The first thing to know when talking about privacy in India is that a majority of the population does not always understand what it means. It is at times confused with shame. Its also confused with the emotion we feel when we do something that does not meet our standards or our sense of what is right. Modern Indian languages do not seem to have an exact word which captures the meaning of privacy; theyre usually some variation of the words for isolation, intimacy or secrecy, once again hinting at a conceptual confusion.Privacy, however, is not only about hiding something or keeping it secret. It is, at its core, the right to be left alone. It doesnt mean that one is withdrawing from society. It is an expectation that society will not interfere in the choices made by the person so long as they do not cause harm to others. It means that ones right to eat whatever one chooses, the right to drink what one chooses, the right to love and marry whom one chooses, to wear what one chooses, among others, are rights which the state cannot interfere with. It is natural that the very concept of privacy seems incomprehensible. If you have grown up in a society where everything you do is dictated by someone else, and the cost of disobedience is high, to have the freedom to choose what you will in such important matters sounds like fantasy. But it is also a common misconception that the non-well-off in India do not know or care about privacy.Millions of men and women push back daily against the oppressive hold of their families and communities, and fight for the freedom to make their own choices. They may not have the right word for it, but they are creating space for themselves to exercise the right to privacy.It is in this context that one must understand the hearings in the Supreme Court on the right to privacy. Although the nine-judge bench has decided there is a fundamental right to privacy protected under the Constitution in the specific context of the Aadhaar case, privacy has many more dimensions than just data protection or surveillance by the state. A fundamental right to privacy, enshrined and protected in the Constitution, would mean that all persons have the right to be left alone by the state unless such intrusion is necessitated by a just, reasonable, and fair law. The implications of the judgment will go far beyond just the Aadhaar scheme and law. The law laid down by the Supreme Court on privacy could affect the course of development of the law governing reproductive rights, gay rights, beef bans, prohibition, among a host of other issues that the Indian state and society are grappling with.Q. On a particular day, three escaped convicts intruded into the house of James Hill and held him and members of his family hostage for nineteen hours, whereafter they released them unharmed. The incident became prime news in the local newspapers and the members of the press started swarming the Hills home. Unable to stop the siege of the press correspondents, the family shifted to a far-away place. Life magazine sent its men to the former home of Hill family where they reenacted the entire incident, and photographed it, showing inter alia that the members of the family were ill-treated by the intruders. When Life published the story, Hill brought a suit against Life magazine, for invasion of his privacy. In such a case, based on the authors reasoning, which will be the best option to safeguard the privacy of Hills family as well as the Right to Speech of the Press?a)Life magazine should be restrained from harassing and invading into the personal life of Hills family.b)Hills family should be giv en personal space from the piercing eyes of the media. Media has the right to press but it does not cover the right to invade the privacy of a family.c)Life magazine can only publish the re-enactment of the incident but should be extra cautious about the privacy of Hills family. Under the garb of freedom of speech it cannot reveal the identity of Hills family.d)Life magazine has the right to publish without any concern whether the publication intrudes into personal life or not.Correct answer is option 'C'. Can you explain this answer?

Explore Courses UPSC Exam UPSC Test Series Free Notes EduRev Infinity

Open App

Class 12 Exam > Class 12 Questions > The first thing to know when talking about pr...

Join the Discussion on the App

The first thing to know when talking about privacy in India is that a majority of the population does not always understand what it means. It is at times confused with shame. It's also confused with the emotion we feel when we do something that does not meet our standards or our sense of what is right. Modern Indian languages do not seem to have an exact word which captures the meaning of privacy; they're usually some variation of the words for isolation, intimacy or secrecy, once again hinting at a conceptual confusion.

Privacy, however, is not only about hiding something or keeping it secret. It is, at its core, the right to be left alone. It doesn't mean that one is withdrawing from society. It is an expectation that society will not interfere in the choices made by the person so long as they do not cause harm to others. It means that one's right to eat whatever one chooses, the right to drink what one chooses, the right to love and marry whom one chooses, to wear what one chooses, among others, are rights which the state cannot interfere with. It is natural that the very concept of privacy seems incomprehensible. If you have grown up in a society where everything you do is dictated by someone else, and the cost of disobedience is high, to have the freedom to choose what you will in such important matters sounds like fantasy. But it is also a common misconception that the non-well-off in India do not know or care about privacy.

Millions of men and women push back daily against the oppressive hold of their families and communities, and fight for the freedom to make their own choices. They may not have the right word for it, but they are creating space for themselves to exercise the right to privacy.

It is in this context that one must understand the hearings in the Supreme Court on the right to privacy. Although the nine-judge bench has decided there is a fundamental right to privacy protected under the Constitution in the specific context of the Aadhaar case, privacy has many more dimensions than just data protection or surveillance by the state. A fundamental right to privacy, enshrined and protected in the Constitution, would mean that all persons have the right to be left alone by the state unless such intrusion is necessitated by a just, reasonable, and fair law. The implications of the judgment will go far beyond just the Aadhaar scheme and law. The law laid down by the Supreme Court on privacy could affect the course of development of the law governing reproductive rights, gay rights, beef bans, prohibition, among a host of other issues that the Indian state and society are grappling with.

