‘Right to Know’ – a Fundamental Right One of the basic features of a flourished democratic nation is the bestowing of right to know on its citizen. Article 19 (1) (a) of the Constitution of India impliedly covers ‘right to know’. In S.P. Gupta v. Union of India , it was held that right to know is implicit in the right of free speech and expression. Disclosure of information regarding functioning of the Government must be the rule. The right to freedom of speech and expression includes the right to receive and impart information. It includes the right not only to give but also to acquire and import ideas and information from others about matters of common interest i.e. Article 19 (1) (a) includes right to be informed. The tremendous rise of corruption in government departments has made it sine qua non to authorise people with the right to know. The ‘right to know’ is also explicitly recognised in Union of India v. Association for Democratic Reforms & Anr. , where the Supreme Court directed the Election Commission of India to issue necessary orders, in exercise of its power under Article 324 of the Constitution, to call for information on affidavit from each candidate seeking election to the Parliament or a State Legislature as a necessary part of his nomination paper furnishing therein information relating to his …show more content…
But through numerous judicial pronouncements of the Hon’ble Supreme Court and various High Courts, today it is well settled that right to privacy is integral part of Article 21 of our Constitution. Article 21 of the Constitution enshrines the right to life and personal liberty. It is one of the most basic Fundamental Right of the Constitution. Article 21 has proved to be a very fruitful source of rights of the people. By the term ‘life’ as is used here something more is meant than mere animal existence. Denial of these rights is denying Article 21 in its
It is hard for Americans to understand this approach. How can you have rights, and then say the state can take them away? Yet, this is exactly s.1 of the Charter does. Moreover, s.1 of the Charter sets out a two-part test to determine whether the federal or provincial law can override a constitutional guarantee of protection within the Charter. “First, the federal or provincial statue’s limits on rights must be reasonable and prescribed by law.
The issue of privacy has been one dating back to the beginning of society. In order to protect it we have erected walls around us and called them homes, fences and called them territories, borders and called them countries. As the modern day arrived, society innovated to the point that ownership and privacy are no longer clear. Science has developed at a rate where morals and laws cannot keep up, more specifically, in the medical department. Such a problem is detailed in Rebecca Skloot’s book The Immortal Life of Henrietta Lacks.
The issue of privacy has been one dating back to the beginning of society. In order to protect it we have erected walls around us and called them homes, fences and called them territories, borders and called them countries. As the modern day arrived, society innovated to the point that ownership and privacy are no longer clear. Science has developed at a rate where morals and laws cannot keep up, more specifically, in the medical department. Such a problem is detailed in Rebecca Skloot’s book The Immortal Life of Henrietta Lacks.
Mohammad Haneef & Erosion of Civil Liberties Weland La ‘Australia’s laws are severely eroding civil liberties.’ Discuss this statement in light of the Haneef Case and one other issue (such as the right to silence, privacy, etc.), commenting on the extent to which the law balances the rights of the individual with the needs for community safety. In correlation with the Haneef Case, Australia’s laws are severely eroding civil liberties as demonstrated by NSW’s introduction of the Evidence Amendment (Evidence of Silence) Act 2013.
John Adams once said, “The moment the idea is admitted into society that property is not as sacred as the laws of God, and that there is not a force of law and public justice to protect it, anarchy and tyranny commence”. In Jan Edwards and Molly Morgan’s article, “Abolish Corporate Personhood”, Edwards and Morgan argue that corporate personhood should be abolished since it causes unequal power distribution and is an artificial entity that the courts have allowed to become ‘superhuman’. Although the authors do state a few clear points, Edwards and Morgan do not fully grasp all aspects of corporate personhood and place more focus on constitutional background and the history of social injustices. To begin, Jan Edwards and Molly Morgan
A responsible and accountable democratic government must dismiss its duty to preserve the rights of the person(s) in order to keep the security and safety of a nation as a whole. That is why these laws and acts are created by the government. The nation should still embrace the perspective of the source as long as the will of the people does not interfere with the security and peace of the nation as a
In article two, it expounded on those rights. The rights are liberty, property, safety, and resistance against oppression. These rights were supposed to be the goal of any political
Document 2 provides further evidence of the suppression of individual rights and freedoms
The Bill of Rights Chapter 2 of the Constitution paves a way for the protection for the individual from the power of government and the individual other. The two fundamental human rights to be discussed are; the freedom of expression and the freedom of privacy. Every individual qualifies for the rights/freedoms that are listed in the constitution, contrary to the given freedoms there are limitations by law. For as much as we are all entitled to fundamental human rights, we are all ought to be responsible when exercising our own rights and think of the other or next person who has the same rights/freedoms. The right to freedom of expression is limited and conditioned to where one could possibly harm other people.
The fourteenth amendment states…”nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws” (Mount, 2010, sec. 14th amendment).
This section is an extension of the privacy act. It states that you have the right to say what you may. However, it is the same way with the freedom of speech. You are allowed to express your opinion on multiple topics. You cannot say anything that is sensitive or may cause a rally or fight.
The ultimate goal of this provision is to protect people’s rights to privacy and freedom from arbitrary governmental intrusions. As a public character, the influence of the president is far from imagination. The words of plaintiff and the judgment of the court would greatly affect the president’s reputation, efficiency, etc. It refers to the privacy. Even though these deeds are not against the law, it drags on the appearance of media, which could harm president’s daily life.
”If the use of technology goes heightens the body 's natural ability it will require citizens to take severe measures to protect privacy, and will crumble the promise of privacy in the home insured by the fourth amendment. One should not have to take irregular precautions to protect what can’t be felt, heard, tasted, or smelled due to new technologies. Moreover the fourth amendment does not require
The breakups and hookups of Justin Bieber and Selena Gomez, the drug abuse by Lindsay Lohan and Amanda Bynes, or even travel plans of Beyonce or the Kardashians all represent with people in today's society desire to know more about. The paparazzi and news media gives people what they want while completely disregarding the fact of these celebrities privacies. It may be argued that these famous people chose to be in the limelight, and therefore signed over any right to privacy that they had. However, where does it state that once one becomes famous one must relinquish the right to personal privacy? These celebrities, although they live different lives than the majority of American citizens, still exist as people and citizens with the same rights as everyone else.
Why should we give up everything we have fought for? The US has been fighting for freedom since the early 1700s. So why would we want to be safe over free? Right to the streets of Memphis, Huckleberry Finn and The Civil Right Movement demonstrates that it's better to have freedom because you don't depend in other decisions.