Art 19


 Its a fundamental right
 restrictions can be imposed on it only when it falls under the grounds mentioned under Art
19(2) and that it must be reasonable also
 refer to case of Kedar Nath v State of Bihar where the extent of freedom of speech and
expression and restriction that can be placed on it is discussed.
 Refer to Shreya Singhal case also.
 In Papnasam Labourt Union v Madura Coats Ltd the test of reasonableness was laid down
by the court.
 Refer these cases.
 Then compare that in present case the sec 39 is a bit too harsh restriction and hence

Art 21:

 In Maneka Gandhi v Union of India the scope of Art 21 was discussed.
 In Govind v State of M.P. and PUCL v UOI right to privacy held to be a part of Art 21.
 In Maneka Gandhi held:
1. There should be Law
2. Law should lay down the procedure.
3. Procedure should be just fair and reasonable
4 . Must satisfy principles of Art 14 and 19
 In present case act of surveillance an order of executive. It is not a law. So the infringement
of right cannot be done via an executive order in absence of substantive law.
Presently, the Aadhar scheme was challenged because there was no law authorizing collection of
data. It was only an executive order. So the govt had to pass Aadhar Targeted Delivery of Services
Act 2016.
 Also the notification is violative of Art 14 as it is arbitrary. The notification does not lay
down guidelines that who are the people who can be surveillanced.
 Hence the present notification is violative of right to privacy under Art 21.