Q. On a particular day, three escaped convicts intruded into the house of James Hill and held him and members of his family hostage for nineteen hours, whereafter they released them unharmed. The incident became prime news in the local newspapers and the members of the press started swarming the Hill's home. Unable to stop the siege of the press correspondents, the family shifted to a far-away place. Life magazine sent its men to the former home of Hill family where they reenacted the entire incident, and photographed it, showing inter alia that the members of the family were ill-treated by the intruders. When Life published the story, Hill brought a suit against Life magazine, for invasion of his privacy. In such a case, based on the author's reasoning, which will be the best option to safeguard the privacy of Hill's family as well as the Right to Speech of the Press?

a)
Life magazine should be restrained from harassing and invading into the personal life of Hill's family.
b)
Hill's family should be giv en personal space from the piercing eyes of the media. Media has the right to press but it does not cover the right to invade the privacy of a family.
c)
Life magazine can only publish the re-enactment of the incident but should be extra cautious about the privacy of Hill's family. Under the garb of freedom of speech it cannot reveal the identity of Hill's family.
d)
Life magazine has the right to publish without any concern whether the publication intrudes into personal life or not.

Correct answer is option 'C'. Can you explain this answer?

FREE This question is part of

Languages: Mock Test - 9

Attempt Test

Attempt this Test

Most Upvoted Answer

The first thing to know when talking about privacy in India is that a ...

Essence of the passage is about privacy. The right to privacy is not an absolute right. Any restriction must be just, fair and reasonable. Option (a), (b) and (d) forces an explanation which stands at extremities therefore cannot strike a balance in the competing rights. Only appropriate option is option (c). Option (c) takes a middle path trying to establish an equilibrium between the right to privacy and the right to speech.

View all answers Start learning for free

< Previous Question Next Question >

Explore Courses for Class 12 exam

Similar Class 12 Doubts

The first thing to know when talking about privacy in India is that a majority of the population does not always understand what it means. It is at times confused with shame. Its also confused with the emotion we feel when we do something that does not meet our standards or our sense of what is right. Modern Indian languages do not seem to have an exact word which captures the meaning of privacy; theyre usually some variation of the words for isolation, intimacy or secrecy, once again hinting at a conceptual confusion.Privacy, however, is not only about hiding something or keeping it secret. It is, at its core, the right to be left alone. It doesnt mean that one is withdrawing from society. It is an expectation that society will not interfere in the choices made by the person so long as they do not cause harm to others. It means that ones right to eat whatever one chooses, the right to drink what one chooses, the right to love and marry whom one chooses, to wear what one chooses, among others, are rights which the state cannot interfere with. It is natural that the very concept of privacy seems incomprehensible. If you have grown up in a society where everything you do is dictated by someone else, and the cost of disobedience is high, to have the freedom to choose what you will in such important matters sounds like fantasy. But it is also a common misconception that the non-well-off in India do not know or care about privacy.Millions of men and women push back daily against the oppressive hold of their families and communities, and fight for the freedom to make their own choices. They may not have the right word for it, but they are creating space for themselves to exercise the right to privacy.It is in this context that one must understand the hearings in the Supreme Court on the right to privacy. Although the nine-judge bench has decided there is a fundamental right to privacy protected under the Constitution in the specific context of the Aadhaar case, privacy has many more dimensions than just data protection or surveillance by the state. A fundamental right to privacy, enshrined and protected in the Constitution, would mean that all persons have the right to be left alone by the state unless such intrusion is necessitated by a just, reasonable, and fair law. The implications of the judgment will go far beyond just the Aadhaar scheme and law. The law laid down by the Supreme Court on privacy could affect the course of development of the law governing reproductive rights, gay rights, beef bans, prohibition, among a host of other issues that the Indian state and society are grappling with.Q. Auto Shanker was conv icted of six murders and sentenced to death. While in jail, Shanker wrote his auto-biography and expressed his wish that this be published in the Blitz magazine. Before publishing the autobiography, Blitz announced the publication.Prison officials then forced Shanker to write to the magazine requesting that the auto-biography not be published. Blitz then brought the action to prevent the Prison officials from violating the magazines and the prisoners Freedom of Expression. In such a case, based on the authors reasoning, which will be the best option to strike the balance between the freedom of press vis-A-vis the right to privacy of the citizens.

View answer

The first thing to know when talking about privacy in India is that a majority of the population does not always understand what it means. It is at times confused with shame. Its also confused with the emotion we feel when we do something that does not meet our standards or our sense of what is right. Modern Indian languages do not seem to have an exact word which captures the meaning of privacy; theyre usually some variation of the words for isolation, intimacy or secrecy, once again hinting at a conceptual confusion.Privacy, however, is not only about hiding something or keeping it secret. It is, at its core, the right to be left alone. It doesnt mean that one is withdrawing from society. It is an expectation that society will not interfere in the choices made by the person so long as they do not cause harm to others. It means that ones right to eat whatever one chooses, the right to drink what one chooses, the right to love and marry whom one chooses, to wear what one chooses, among others, are rights which the state cannot interfere with. It is natural that the very concept of privacy seems incomprehensible. If you have grown up in a society where everything you do is dictated by someone else, and the cost of disobedience is high, to have the freedom to choose what you will in such important matters sounds like fantasy. But it is also a common misconception that the non-well-off in India do not know or care about privacy.Millions of men and women push back daily against the oppressive hold of their families and communities, and fight for the freedom to make their own choices. They may not have the right word for it, but they are creating space for themselves to exercise the right to privacy.It is in this context that one must understand the hearings in the Supreme Court on the right to privacy. Although the nine-judge bench has decided there is a fundamental right to privacy protected under the Constitution in the specific context of the Aadhaar case, privacy has many more dimensions than just data protection or surveillance by the state. A fundamental right to privacy, enshrined and protected in the Constitution, would mean that all persons have the right to be left alone by the state unless such intrusion is necessitated by a just, reasonable, and fair law. The implications of the judgment will go far beyond just the Aadhaar scheme and law. The law laid down by the Supreme Court on privacy could affect the course of development of the law governing reproductive rights, gay rights, beef bans, prohibition, among a host of other issues that the Indian state and society are grappling with.Q. In the Parliament, private member legislation is passed seeking to curb the Rights of Civil Societies to draft a law. Civil Societies challenged the law arguing the violation of speech, expression, privacy and other constitutional rights. Based on the authors view above will the right to define and draft laws be saved under the Privacy rights?

