Justice K.S.Puttaswamy(Retd) vs Union Of India on 26 September, 2018 421. Shri Rakesh Dwivedi, appearing for the State of Gujarat, while referring to several judgments of the Supreme Court of the United States, submitted that only those privacy claims which involve a reasonable expectation of privacy be recognised as protected by the fundamental right. It is not necessary for the purpose of this case to deal with the particular instances of privacy claims which are to be recognised as implicating a fundamental right. Indeed, it would be premature to do so. The scope and ambit of a constitutional protection of privacy can only be revealed to us on a case-by-case basis. 91) Though Nariman, J. did not subscribe to the aforesaid view in totality, however, His Lordship has also given an example that if a person has to post on Facebook vital information, the same being in public domain, she would not be entitled to the claim of privacy right. 92) We would also like to reproduce following discussion, in the opinion authored by Nariman, J., giving the guidance as to how a law has to be tested when it is challenged on the ground that it violates the fundamental right to privacy: ...Statutory provisions that deal with aspects of privacy would continue to be tested on the ground that they would violate the fundamental right to privacy, and would not be struck down, if it is found on a balancing test that the social or public interest and the reasonableness of the restrictions would outweigh the particular aspect of privacy claimed. If this is so, then statutes which would enable the State to contractually obtain information about persons would pass muster in given circumstances, provided they safeguard the individual right to privacy as well. A simple example would suffice. If a person was to paste on Facebook vital information about himself/herself, such information, being in the public domain, could not possibly be claimed as a privacy right after such disclosure. But, in pursuance of a statutory requirement, if certain details need to be given for the statutory purpose concerned, then such details would certainly affect the right to privacy, but would on a balance, pass muster as the State action concerned has sufficient inbuilt safeguards to protect this rightviz. the fact that such information cannot be disseminated to anyone else, save on compelling grounds of public interest. 93) One important comment which needs to be made at this stage relates to the standard of judicial review while examining the validity of a particular law that allegedly infringes right to privacy. The question is as to whether the Court is to apply strict scrutiny standard or the just, fair and reasonableness standard. In the privacy judgment, different observations are made by different Honble Judges and the aforesaid aspect is not determined authoritatively, may be for the reason that the Bench was deciding the reference on the issue as to whether right to privacy is a fundamental right or not and, in the process, it was called upon to decide the specific questions referred to it. We have dealt with this aspect at the appropriate stage. Principles of Human Dignity: 94) While undertaking the analysis of the judgment in K.S. Indian Kanoon - http://indiankanoon.org/doc/127517806/ 90