The Maharashtra government told the Supreme Court today that introducing right to privacy as a fundamental right under the Constitution can only be done by Parliament, and courts cannot do this. <br/><br/>Senior advocate C A Sundaram, appearing for the Maharashtra government, submitted that this is not a case of interpretation of the Constitution or the law. This is the case of introduction of a right as a fundamental right. <br/><br/>Sundaram said that the term privacy is not a definite term and it cannot be conferred a separate status of a fundamental right under the Constitution.<br/><br/>Madhya Pradesh has also opposed inclusion of right to privacy as a fundamental right. Additional Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, representing the Madhya Pradesh government, referred to various legislations including the Income Tax Act, the Right to Information Act and the Indian Telegraph Act, and said that various aspects of privacy have been protected under several statutes.<br/><br/>The Centre had earlier told the Supreme Court that since privacy was multifaceted, it could not be treated as a fundamental right. Attorney General KK Venugopal had said, informational privacy could not be a right to privacy and it could not ever be a fundamental right.<br/><br/>On the other hand, senior advocate Kapil Sibal, while representing four non-BJP ruled States – Karnataka, West Bengal, Punjab and Puducherry – had argued that these States supported the contention that the right to privacy be held as fundamental in the age of technological advancements.

The Maharashtra government told the Supreme Court today that introducing right to privacy as a fundamental right under the Constitution can only be done by Parliament, and courts cannot do this. <br/><br/>Senior advocate C A Sundaram, appearing for the Maharashtra government, submitted that this is not a case of interpretation of the Constitution or the law. This is the case of introduction of a right as a fundamental right. <br/><br/>Sundaram said that the term privacy is not a definite term and it cannot be conferred a separate status of a fundamental right under the Constitution.<br/><br/>Madhya Pradesh has also opposed inclusion of right to privacy as a fundamental right. Additional Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, representing the Madhya Pradesh government, referred to various legislations including the Income Tax Act, the Right to Information Act and the Indian Telegraph Act, and said that various aspects of privacy have been protected under several statutes.<br/><br/>The Centre had earlier told the Supreme Court that since privacy was multifaceted, it could not be treated as a fundamental right. Attorney General KK Venugopal had said, informational privacy could not be a right to privacy and it could not ever be a fundamental right.<br/><br/>On the other hand, senior advocate Kapil Sibal, while representing four non-BJP ruled States – Karnataka, West Bengal, Punjab and Puducherry – had argued that these States supported the contention that the right to privacy be held as fundamental in the age of technological advancements.