View answer

The Writ Jurisdiction of Supreme Court can be invoked under Article 32 of the Constitution for the violation of fundamental rights guaranteed under Part – III of the Constitution. Any provision in any Constitution for Fundamental Rights is meaningless unless there are adequate safeguards to ensure enforcement of such provisions. Since the reality of such rights is tested only through the judiciary, the safeguards assume even more importance. In addition, enforcement also depends upon the degree of independence of the Judiciary and the availability of relevant instruments with the executive authority. Indian Constitution, like most of Western Constitutions, lays down certain provisions to ensure the enforcement of Fundamental Rights.However, Article 32 is referred to as the “Constitutional Remedy” for enforcement of Fundamental Rights. This provision itself has been included in the Fundamental Rights and hence it cannot be denied to any person. Dr. B. R. Ambedkar described Article 32 as the most important one, without which the Constitution would be reduced to nullity. It is also referred to as the heart and soul of the Constitution. By including Article 32 in the Fundamental Rights, the Supreme Court has been made the protector and guarantor of these Rights. An application made under Article 32 of the Constitution before the Supreme Court, cannot be refused on technical grounds. In addition to the prescribed five types of writs, the Supreme Court may pass any other appropriate order. Moreover, only the questions pertaining to the Fundamental Rights can be determined in proceedings against Article 32. Under Article 32, the Supreme Court may issue a Writ against any person or government within the territory of India. Where the infringement of a Fundamental Right has been established, the Supreme Court cannot refuse relief on the ground that the aggrieved person may have remedy before some other court or under the ordinary law.The relief can also not be denied on the ground that the disputed facts have to be investigated or some evidence has to be collected. Even if an aggrieved person has not asked for a particular Writ, the Supreme Court, after considering the facts and circumstances, may grant the appropriate Writ and may even modify it to suit the exigencies of the case. Normally, only the aggrieved person is allowed to move the Court. But it has been held by the Supreme Court that in social or public interest matters, any one may move the Court. A Public Interest Litigation can be filed before the Supreme Court under Article 32 of the Constitution or before the High Court of a State under Article 226 of the Constitution under their respective Writ Jurisdictions.Q. The main purpose of the passage is to

View answer

The Writ Jurisdiction of Supreme Court can be invoked under Article 32 of the Constitution for the violation of fundamental rights guaranteed under Part – III of the Constitution. Any provision in any Constitution for Fundamental Rights is meaningless unless there are adequate safeguards to ensure enforcement of such provisions. Since the reality of such rights is tested only through the judiciary, the safeguards assume even more importance. In addition, enforcement also depends upon the degree of independence of the Judiciary and the availability of relevant instruments with the executive authority. Indian Constitution, like most of Western Constitutions, lays down certain provisions to ensure the enforcement of Fundamental Rights.However, Article 32 is referred to as the “Constitutional Remedy” for enforcement of Fundamental Rights. This provision itself has been included in the Fundamental Rights and hence it cannot be denied to any person. Dr. B. R. Ambedkar described Article 32 as the most important one, without which the Constitution would be reduced to nullity. It is also referred to as the heart and soul of the Constitution. By including Article 32 in the Fundamental Rights, the Supreme Court has been made the protector and guarantor of these Rights. An application made under Article 32 of the Constitution before the Supreme Court, cannot be refused on technical grounds. In addition to the prescribed five types of writs, the Supreme Court may pass any other appropriate order. Moreover, only the questions pertaining to the Fundamental Rights can be determined in proceedings against Article 32. Under Article 32, the Supreme Court may issue a Writ against any person or government within the territory of India. Where the infringement of a Fundamental Right has been established, the Supreme Court cannot refuse relief on the ground that the aggrieved person may have remedy before some other court or under the ordinary law.The relief can also not be denied on the ground that the disputed facts have to be investigated or some evidence has to be collected. Even if an aggrieved person has not asked for a particular Writ, the Supreme Court, after considering the facts and circumstances, may grant the appropriate Writ and may even modify it to suit the exigencies of the case. Normally, only the aggrieved person is allowed to move the Court. But it has been held by the Supreme Court that in social or public interest matters, any one may move the Court. A Public Interest Litigation can be filed before the Supreme Court under Article 32 of the Constitution or before the High Court of a State under Article 226 of the Constitution under their respective Writ Jurisdictions.Q. What is the correct meaning of the word ‘infringement’?

