 Hello and welcome to NewsClick. Today we are going to discuss about the recent judgment of the Supreme Court regarding right to privacy. There was a whole team of lawyers fighting the case on behalf of petitioners like Bejwara Wilson and also the most interesting part is there was a team of young lawyers who were doing the research for the entire case, entire petition and we have as Prasanna with us today one among those lawyers to discuss the issue. Prasanna, welcome to NewsClick. So, let's start with what were you, I mean how did you get involved with the case as, because what I have read from the papers, you were a coder, then you turn into a lawyer. How did you get involved with this case? Thank you very much Pranjil for having me here. As you said, I have a computer science engineering background, so I got interested in the project in around 2010, 2009, 2010 during that time. So, I had just moved to Delhi and I had just begun studying law and because this was a project that seemed to raise important questions of technology and the state's use of technology, I got interested in it and then I started assisting Dr. Usha Ramnathan who was also researching on it and writing about it quite heavily. In fact, most of the, I think first 2-3 years of writing on this particular project, the UID project was by Dr. Usha Ramnathan and I was fortunate enough to help her with the sum of her work including her submissions to the Standing Committee in 2011. It was Yashwant Sinha led Parliament Standing Committee that actually rejected the National Identification of Authority of India Bill at that time and then I just stayed on and asked council in the case after a little bit because I continued to be interested in the project and the kind of questions that it raised. Okay, so I mean this judgment touches upon various subjects, I mean Adad Petitian was the one that pushed for this bench but the judgment touches at various aspects, Section 377 might ill write to food. So, can you throw some light on these subjects? I mean what is the implication of this judgment on these things? See, implication of 377 is fairly direct because majority of judges here have held that the Suresh Kaushal case is clearly a discordant note in our constitutional rights jurisprudence. So, 377 case has been all but overruled. Curative is still pending before the Supreme Court. I think it is a matter of course that if the curative is allowed that the ratio will be overturned and the Delhi High Court's decision to decriminalize consensual act, correct 2009 in NAS Foundation. So, that decision to decriminalize consensual acts of same sex act, so that I think will stand after once the curative stands allowed. So, 377 it has a direct impact. So, on the right to food case so that, so now that because see all of the UID related cases were kind of stalled because of this reference to the larger bench. Now, the decks are clear. Now, the larger bench, nine judge bench has decided and therefore now hearings can commence on the full UID case that includes all of these implications for right to food because there is a huge exclusion angle to UID for instance, I mean you know that see the project has been marketed as a project of inclusion, right. So, I mean lots of people, poor people are not visible to the state. Now, they will become visible to the state etc. But now you see all the figures that are put out to justify the project are figures of exclusion. See, we've saved so much by cancelling so many cards. We've saved so much by actually denying rations to so many people. So, I mean even in the marketing language the project has shifted from one of inclusion to exclusion. But in reality the exclusion there happens at in multiple levels and that will now get foregrounded after the nine judge bench has decided because it's basically decks have been cleared. You know the marital rape judgment, I'd wait to see how that pans out. I believe it's more, I think I've not read the petition but the petition is largely predicated on the equality guarantee rather than the privacy guarantee. So, therefore I mean I'd wait to see, I'll reserve my comments on that before I see the petition and kind of we should let it go. Okay, so let's come back to the UID project, the Adhaar project because you rightly point out if you look at Rajasthan because the social audit takes place there. So, you come out with facts where people are not able to get ration cards, nerega wages are not able to, they're not even sanctioned nerega wages. So, what do you think what's going to happen with the Adhaar judgment because that is something which is impacting day to day lives of thousands of workers across the country. Thousands of small scale policies that is influencing people. It is, I mean it's actually, UID project has actually cost havoc in many of these social sector schemes. We've seen that people have been asked to climb trees to authenticate themselves because there are now point of service machines installed in each of these ration shops in Rajasthan. In Delhi for example had about 20 shops or 40 shops that had the point of service machines and then the Delhi, Rozi, Roti, Adhikar, Abhyan and the SNS people have actually documented the kind of problems that are there very well. Similarly, in Rajasthan we've had people had to climb trees to get ration. I mean this is what kind of country. Because the network connectivity is not there for. Correct, but there is a certain level of dignity that we'll have to ensure for all our country men and country women. And it's amazing that in this 21st century we'll have a government telling people to climb trees to get their ration of food. These are not charity by the government. These are constitutional rights, statutory rights and NFSA is a statutory right. So right to food is a constitutional right because it's important, it's implicit in your right to life. And part of the reason is the state saying that it is when people go hungry, it is not just people go hungry because of their misfortune. It is because I mean it is the Indian state's constitutional duty to ensure that everybody has these basic needs. Especially when you have that word of socialist mentioned after the 42nd amendment. See even if let's say no socialist. Let's say only liberty was mentioned. So what does liberty mean if there is no dignity? Let's assume there is no socialist. Let's say socialist okay. People say okay it was actually added after an amendment which has now been discredited widely etc. Let's even remove socialist. There is a directive principle that says I mean you need to make sure there is no concentration of economic power and resources with a few people. Because you cannot guarantee that. You'll have to have these schemes wherein basic needs are at least ensured for the people. And for that if you actually say I mean they need to climb trees, they'll need to have bulties and somersaults. And I mean today they'll need to give their ration card. Tomorrow they'll need to give their adharkar. They'll need to authenticate themselves. All kinds of conditions that you want to impose for what? For people to actually enjoy basic needs of life. I mean this is amazing that this is happening in the 21st century. And I hope the Supreme Court and the high courts across the country are able to take cognizance of all these problems and come up with a verdict that is appropriate. Because also we are moving firstly towards the nation and also towards the society where data is becoming very important. So it's also part of that process only this entire UID project. Collecting data and giving it to the private players. So let's hope and all the best for your future assignments. We hope that this Adha judgment outright rejects the entire UID project. Thanks a lot Prasanna for giving us your time and as these things proceed we'll be coming back to you on such issue. Thank you Prajil. Thanks a lot for watching NewsClick.