Aug 24, 2017 | News
Today, the Indian Supreme Court delivered a landmark judgment declaring the right to privacy an intrinsic part of the right to life and liberty under Article 21 of India’s Constitution.
The ICJ welcomed a momentous and courageous judgment, where the Supreme Court took an expansive view of the right to privacy, and held that, at its core, privacy includes “the preservation of personal intimacies, the sanctity of family life, marriage, procreation, the home and sexual orientation…”
As such, this judgment is an important step towards scrapping laws criminalizing same-sex activity in the country, the ICJ said.
“The judgment is a testament to the inspiring work of human rights activists and lawyers in India, who have shown the potential of the law to affirm human rights and equality,” said Frederick Rawski, ICJ’s Asia Director.
“The ruling could have far-reaching implications for a number of cases -including with respect to the criminalization of consensual same-sex relations – where laws, policy and practices have been challenged on the basis that they violate the right to privacy,” he added.
The judgment clarified that the right to privacy is not spatially bound and exists beyond four walls as it “attaches to the person” and is not “lost or surrendered merely because the individual is in a public place.”
Significantly, in explaining the ambit of the right to privacy, the Supreme Court held that sexual orientation is “an essential component of identity” and “equal protection demands protection of the identity of every individual without discrimination.”
The Court also highlighted that laws criminalizing same-sex activity have a “chilling effect on the exercise of the right”, posing “a grave danger to the unhindered fulfillment of one’s sexual orientation, as an element of privacy and dignity.”
Section 377 of the Indian Penal Code criminalizes voluntary “carnal intercourse against the order of nature with any man, woman or animal” and prescribes a range of penalties including life imprisonment.
In Naz Foundation v. Govt. of NCT of Delhi, the Delhi High Court in 2009 read down the application of section 377, holding, among other things, that insofar as it criminalizes consensual sexual acts, it violates Articles 21 (right to life and liberty), 14 (equal protection of the law) and 15 of the Constitution (freedom from discrimination) of the Indian Constitution.
However, in Suresh Kumar Koushal in December 2013, the Supreme Court reversed the 2009 Delhi High Court ruling, effectively recriminalizing homosexuality.
The petitioners challenged the ruling in Koushal, and in February 2016, the Indian Supreme Court referred a “curative petition” to a five-judge bench of the Supreme Court for consideration.
In today’s judgment, the Supreme Court questioned the rationale in Koushal, and expressed disagreement with the manner in which Koushal dealt with the “privacy–dignity based claims of LGBT persons.”
It also found the reasoning in Koushal flawed and unsustainable for being discriminatory towards LGBT persons by calling them “a miniscule fraction of the country’s population” and making that the basis for denying their right to privacy.
However, the Court held that since a challenge to section 377 is pending before a larger bench, its constitutional validity would be decided in the appropriate proceedings.
“The Supreme Court’s judgment is indeed historic, but the real test of its impact will be whether the right to privacy it affirms is given effect in its true spirit in individual cases, so as to ensure that laws, policies and practices meet India’s obligations under the Constitution as well as international standards,” added Rawski.
Contact:
Frederick Rawski (Bangkok), ICJ Asia Pacific Regional Director, e: frederick.rawski(a)icj.org
Ajita Banerjie, ICJ Consultant in Delhi, t: +918447784157; e: ajita.banerjie(a)icj.org
India-Privacy & section 377-News-web stories-2017-ENG (full story in PDF)
Nov 9, 2016 | News
The ICJ welcomes the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights in Schukurov v Azerbaijan, finding that the right to petition the Court had been violated by the search of a lawyer’s premises and seizure of documents.
The ICJ submitted a third party intervention in the case, outlining international law and standards relevant to legal professional privilege and the seizure of legal documents.
The case files were seized as part of a criminal investigation opened against the lawyer, Intigam Aliyev, who was representing the applicants in the case. The Court found that the search and seizure by the Azeri authorities had violated article 34 of the Convention, which stipulates that States must not hinder in any way the effective exercise of the right of individual application to the Court.
The ICJ notes that the Court’s judgment follows its earlier finding of a violation of article 34 in the case of Annagi Hajibeyli v Azerbaijan, which arose from the same incident.
The ICJ stresses that these searches of lawyers’ premises are contrary to international standards on the role of lawyers. It is particularly worrying that they form part of a pattern of harassment of lawyers in Azerbaijan, including abusive disciplinary proceedings and criminal prosecutions. Such harassment damages the ability of lawyers to protect human rights through the judicial process, and undermines the independence of the legal profession.
The decision of the Court should now be fully and promptly executed, the ICJ said.
Apr 9, 2015 | Advocacy, Non-legal submissions
The ICJ and other leading human rights NGOs today publish a checklist of qualifications for use in the ongoing selection of a new UN expert on the right to privacy.
The UN is accepting applications for the newly-created Special Rapporteur on the right to privacy, to be appointed at the June session of the Human Rights Council. The deadline for receipt of nominations is 30 April 2015.
The checklist was developed together with Access, the American Civil Liberties Union, Amnesty International, Article 19, the Association for Progressive Communications, Electronic Frontier Foundation, and Privacy International. These NGOs, with the support of dozens of other civil society organisations from around the world, advocated for and strongly supported the establishment of the Special Rapporteur mandate at the March session of the Human Rights Council.
This checklist is intended to support governments, NGOs, academics, relevant professional networks, national human rights institutions and others in the identification of and outreach to highly qualified and independent candidates.
The checklist can be downloaded in PDF format here: HRC29-CriteriaSRPrivacy-Advocacy-2015
The application and selection process is explained on the website of the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights, here.
Mar 26, 2015 | News
The UN Human Rights Council today adopted a landmark resolution on “the right to privacy in the digital age” that will establish for the first time a UN Special Rapporteur on the Right to Privacy.The resolution faced some challenges during negotiations, but was adopted without a vote (i.e. by consensus).
The Rapporteur will be appointed later this year. The Council has invited him or her to include in initial reports to the Council and UN General Assembly, a focus on the challenges to the right of privacy arising from developments in digital and communications technology in “the digital age”. However, the mandate is able to deal with all aspects of the right to privacy.
The initiative has been strongly supported by civil society organisations including the ICJ, including in the form of a joint open letter, and a joint oral statement on behalf of some 92 NGOs from around the world.
The draft resolution, as adopted, may be downloaded here: HRC28-Privacy-DraftRes-2015
Mar 13, 2015 | Advocacy
The ICJ today supported, with 91 other NGOs from around the world including a number of ICJ national sections and affiliates, an oral statement calling on the UN Human Rights Council to establish a Special Rapporteur on Privacy at its current session.
The UN General Assembly, the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, existing special procedure mandate holders, and many states and civil society organisations have recognized the pressing need to provide continuous, systematic and authoritative guidance on the scope and content of the right to privacy as enshrined in article 12 of UDHR and article 17 of ICCPR. Significantly, all of them have identified the need to assess and monitor the ongoing implementation of this right. The creation of a Special Rapporteur would fill this long-standing gap.
Although the initiative has its origins in concerns about online and telecommunications surveillance, the call is for the creation of a Special Rapporteur with a mandate to look at all aspects of the right to privacy, in all contexts, including issues relating to private sector practices.
The text of the oral statement, delivered by Article 19, can be downloaded here: Advocacy-HRC28-Privacy-JointOralStatement-2015