View answer

The Writ Jurisdiction of Supreme Court can be invoked under Article 32 of the Constitution for the violation of fundamental rights guaranteed under Part – III of the Constitution. Any provision in any Constitution for Fundamental Rights is meaningless unless there are adequate safeguards to ensure enforcement of such provisions. Since the reality of such rights is tested only through the judiciary, the safeguards assume even more importance. In addition, enforcement also depends upon the degree of independence of the Judiciary and the availability of relevant instruments with the executive authority. Indian Constitution, like most of Western Constitutions, lays down certain provisions to ensure the enforcement of Fundamental Rights.However, Article 32 is referred to as the “Constitutional Remedy” for enforcement of Fundamental Rights. This provision itself has been included in the Fundamental Rights and hence it cannot be denied to any person. Dr. B. R. Ambedkar described Article 32 as the most important one, without which the Constitution would be reduced to nullity. It is also referred to as the heart and soul of the Constitution. By including Article 32 in the Fundamental Rights, the Supreme Court has been made the protector and guarantor of these Rights. An application made under Article 32 of the Constitution before the Supreme Court, cannot be refused on technical grounds. In addition to the prescribed five types of writs, the Supreme Court may pass any other appropriate order. Moreover, only the questions pertaining to the Fundamental Rights can be determined in proceedings against Article 32. Under Article 32, the Supreme Court may issue a Writ against any person or government within the territory of India. Where the infringement of a Fundamental Right has been established, the Supreme Court cannot refuse relief on the ground that the aggrieved person may have remedy before some other court or under the ordinary law.The relief can also not be denied on the ground that the disputed facts have to be investigated or some evidence has to be collected. Even if an aggrieved person has not asked for a particular Writ, the Supreme Court, after considering the facts and circumstances, may grant the appropriate Writ and may even modify it to suit the exigencies of the case. Normally, only the aggrieved person is allowed to move the Court. But it has been held by the Supreme Court that in social or public interest matters, any one may move the Court. A Public Interest Litigation can be filed before the Supreme Court under Article 32 of the Constitution or before the High Court of a State under Article 226 of the Constitution under their respective Writ Jurisdictions.Q. All of the following can be inferred from the passage except.

View answer

The first thing to know when talking about privacy in India is that a majority of the population does not always understand what it means. It is at times confused with shame. Its also confused with the emotion we feel when we do something that does not meet our standards or our sense of what is right. Modern Indian languages do not seem to have an exact word which captures the meaning of privacy; theyre usually some variation of the words for isolation, intimacy or secrecy, once again hinting at a conceptual confusion.Privacy, however, is not only about hiding something or keeping it secret. It is, at its core, the right to be left alone. It doesnt mean that one is withdrawing from society. It is an expectation that society will not interfere in the choices made by the person so long as they do not cause harm to others. It means that ones right to eat whatever one chooses, the right to drink what one chooses, the right to love and marry whom one chooses, to wear what one chooses, among others, are rights which the state cannot interfere with. It is natural that the very concept of privacy seems incomprehensible. If you have grown up in a society where everything you do is dictated by someone else, and the cost of disobedience is high, to have the freedom to choose what you will in such important matters sounds like fantasy. But it is also a common misconception that the non-well-off in India do not know or care about privacy.Millions of men and women push back daily against the oppressive hold of their families and communities, and fight for the freedom to make their own choices. They may not have the right word for it, but they are creating space for themselves to exercise the right to privacy.It is in this context that one must understand the hearings in the Supreme Court on the right to privacy. Although the nine-judge bench has decided there is a fundamental right to privacy protected under the Constitution in the specific context of the Aadhaar case, privacy has many more dimensions than just data protection or surveillance by the state. A fundamental right to privacy, enshrined and protected in the Constitution, would mean that all persons have the right to be left alone by the state unless such intrusion is necessitated by a just, reasonable, and fair law. The implications of the judgment will go far beyond just the Aadhaar scheme and law. The law laid down by the Supreme Court on privacy could affect the course of development of the law governing reproductive rights, gay rights, beef bans, prohibition, among a host of other issues that the Indian state and society are grappling with.Q. On a particular day, three escaped convicts intruded into the house of James Hill and held him and members of his family hostage for nineteen hours, whereafter they released them unharmed. The incident became prime news in the local newspapers and the members of the press started swarming the Hills home. Unable to stop the siege of the press correspondents, the family shifted to a far-away place. Life magazine sent its men to the former home of Hill family where they reenacted the entire incident, and photographed it, showing inter alia that the members of the family were ill-treated by the intruders. When Life published the story, Hill brought a suit against Life magazine, for invasion of his privacy. In such a case, based on the authors reasoning, which will be the best option to safeguard the privacy of Hills family as well as the Right to Speech of the Press?a)Life magazine should be restrained from harassing and invading into the personal life of Hills family.b)Hills family should be giv en personal space from the piercing eyes of the media. Media has the right to press but it does not cover the right to invade the privacy of a family.c)Life magazine can only publish the re-enactment of the incident but should be extra cautious about the privacy of Hills family. Under the garb of freedom of speech it cannot reveal the identity of Hills family.d)Life magazine has the right to publish without any concern whether the publication intrudes into personal life or not.Correct answer is option 'C'. Can you explain this answer?

