Private I Vs Public Eye

ALLEN O'BRIEN / TNN / Oct 4, 2005, 21:10 IST

Text Size

Small
Medium
Large

The Indian Constitution does not expressly recognise the right to privacy.

The Indian Constitution does not expressly recognise the right to privacy.
THE LAW ON PRIVACY
The Indian Constitution does not expressly recognise the right to privacy.
However, the Supreme Court first recognised in 1964 that there is a right of privacy implicit in the Constitution under Article 21 of the Constitution, which states, "No person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty except according to procedure established by law."

PAPARAZZI TERMINATED
Arnold Schwarzenegger, Governor of California, has signed a law trebling damages celebs can win from the paparazzi if they are assaulted during a shoot.
The new law comes as LA authorities try to crack down on aggressive photographers following a series of altercations involving actresses Reese Witherspoon, Lindsay Lohan and Scarlett Johansson, among others.
Big Q: Do Indian celebs need a law to protect their privacy from the paparazzi?

Yes
Because the MMSs of Preity, Kareena-Shahid and Mallika point to the paparazzi's invasion of privacy. "Take the case of the sting operations against Aman Varma and Shakti Kapoor - these have less to do with infotainment and more to do with entrapment against the natural sense of privacy," says Prahlad Kakkar.
TV actor Aman wants two privacy laws. "First, a primary privacy law to...
... protect ourselves and then a law to protect us from the paparazzi." Says Praveen Dabbas, "Motivated trespassing needs to stop."
Amit Khemka, advocate, calls for amendment of existing laws. "Because there is no law differentiating invasion of privacy from malafide intentions."
Mahesh Bhatt says, celebs have reason to fear malafide intentions. "A celeb's fear is more than the common man's as because his secret will be known to the whole world."
No One school of thought reasons that India doesn't need a law to protect the privacy of celebs because fame and the paparazzi come as a package deal. "If you are a celeb, you should be audacious enough to live life in the public gaze.
As for the law, why should a celeb be given special privileges that the common man can't have?" asks Bhatt. Echoes author Shobhaa De: "The question of having a special law to 'protect' celebs from the paparazzi doesn't arise since it's the paparazzi that creates celebs in the first place.
We need to find a way by which the paparazzi and celebs feed on each other because one can't live without the other."
What then needs to be done? "Why is reading SMSs on your friend's cellphone intrusion of privacy and passing on MMSs of actresses in various stages of undress great viewing?
Draw a line between the professional and the private. The definition of privacy needs to be changed and, above all, needs to be the same for everyone," says Shobhaa.
"In a country where one can get away after killing a black buck, it's no big deal even if the paparazzi clicks two celebs making out," says actor Aryan Vaid, "We don't need a law protecting privacy as there are ways to bend the law.
What we need is education for both celebs and the paparazzi."

End of Article