Justice K.S.Puttaswamy(Retd) vs Union Of India on 26 September, 2018 decision. Repose is the right to be let alone, sanctuary is the interest which prevents others from knowing, 30 See the analysis of this judgment by the Centre for Internet and Society, https://cisindia.org/internet-governance/blog/the-fundamental-right-to-privacy-an-analysis 31 Daniel Solove, Understanding Privacy, Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press, 2008. seeing and hearing thus keeping information within the private zone, and finally, privacy of intimate decision protects the freedom to act autonomously. (c) Classifying privacy as an aggregation of rights: This approach in classifying privacy as a right, as highlighted above, is not limited to one particular provision in the Chapter of Fundamental Rights under the Constitution but is associated with amalgam of different but connected rights. In formulating this principle, the Court has referred to scholars like Roger Clarke, Anita Allen etc. It has led to the recognition of private spaces or zones as protected under the right to privacy (thereby extending the ambit and scope of spatial privacy), informational privacy and decisional autonomy. 86) The important question that arises, which is directly involved in these cases, is: What is the scope of the right to privacy and in what circumstances such a right can be limited? 87) Concededly, fundamental rights are not absolute. The Constitution itself permits State to impose reasonable restrictions on these rights under certain circumstances. Thus, extent and scope of the right to privacy and how and when it can be limited by the State actions is also to be discerned. As noted above, Nariman, J. has led the path by observing that when it comes to restrictions on this right, the drill of various Articles to which the right relates must be scrupulously followed. Therefore, examination has to be from the point of view of Articles 14, 19 and 21 for the reason that right to privacy is treated as having intimate connection to various rights in Part III and is not merely related to Article 21. Looked from this angle, the action of the State will have to be tested on the touchstone of Article 14. This judgment clarifies that the classification test adopted earlier has to be expanded and instead the law/action is to be tested on the ground of manifest arbitrariness. This aspect has already been discussed in detail under the caption Scope of Judicial Review above. When it comes to examining the restrictions as per the provisions of Article 19 of the Constitution, the judgment proceeds to clarify that a law which impacts dignity and liberty under Article 21, as well as having chilling effects on free speech which is protected by Article 19(1)(a), must satisfy the standards of judicial review under both provisions. Therefore, such restriction must satisfy the test of judicial review under: (i) one of the eight grounds mentioned under Article 19(2); and (ii) the restriction should be reasonable. This Court has applied multiple standards to determine reasonableness, including proximity, arbitrariness, and proportionality. Further, the reasonable restrictions must be in the interests of: (i) the sovereignty and integrity of India, (ii) the security of the State, (iii) friendly relations with foreign States, (iv) public order, (v) decency or morality or (vi) in relation to contempt of court, (vii) defamation or (viii) incitement to an offence. 88) The judgment further lays down that in the context of Article 21, the test to be applied while examining a particular provision is the just, fair and reasonable test thereby bringing notion of proportionality. Indian Kanoon - http://indiankanoon.org/doc/127517806/ 87