Share with a Friend

Answer this doubt

Question Description
The first thing to know when talking about privacy in India is that a majority of the population does not always understand what it means. It is at times confused with shame. Its also confused with the emotion we feel when we do something that does not meet our standards or our sense of what is right. Modern Indian languages do not seem to have an exact word which captures the meaning of privacy; theyre usually some variation of the words for isolation, intimacy or secrecy, once again hinting at a conceptual confusion.Privacy, however, is not only about hiding something or keeping it secret. It is, at its core, the right to be left alone. It doesnt mean that one is withdrawing from society. It is an expectation that society will not interfere in the choices made by the person so long as they do not cause harm to others. It means that ones right to eat whatever one chooses, the right to drink what one chooses, the right to love and marry whom one chooses, to wear what one chooses, among others, are rights which the state cannot interfere with. It is natural that the very concept of privacy seems incomprehensible. If you have grown up in a society where everything you do is dictated by someone else, and the cost of disobedience is high, to have the freedom to choose what you will in such important matters sounds like fantasy. But it is also a common misconception that the non-well-off in India do not know or care about privacy.Millions of men and women push back daily against the oppressive hold of their families and communities, and fight for the freedom to make their own choices. They may not have the right word for it, but they are creating space for themselves to exercise the right to privacy.It is in this context that one must understand the hearings in the Supreme Court on the right to privacy. Although the nine-judge bench has decided there is a fundamental right to privacy protected under the Constitution in the specific context of the Aadhaar case, privacy has many more dimensions than just data protection or surveillance by the state. A fundamental right to privacy, enshrined and protected in the Constitution, would mean that all persons have the right to be left alone by the state unless such intrusion is necessitated by a just, reasonable, and fair law. The implications of the judgment will go far beyond just the Aadhaar scheme and law. The law laid down by the Supreme Court on privacy could affect the course of development of the law governing reproductive rights, gay rights, beef bans, prohibition, among a host of other issues that the Indian state and society are grappling with.Q. On a particular day, three escaped convicts intruded into the house of James Hill and held him and members of his family hostage for nineteen hours, whereafter they released them unharmed. The incident became prime news in the local newspapers and the members of the press started swarming the Hills home. Unable to stop the siege of the press correspondents, the family shifted to a far-away place. Life magazine sent its men to the former home of Hill family where they reenacted the entire incident, and photographed it, showing inter alia that the members of the family were ill-treated by the intruders. When Life published the story, Hill brought a suit against Life magazine, for invasion of his privacy. In such a case, based on the authors reasoning, which will be the best option to safeguard the privacy of Hills family as well as the Right to Speech of the Press?a)Life magazine should be restrained from harassing and invading into the personal life of Hills family.b)Hills family should be giv en personal space from the piercing eyes of the media. Media has the right to press but it does not cover the right to invade the privacy of a family.c)Life magazine can only publish the re-enactment of the incident but should be extra cautious about the privacy of Hills family. Under the garb of freedom of speech it cannot reveal the identity of Hills family.d)Life magazine has the right to publish without any concern whether the publication intrudes into personal life or not.Correct answer is option 'C'. Can you explain this answer? for Class 12 2024 is part of Class 12 preparation. The Question and answers have been prepared according to the Class 12 exam syllabus. Information about The first thing to know when talking about privacy in India is that a majority of the population does not always understand what it means. It is at times confused with shame. Its also confused with the emotion we feel when we do something that does not meet our standards or our sense of what is right. Modern Indian languages do not seem to have an exact word which captures the meaning of privacy; theyre usually some variation of the words for isolation, intimacy or secrecy, once again hinting at a conceptual confusion.Privacy, however, is not only about hiding something or keeping it secret. It is, at its core, the right to be left alone. It doesnt mean that one is withdrawing from society. It is an expectation that society will not interfere in the choices made by the person so long as they do not cause harm to others. It means that ones right to eat whatever one chooses, the right to drink what one chooses, the right to love and marry whom one chooses, to wear what one chooses, among others, are rights which the state cannot interfere with. It is natural that the very concept of privacy seems incomprehensible. If you have grown up in a society where everything you do is dictated by someone else, and the cost of disobedience is high, to have the freedom to choose what you will in such important matters sounds like fantasy. But it is also a common misconception that the non-well-off in India do not know or care about privacy.Millions of men and women push back daily against the oppressive hold of their families and communities, and fight for the freedom to make their own choices. They may not have the right word for it, but they are creating space for themselves to exercise the right to privacy.It is in this context that one must understand the hearings in the Supreme Court on the right to privacy. Although the nine-judge bench has decided there is a fundamental right to privacy protected under the Constitution in the specific context of the Aadhaar case, privacy has many more dimensions than just data protection or surveillance by the state. A fundamental right to privacy, enshrined and protected in the Constitution, would mean that all persons have the right to be left alone by the state unless such intrusion is necessitated by a just, reasonable, and fair law. The implications of the judgment will go far beyond just the Aadhaar scheme and law. The law laid down by the Supreme Court on privacy could affect the course of development of the law governing reproductive rights, gay rights, beef bans, prohibition, among a host of other issues that the Indian state and society are grappling with.Q. On a particular day, three escaped convicts intruded into the house of James Hill and held him and members of his family hostage for nineteen hours, whereafter they released them unharmed. The incident became prime news in the local newspapers and the members of the press started swarming the Hills home. Unable to stop the siege of the press correspondents, the family shifted to a far-away place. Life magazine sent its men to the former home of Hill family where they reenacted the entire incident, and photographed it, showing inter alia that the members of the family were ill-treated by the intruders. When Life published the story, Hill brought a suit against Life magazine, for invasion of his privacy. In such a case, based on the authors reasoning, which will be the best option to safeguard the privacy of Hills family as well as the Right to Speech of the Press?a)Life magazine should be restrained from harassing and invading into the personal life of Hills family.b)Hills family should be giv en personal space from the piercing eyes of the media. Media has the right to press but it does not cover the right to invade the privacy of a family.c)Life magazine can only publish the re-enactment of the incident but should be extra cautious about the privacy of Hills family. Under the garb of freedom of speech it cannot reveal the identity of Hills family.d)Life magazine has the right to publish without any concern whether the publication intrudes into personal life or not.Correct answer is option 'C'. Can you explain this answer? covers all topics & solutions for Class 12 2024 Exam. Find important definitions, questions, meanings, examples, exercises and tests below for The first thing to know when talking about privacy in India is that a majority of the population does not always understand what it means. It is at times confused with shame. Its also confused with the emotion we feel when we do something that does not meet our standards or our sense of what is right. Modern Indian languages do not seem to have an exact word which captures the meaning of privacy; theyre usually some variation of the words for isolation, intimacy or secrecy, once again hinting at a conceptual confusion.Privacy, however, is not only about hiding something or keeping it secret. It is, at its core, the right to be left alone. It doesnt mean that one is withdrawing from society. It is an expectation that society will not interfere in the choices made by the person so long as they do not cause harm to others. It means that ones right to eat whatever one chooses, the right to drink what one chooses, the right to love and marry whom one chooses, to wear what one chooses, among others, are rights which the state cannot interfere with. It is natural that the very concept of privacy seems incomprehensible. If you have grown up in a society where everything you do is dictated by someone else, and the cost of disobedience is high, to have the freedom to choose what you will in such important matters sounds like fantasy. But it is also a common misconception that the non-well-off in India do not know or care about privacy.Millions of men and women push back daily against the oppressive hold of their families and communities, and fight for the freedom to make their own choices. They may not have the right word for it, but they are creating space for themselves to exercise the right to privacy.It is in this context that one must understand the hearings in the Supreme Court on the right to privacy. Although the nine-judge bench has decided there is a fundamental right to privacy protected under the Constitution in the specific context of the Aadhaar case, privacy has many more dimensions than just data protection or surveillance by the state. A fundamental right to privacy, enshrined and protected in the Constitution, would mean that all persons have the right to be left alone by the state unless such intrusion is necessitated by a just, reasonable, and fair law. The implications of the judgment will go far beyond just the Aadhaar scheme and law. The law laid down by the Supreme Court on privacy could affect the course of development of the law governing reproductive rights, gay rights, beef bans, prohibition, among a host of other issues that the Indian state and society are grappling with.Q. On a particular day, three escaped convicts intruded into the house of James Hill and held him and members of his family hostage for nineteen hours, whereafter they released them unharmed. The incident became prime news in the local newspapers and the members of the press started swarming the Hills home. Unable to stop the siege of the press correspondents, the family shifted to a far-away place. Life magazine sent its men to the former home of Hill family where they reenacted the entire incident, and photographed it, showing inter alia that the members of the family were ill-treated by the intruders. When Life published the story, Hill brought a suit against Life magazine, for invasion of his privacy. In such a case, based on the authors reasoning, which will be the best option to safeguard the privacy of Hills family as well as the Right to Speech of the Press?a)Life magazine should be restrained from harassing and invading into the personal life of Hills family.b)Hills family should be giv en personal space from the piercing eyes of the media. Media has the right to press but it does not cover the right to invade the privacy of a family.c)Life magazine can only publish the re-enactment of the incident but should be extra cautious about the privacy of Hills family. Under the garb of freedom of speech it cannot reveal the identity of Hills family.d)Life magazine has the right to publish without any concern whether the publication intrudes into personal life or not.Correct answer is option 'C'. Can you explain this answer?.

