomy over intimate choices; Navtej Singh Johar vs Union of India (2018) decriminalised consensual same-sex relationships, holding that constitutional morality, not social morality, must guide the interpretation of fundamental rights; and Supriyo vs Union of India (2023), while declining to legalise same-sex marriage, unequivocally recognised the dignity of queer relationships and acknowledged their right to cohabit and form households. These decisions established a framework wherein personal autonomy, dignity, and identity are intrinsic to the constitutional promise of liberty. The Madras HC extends this logic: if individuals are constitutionally entitled to love and cohabit with whom they choose, it necessarily follows that such relationships must be seen as familial in nature. Each of these rulings reminds us that freedom is not simply the absence of interference; it is the presence of dignity. A striking element of the judgment is its explicit critique of police inaction. Despite the woman's stated preference to reside with her partner, law enforcement authorities failed to act with urgency. She told the police she wanted to live with her partner. But the police, perhaps fearing backlash from her biological family, did not act. This is not uncommon. For many LGBTQIA+ people in India, the law is not always a shield. The home, far from being a safe place, can become a site of silence, shame, or violence. And when people turn to police or the courts, they are often met with hesitation, suspicion, or indifference. Citing Shakti Vahini vs Union of India (2018), the HC ruling reminds the state that honour, tradition, or family control cannot be excuses to deny someone their freedom. The Constitution's promise of liberty does not stop at the doorstep of one's natal home. The HC reiterated the state's duty to protect people from honour-based coercion, forced confinement, and familial violence. The judgment makes clear that the state cannot abdicate its constitutional obligations on the basis of social discomfort. The court also emphasised that constitutional rights are enforceable within the domestic sphere. When an adult expresses autonomous choice, state institutions must act to safeguard it. For a long time, Indian law has measured family by only a few yardsticks: blood, marriage, or legal adoption. These categories do not always leave room for the love between two friends who raise a child together, or the care between ageing companions who share their final years, or queer couples who are denied legal recognition but live like any other family. The judgment implicitly challenges the formalistic boundaries of Indian family law. Currently, statutes such as the Hindu Marriage Act, Hindu Succession Act, Guardians and Wards Act, and employment and pension rules operate on presumptions about what constitutes family. However, the court's recognition of chosen families requires a rethinking of these frameworks. If a queer partner is legally acknowledged as part of one's family for purposes of liberty and cohabitation, ancillary rights such as access to healthcare decisions, housing, pensions, inheritance, and next-of-kin status must logically follow. This creates a necessary tension between constitutional rights and statutory limitations. The Constitution, as interpreted by the higher judiciary, recognises a more inclusive notion of family. The legislature and subordinate rule-making authorities must now respond with corresponding reform. Courts in several jurisdictions have recognised non-traditional family forms: In Canada, jurisprudence has acknowledged "functional families" based on emotional and financial dependency, even in the absence of marriage or consanguinity. The Yogyakarta Principles, developed under international human rights law, urge states to ensure that individuals of all sexual orientations and gender identities can form families of their choosing without discrimination. The Madras HC's judgment implicitly aligns with these global developments. No parade will mark this judgment. No stamp will seal it in textbooks just yet. But it is revolutionary in its own way. It reminds us that families are not just born—they are also made. By extending constitutional shelter to chosen families, the court has not merely resolved a dispute. It has reaffirmed the dignity of the individual, the autonomy of choice, and the capacity of the Constitution to embrace a plurality of lives. (The writer is an advocate at Madras High Court) Email your feedback with name and address to
Economic Times
19-05-2025
- Business
- Economic Times
Digitally safe & sound
Dismissing a petition by PhonePe against a police notice related to a 2022 online sports betting investigation, Karnataka High Court recently ruled that digital payment intermediaries are not fully immune from disclosing users' confidential transaction details and account credentials in criminal cases. The ruling underscores the delicate balance between privacy, security and growth. How India navigates this terrain will shape civil liberties, and define its economic trajectory. The 2017 Supreme Court judgment in 'Justice K S Puttaswamy (Retd) vs Union of India' recognised privacy as a fundamental right, aligning India with progressive global data protection standards and bolstering user confidence, a vital ingredient for digital commerce. But the apex court also stipulated that this right is not absolute, and must be harmonised with other compelling state interests. To this end, the 'proportionality test' was established - a nuanced, 4-pronged framework requiring any state intrusion into privacy to: Have a legitimate aim. Be necessary in a democratic society. Be proportionate to the need. Include robust procedural safeguards against abuse. This test is a fulcrum upon which interests of individual liberty and collective security must be balanced, ensuring neither an anarchic digital space nor an overreaching surveillance state. For the digital economy, this framework promises predictability and fairness, both essential for attracting investment and fostering innovation. National security, undeniably, presents one of the most essential legitimate aims. In an era where digital platforms can be