Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2020 Supreme(SC) 257

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
UDAY UMESH LALIT, ANIRUDDHA BOSE, JJ.
STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH – Petitioner(s)
VERSUS
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD THROUGH REGISTRAR GENERAL
ALLAHABAD, U.P. – Respondent(s)
(IN RE: BANNERS ON ROADSIDE IN THE CITY OF LUCKNOW)
Petition for Special Leave to Appeal (C) No.6286 of 2020 (Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 09-03-2020 in PIL No.532 of 2020 passed by the High Court Of Judicature At Allahabad)
Decided On : 12-03-2020

Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioner(s):Tushar Mehta, SG Raghvendra Singh, AG, Abhinav Agrawal, Anshu Davar, Alakh Alok Srivastava, Sujit Kumar Jha, Dhawal Uniyal, Garima Prashad, Advocates
For the Intervener(s) :A.M. Singhvi, Sanjay Hegde, Saif Mahmood, Talha Rahman, Yashab Rizvi, Udit, Shaz Khan, Shadan Farasat, C.U. Singh, Prashanto Sen, Talha A. Rahman, Yashab Husain Rizvi, Shaz Khan, Udit Kokanthankar, Colin Gonsalves, Siddharth Seem, Satya Mitra, Aman Khan, S.G. Hasnain, Yasir Rauf, Aftab Ali Khan, Ali Safeer Farooqui, Tanveer Ahmad Khan, Syed Fazal, Syed Imtiyaz Ali, Tauqeer Ahmad Khan, Arvind Kumar Kanva, Syed Mansoor Ali Rizvi, Mumtaz Alam Siddiqui, Vrinda Grover, Soutik Banerjee, Aakarsh Kamra, Mehmood Pracha, Mansoor Ali, Varun Thakur, Fajal Khan, Varinder Kumar Sharma, Advocates

The importance of privacy rights and the necessity for state actions to serve a legitimate aim necessary for a democratic society.

Headnote:
Privacy Rights - Public Interest Litigation - The court held that the state's action of displaying personal data and identity of accused persons on banners was not justified as it did not serve a legitimate aim necessary for a democratic society. The court referred to the decision in K.S. Puttaswamy case and emphasized the importance of privacy rights.
Fact of the Case:

The Public Interest Litigation arose from the display of photographs, names, and addresses of individuals accused of vandalism during a protest in Lucknow. The state sought compensation from the accused and displayed their personal details on banners.
Finding of the Court:

The High Court concluded that the state's action of displaying personal data of the accused on banners was not justified as it did not serve a legitimate aim necessary for a democratic society. The court directed the matter to be placed before a Bench of at least Three Judges for further consideration.
Issues: Legitimacy of displaying personal data of accused individuals on banners, violation of privacy rights, and the necessity of such action for a democratic society.
Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on the decision in K.S. Puttaswamy case and emphasized the importance of privacy rights. It held that the state's action did not serve a legitimate aim necessary for a democratic society.
Final Decision: The court directed the matter to be placed before a Bench of at least Three Judges for further consideration and granted liberty to the individuals whose names and pictures appeared in the hoardings to implead themselves in the proceedings.

ORDER

1. This Special Leave Petition arises out of Order dated 09.03.2020 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad in Public Interest Litigation No.532 of 2020. The Public Interest Litigation arose out of Suo Moto action taken by the High Court and the background facts as noted by the High Court in its Order are as under:

“In this public interest writ proceedings undertaken by the Court at its own, the simple question is the legitimacy of the display of photographs, name and address of certain persons by the district administration and police administration of the city of Lucknow through banners. The banners came up at a major road side with personal details of more than 50 persons those accused of vandalism during protest in the month of December, 2019. The poster is seeking compensation from the accused persons and further to confiscate their property, if they failed to pay compensation.”

2. After considering the matter, the High Court concluded as under:

“We have examined the action of the State under consideration in the instant matter by the touch stones aforesaid. So far as legality part is concerned, suffice to state that no law is in existence permitting the State to place the banners with personal data of the accused from whom compensation is to be charged. The legitimate goal as held by the Supreme Court in the case of K.S. Puttaswamy (supra) the proposed action must be necessary for a democratic society for a legitimate aim. On scaling, the act of the State in the instant matter, we do not find any necessity for a democratic society for a legitimate aim to have publication of personal data and identity. The accused persons are the accused from whom some compensation is to be recovered and in no manner they are fugitive. Learned Advocate General also failed to satisfy us as to why placement of the banners is necessary for a democratic society for a legitimate aim.”

3. We have heard Mr. Tushar Mehta, learned Solicitor General for the State, Dr. Abhishek Manu Singhvi, Mr. Colin Gonsalves and Mr. C.U. Singh, learned Senior Advocates for some of the persons whose names and pictures were displayed in the hoardings.

4. With the assistance of the learned counsel, we went through the decisions of this Court in R. Rajagopal v. State of Tamil Nadu, (1994) 6 SCC 632; In Re: Destruction of Public & Private Properties v. State of A.P. & Others, (2009) 5 SCC 212; K.S. Puttaswamy & Another v. Union of India & Others, (2017) 10 SCC 1; and, order dated 31.01.2020 passed in Parwaiz Arif Titu v. State of Uttar Pradesh, Writ Petition (Civil) No.55 of 2020.

5. Learned counsel appearing for both sides principally relied upon certain paragraphs from the decision of this Court in K.S. Puttaswamy (supra).

6. Learned Solicitor General also relied upon the decision of the Supreme Court of United Kingdom in the matter of an application by JR38 for Judicial Review (Northern Ireland), (2015) UKSC 42 and particularly paragraphs 2, 3 and 73 of the decision. He also placed for our consideration text of Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), which was subject matter of discussion in said decision and submitted that the action taken by the State in the instant case was fully justified.

7. The submissions were countered by learned counsel appearing on the other side who submitted inter alia that the State as an authority could not indulge in naming and printing the pictures of individuals as it did and that the decision of this Court in K.S. Puttaswamy (supra) would completely conclude the issue.

8. Considering the nature of the matter and issue of significance involved therein, in our view, the matter be placed before a Bench of at least Three Judges as early as possible and preferably in the week commencing 16th March 2020.

9. We, therefore, direct:

Let papers be placed by the Registry before Hon’ble the Chief Justice of India immediately so that a Bench of sufficient strength can be constituted by Hon’ble the Chief Justice

Click Here to Read the rest of this document