Solutions for The first thing to know when talking about privacy in India is that a majority of the population does not always understand what it means. It is at times confused with shame. Its also confused with the emotion we feel when we do something that does not meet our standards or our sense of what is right. Modern Indian languages do not seem to have an exact word which captures the meaning of privacy; theyre usually some variation of the words for isolation, intimacy or secrecy, once again hinting at a conceptual confusion.Privacy, however, is not only about hiding something or keeping it secret. It is, at its core, the right to be left alone. It doesnt mean that one is withdrawing from society. It is an expectation that society will not interfere in the choices made by the person so long as they do not cause harm to others. It means that ones right to eat whatever one chooses, the right to drink what one chooses, the right to love and marry whom one chooses, to wear what one chooses, among others, are rights which the state cannot interfere with. It is natural that the very concept of privacy seems incomprehensible. If you have grown up in a society where everything you do is dictated by someone else, and the cost of disobedience is high, to have the freedom to choose what you will in such important matters sounds like fantasy. But it is also a common misconception that the non-well-off in India do not know or care about privacy.Millions of men and women push back daily against the oppressive hold of their families and communities, and fight for the freedom to make their own choices. They may not have the right word for it, but they are creating space for themselves to exercise the right to privacy.It is in this context that one must understand the hearings in the Supreme Court on the right to privacy. Although the nine-judge bench has decided there is a fundamental right to privacy protected under the Constitution in the specific context of the Aadhaar case, privacy has many more dimensions than just data protection or surveillance by the state. A fundamental right to privacy, enshrined and protected in the Constitution, would mean that all persons have the right to be left alone by the state unless such intrusion is necessitated by a just, reasonable, and fair law. The implications of the judgment will go far beyond just the Aadhaar scheme and law. The law laid down by the Supreme Court on privacy could affect the course of development of the law governing reproductive rights, gay rights, beef bans, prohibition, among a host of other issues that the Indian state and society are grappling with.Q. On a particular day, three escaped convicts intruded into the house of James Hill and held him and members of his family hostage for nineteen hours, whereafter they released them unharmed. The incident became prime news in the local newspapers and the members of the press started swarming the Hills home. Unable to stop the siege of the press correspondents, the family shifted to a far-away place. Life magazine sent its men to the former home of Hill family where they reenacted the entire incident, and photographed it, showing inter alia that the members of the family were ill-treated by the intruders. When Life published the story, Hill brought a suit against Life magazine, for invasion of his privacy. In such a case, based on the authors reasoning, which will be the best option to safeguard the privacy of Hills family as well as the Right to Speech of the Press?a)Life magazine should be restrained from harassing and invading into the personal life of Hills family.b)Hills family should be giv en personal space from the piercing eyes of the media. Media has the right to press but it does not cover the right to invade the privacy of a family.c)Life magazine can only publish the re-enactment of the incident but should be extra cautious about the privacy of Hills family. Under the garb of freedom of speech it cannot reveal the identity of Hills family.d)Life magazine has the right to publish without any concern whether the publication intrudes into personal life or not.Correct answer is option 'C'. Can you explain this answer? in English & in Hindi are available as part of our courses for Class 12. Download more important topics, notes, lectures and mock test series for Class 12 Exam by signing up for free.

