B L Saraf
The confession of Edward Joseph Snowden, former U S National Security Agency (NSA) contractor, that he committed thefts of highly classified secrets in the U S history has sparked a worldwide debate on State’s power of surveillance versus privacy of the citizen. The documents he handed over to the media revealed a massive programme to compile U S Telephone records into data base for antiterrorism and counter intelligence investigations. In defence, Snowden maintained, “The public needs to decide whether those programs and policies are right or wrong”. N S A infrastructure was built to prevent nation from enemies and spies they recruit. Snowden is probably third man after Bradley Manning and Julian Assange of the Wiki Leaks who has stormed the U S establishment with his startling disclosures, in the recent times. Manning, a U S Army intelligence analyst stationed in Iraq, is accused of having sent, illegally, number of classified documents to the website Wiki leaks. Incidentally, his defence, too , was “I want people to see the truth, because without information you cannot make informed decisions as a public. “The hackers believe they have a duty to expose the unjust laws. Their refrain is “There is no justice in following unjust laws. “While as there are supporters of Snowden and Manning in the American society, none the less, vast number of Americans, notwithstanding their faith in openness of the society and transparency in establishment, have felt outraged on the action of Snowden and want a legal action against him. As the reports go, prosecution has been launched against him under various provisions of relevant laws by the U S Authorities.
Here too, activists are up to bare open information which the State has had to guard the national security and integrity; or, intends to have. A debate is going on to what extent a citizen can be put on the watch by the State so that his right of privacy in not infringed. The issue has cropped up on the monitoring mechanism put in place through Central monitoring System (CMS) and institution of ADHAR project. Articles 21 and 19 of the Constitution are invoked to protect individuals “Right to Privacy” and “Freedom of Speech”. The Activists tend to forget that Indian Telegraph Act 1885 and the rules made there under permit such interceptions as are required for the security of the State. The Supreme Court has upheld the constitutional validity of the interceptions and monitoring under section 5(2) of the Indian Telegraph Act and permitted interceptions in the interest of the national sovereignty and integrity, state security and other contingencies. It must be pointed out here that India is faced with a serious challenge to its national sovereignty and integrity through various means. The threats emanate from outside and within. The State, therefore, has to be on the alert to ward off the threat. “The Right to Privacy” is indeed one of the important fundamental rights and has a Constitutional protection under Article 21. But this right is not absolute and in circumstances can be regulated by a procedure established by Law. It were the intercepts gathered under the provisions of the POTA that country saw conviction of some in the Parliament attack case. Regard for the individual’s privacy must be had. But it should not be stretched to such lengths that the very existence of a citizen gets threatened. Scales have to tilt in favour of society’s overall good as against the individual’s right. In any case, we have travelled a lot in the direction of having a transparent establishment. Official Secrets Act is no more sacrosanct. R T I Act has opened up many closed windows and doors. Yes, privacy is important. We hope The Privacy Bill, as and when is introduced in the Parliament, addresses genuine concerns, without subverting democracy and power of the government to keep country safe.
Then, there is another breed of libertarians to contend with who believe “We are all individuals”. To them emphasis on individualism means being free to exercise autonomy and determine their life’s destiny which will make them morally responsible; more or less what John Stuart Mill argued long back. They tend to forget that self-concentration makes one oblivious to what happens around his neighbourhood and weakens the communal bond. That may be the reason why these days we see the societal values getting undermined. No wonder most depict individualism as killer of the societal bonds. To them the British P M David Cameron may sound right when he says that selfishness and individualism are the scourge of the times. No matter how much we care for the right of public to know about the affairs of the State, the whole thing will have true meaning only when the rule of law is upheld. No one can be permitted to undermine the rule of law and subvert government by over activism or undue emphasis on individualism.
To be a ‘right’ activist is good. But to overdo the thing is certainly bad. An ardent defender of the Constitution, Fali S Nairman writes in his book The State Of The Nation “We are living in an age marked by an all pervading ‘rights-culture’. The experience of 60 plus years of working a Constitution has shown us that a rights culture generates greater dissatisfaction among persons propounding different set of rights …………. Too much of an emphasis on rights serves only to divide and fragment society, apart from spreading discontent ( p 245 ). Same can be applied to the State and its citizen.
Respect for a ‘Right’ is good. But ‘Duty’ also comes limping from somewhere to be noticed. Let us recall what Gandhiji has said on the subject. In response to the questionnaire circulated to him by the Human Rights Commission of the U N in 1947, to have his views on the declaration of human rights, Gandhi ji wrote to Dr Julian Huxley “ ……….. all rights to be deserved and preserved came from duty well done. The very right to live accrues to us only when we do the duty of citizenship of the world. From this one fundamental statement, perhaps it is easy enough to define the duties of Men and Women and correlate every right to some corresponding duty to be first performed. Every other right can be shown to be a usurpation hardly worth fighting for”.
The author is former Pr, District & Sessions Judge.
Follow our WhatsApp channel