exploited for terrorism, sophisticated cyber warfare and large-scale economic fraud, the state's primary responsibility to protect its citizens and its economic stability is paramount. Legislative tools such as Section 69 of the IT Act, enabling lawful interception, and Digital Personal Data Protection (DPDP) Act, reflect this pressing reality. DPDP Act, while aiming to create a data protection regime, rightly includes exemptions for processing personal data in the interest of India's sovereignty, security, public order, and prevention or investigation of offences. Such provisions are pragmatic necessities. The PhonePe case underscores this, affirming that while consumer privacy is vital, it cannot serve as an impenetrable shield for illicit activities that undermine the integrity of our financial systems. Nevertheless, privacy advocates correctly argue that privacy and security are not adversarial. Robust privacy protections can, in fact, bolster security by shielding citizens from identity theft, financial scams, and the chilling effects of undue surveillance that can stifle innovation and free expression, the lifeblood of a dynamic digital economy. The apprehension that expansive surveillance powers without stringent oversight could mirror the Orwellian state is a legitimate fear. An environment of perceived pervasive surveillance can erode public trust, discouraging participation in the digital economy and potentially driving data and talent to jurisdictions perceived as more optimal path forward, therefore, is not a binary choice between privacy and security, but a commitment to the proportionality principle. This means any restriction on privacy must be demonstrably necessary, narrowly tailored and subject to rigorous India's digital economy, this translates into actionable imperatives: Necessity and specificity Surveillance must be a tool of last resort, targeted at genuine, identifiable threats, not a broad dragnet. This will ensure that most citizens and businesses can operate freely, fostering a climate of trust. Robust oversight mechanisms Independent judicial or parliamentary review of surveillance requests is crucial. Transparent, accountable oversight builds confidence that these powers are not being misused, which is essential for domestic and international business confidence. Data minimisation and purpose limitation Entities, both public and private, should collect necessary data and use it only for specified, legitimate purposes. This reduces the attack surface for breaches and limits the scope of potential government requests. Transparent frameworks While operational details of security measures must remain confidential, legal and procedural frameworks governing data access must be clear and publicly accessible. This predictability is key for businesses to navigate the regulatory leaders, innovators and stakeholders in India's growth story understand that a stable, predictable and rights-affirming regulatory environment is the bedrock of economic prosperity. When citizens trust that their data is protected and that state powers are exercised judiciously, they engage more readily in the digital marketplace. When businesses trust that the rules are clear and fairly-applied, they invest with greater High Court's stance reflects the nuanced balancing act required. By diligently applying the proportionality framework, we can cultivate an ecosystem where privacy and security are not seen as conflicting forces, but as complementary pillars supporting a vibrant, secure and equitable digital future. (The writer is former secretary,consumer affairs, GoI)
Deccan Herald
28-04-2025
- Politics
- Deccan Herald
No disclosure, no caveat
Significant concerns have been raised over the adverse impact the Digital Data Protection (DPDP) Act, 2023, might have on the working of a provision of the Right to Information (RTI) law. The DPDP Act will soon come into effect with the notification of its rules. Section 44(3) of the Act intends to change Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act, exempting all 'personal information' from disclosure. This means that any public information that also contains 'personal information' will no longer be made public. Under Section 8(1)(j), government bodies can withhold 'information which relates to personal information' if its disclosure is not related to public interest or results in an unnecessary invasion of privacy. However, the information has to be provided if an appellate authority decides that there is public interest in its disclosure. Section 8(1)(j) is now sought to be amended so that information can be withheld as 'personal' without any safeguards and seeks India trade deal on e-commerce, crops and data storage: Reports. The right to privacy and the right to information are fundamental rights. While the right to privacy was defined so by the Supreme Court in the K S Puttaswamy judgement in 2017, the right to information is part of the right to speech and expression. Both are essential democratic rights; they are not derogatory to each other and one should not be pitched against the other. Section 44(3) tries to do that. The term 'personal' is bound to be interpreted wrongly and too widely to cover matters of public interest, and to deny information to those who seek it under the RTI law. However, the Supreme Court has made it clear that the rights to privacy and transparency must be reconciled in DPDP Act itself does undermine the citizens' right to privacy. Section 17(2)(a) of the Act allows the government to exempt its agencies from the law's provisions and gives them access to citizens' personal data. This violates the citizen's rights and the government's responsibility to ensure the protection of personal data. The Act also exempts any State authority from deletion of data after use. This allows the state agencies to store personal data indefinitely – a provision that can be misused against individuals. The government has weakened the RTI steadily through various legal measures and its actions in the past over many years. It should remove the provision in the DPDP Act amending the RTI Act and ensure that the right to privacy is not affected by other provisions of the Act.