Here you can find the meaning of The first thing to know when talking about privacy in India is that a majority of the population does not always understand what it means. It is at times confused with shame. Its also confused with the emotion we feel when we do something that does not meet our standards or our sense of what is right. Modern Indian languages do not seem to have an exact word which captures the meaning of privacy; theyre usually some variation of the words for isolation, intimacy or secrecy, once again hinting at a conceptual confusion.Privacy, however, is not only about hiding something or keeping it secret. It is, at its core, the right to be left alone. It doesnt mean that one is withdrawing from society. It is an expectation that society will not interfere in the choices made by the person so long as they do not cause harm to others. It means that ones right to eat whatever one chooses, the right to drink what one chooses, the right to love and marry whom one chooses, to wear what one chooses, among others, are rights which the state cannot interfere with. It is natural that the very concept of privacy seems incomprehensible. If you have grown up in a society where everything you do is dictated by someone else, and the cost of disobedience is high, to have the freedom to choose what you will in such important matters sounds like fantasy. But it is also a common misconception that the non-well-off in India do not know or care about privacy.Millions of men and women push back daily against the oppressive hold of their families and communities, and fight for the freedom to make their own choices. They may not have the right word for it, but they are creating space for themselves to exercise the right to privacy.It is in this context that one must understand the hearings in the Supreme Court on the right to privacy. Although the nine-judge bench has decided there is a fundamental right to privacy protected under the Constitution in the specific context of the Aadhaar case, privacy has many more dimensions than just data protection or surveillance by the state. A fundamental right to privacy, enshrined and protected in the Constitution, would mean that all persons have the right to be left alone by the state unless such intrusion is necessitated by a just, reasonable, and fair law. The implications of the judgment will go far beyond just the Aadhaar scheme and law. The law laid down by the Supreme Court on privacy could affect the course of development of the law governing reproductive rights, gay rights, beef bans, prohibition, among a host of other issues that the Indian state and society are grappling with.Q. On a particular day, three escaped convicts intruded into the house of James Hill and held him and members of his family hostage for nineteen hours, whereafter they released them unharmed. The incident became prime news in the local newspapers and the members of the press started swarming the Hills home. Unable to stop the siege of the press correspondents, the family shifted to a far-away place. Life magazine sent its men to the former home of Hill family where they reenacted the entire incident, and photographed it, showing inter alia that the members of the family were ill-treated by the intruders. When Life published the story, Hill brought a suit against Life magazine, for invasion of his privacy. In such a case, based on the authors reasoning, which will be the best option to safeguard the privacy of Hills family as well as the Right to Speech of the Press?a)Life magazine should be restrained from harassing and invading into the personal life of Hills family.b)Hills family should be giv en personal space from the piercing eyes of the media. Media has the right to press but it does not cover the right to invade the privacy of a family.c)Life magazine can only publish the re-enactment of the incident but should be extra cautious about the privacy of Hills family. Under the garb of freedom of speech it cannot reveal the identity of Hills family.d)Life magazine has the right to publish without any concern whether the publication intrudes into personal life or not.Correct answer is option 'C'. Can you explain this answer? defined & explained in the simplest way possible. Besides giving the explanation of The first thing to know when talking about privacy in India is that a majority of the population does not always understand what it means. It is at times confused with shame. Its also confused with the emotion we feel when we do something that does not meet our standards or our sense of what is right. Modern Indian languages do not seem to have an exact word which captures the meaning of privacy; theyre usually some variation of the words for isolation, intimacy or secrecy, once again hinting at a conceptual confusion.Privacy, however, is not only about hiding something or keeping it secret. It is, at its core, the right to be left alone. It doesnt mean that one is withdrawing from society. It is an expectation that society will not interfere in the choices made by the person so long as they do not cause harm to others. It means that ones right to eat whatever one chooses, the right to drink what one chooses, the right to love and marry whom one chooses, to wear what one chooses, among others, are rights which the state cannot interfere with. It is natural that the very concept of privacy seems incomprehensible. If you have grown up in a society where everything you do is dictated by someone else, and the cost of disobedience is high, to have the freedom to choose what you will in such important matters sounds like fantasy. But it is also a common misconception that the non-well-off in India do not know or care about privacy.Millions of men and women push back daily against the oppressive hold of their families and communities, and fight for the freedom to make their own choices. They may not have the right word for it, but they are creating space for themselves to exercise the right to privacy.It is in this context that one must understand the hearings in the Supreme Court on the right to privacy. Although the nine-judge bench has decided there is a fundamental right to privacy protected under the Constitution in the specific context of the Aadhaar case, privacy has many more dimensions than just data protection or surveillance by the state. A fundamental right to privacy, enshrined and protected in the Constitution, would mean that all persons have the right to be left alone by the state unless such intrusion is necessitated by a just, reasonable, and fair law. The implications of the judgment will go far beyond just the Aadhaar scheme and law. The law laid down by the Supreme Court on privacy could affect the course of development of the law governing reproductive rights, gay rights, beef bans, prohibition, among a host of other issues that the Indian state and society are grappling with.Q. On a particular day, three escaped convicts intruded into the house of James Hill and held him and members of his family hostage for nineteen hours, whereafter they released them unharmed. The incident became prime news in the local newspapers and the members of the press started swarming the Hills home. Unable to stop the siege of the press correspondents, the family shifted to a far-away place. Life magazine sent its men to the former home of Hill family where they reenacted the entire incident, and photographed it, showing inter alia that the members of the family were ill-treated by the intruders. When Life published the story, Hill brought a suit against Life magazine, for invasion of his privacy. In such a case, based on the authors reasoning, which will be the best option to safeguard the privacy of Hills family as well as the Right to Speech of the Press?a)Life magazine should be restrained from harassing and invading into the personal life of Hills family.b)Hills family should be giv en personal space from the piercing eyes of the media. Media has the right to press but it does not cover the right to invade the privacy of a family.c)Life magazine can only publish the re-enactment of the incident but should be extra cautious about the privacy of Hills family. Under the garb of freedom of speech it cannot reveal the identity of Hills family.d)Life magazine has the right to publish without any concern whether the publication intrudes into personal life or not.Correct answer is option 'C'. Can you explain this answer?, a detailed solution for The first thing to know when talking about privacy in India is that a majority of the population does not always understand what it means. It is at times confused with shame. Its also confused with the emotion we feel when we do something that does not meet our standards or our sense of what is right. Modern Indian languages do not seem to have an exact word which captures the meaning of privacy; theyre usually some variation of the words for isolation, intimacy or secrecy, once again hinting at a conceptual confusion.Privacy, however, is not only about hiding something or keeping it secret. It is, at its core, the right to be left alone. It doesnt mean that one is withdrawing from society. It is an expectation that society will not interfere in the choices made by the person so long as they do not cause harm to others. It means that ones right to eat whatever one chooses, the right to drink what one chooses, the right to love and marry whom one chooses, to wear what one chooses, among others, are rights which the state cannot interfere with. It is natural that the very concept of privacy seems incomprehensible. If you have grown up in a society where everything you do is dictated by someone else, and the cost of disobedience is high, to have the freedom to choose what you will in such important matters sounds like fantasy. But it is also a common misconception that the non-well-off in India do not know or care about privacy.Millions of men and women push back daily against the oppressive hold of their families and communities, and fight for the freedom to make their own choices. They may not have the right word for it, but they are creating space for themselves to exercise the right to privacy.It is in this context that one must understand the hearings in the Supreme Court on the right to privacy. Although the nine-judge bench has decided there is a fundamental right to privacy protected under the Constitution in the specific context of the Aadhaar case, privacy has many more dimensions than just data protection or surveillance by the state. A fundamental right to privacy, enshrined and protected in the Constitution, would mean that all persons have the right to be left alone by the state unless such intrusion is necessitated by a just, reasonable, and fair law. The implications of the judgment will go far beyond just the Aadhaar scheme and law. The law laid down by the Supreme Court on privacy could affect the course of development of the law governing reproductive rights, gay rights, beef bans, prohibition, among a host of other issues that the Indian state and society are grappling with.Q. On a particular day, three escaped convicts intruded into the house of James Hill and held him and members of his family hostage for nineteen hours, whereafter they released them unharmed. The incident became prime news in the local newspapers and the members of the press started swarming the Hills home. Unable to stop the siege of the press correspondents, the family shifted to a far-away place. Life magazine sent its men to the former home of Hill family where they reenacted the entire incident, and photographed it, showing inter alia that the members of the family were ill-treated by the intruders. When Life published the story, Hill brought a suit against Life magazine, for invasion of his privacy. In such a case, based on the authors reasoning, which will be the best option to safeguard the privacy of Hills family as well as the Right to Speech of the Press?a)Life magazine should be restrained from harassing and invading into the personal life of Hills family.b)Hills family should be giv en personal space from the piercing eyes of the media. Media has the right to press but it does not cover the right to invade the privacy of a family.c)Life magazine can only publish the re-enactment of the incident but should be extra cautious about the privacy of Hills family. Under the garb of freedom of speech it cannot reveal the identity of Hills family.d)Life magazine has the right to publish without any concern whether the publication intrudes into personal life or not.Correct answer is option 'C'. Can you explain this answer? has been provided alongside types of The first thing to know when talking about privacy in India is that a majority of the population does not always understand what it means. It is at times confused with shame. Its also confused with the emotion we feel when we do something that does not meet our standards or our sense of what is right. Modern Indian languages do not seem to have an exact word which captures the meaning of privacy; theyre usually some variation of the words for isolation, intimacy or secrecy, once again hinting at a conceptual confusion.Privacy, however, is not only about hiding something or keeping it secret. It is, at its core, the right to be left alone. It doesnt mean that one is withdrawing from society. It is an expectation that society will not interfere in the choices made by the person so long as they do not cause harm to others. It means that ones right to eat whatever one chooses, the right to drink what one chooses, the right to love and marry whom one chooses, to wear what one chooses, among others, are rights which the state cannot interfere with. It is natural that the very concept of privacy seems incomprehensible. If you have grown up in a society where everything you do is dictated by someone else, and the cost of disobedience is high, to have the freedom to choose what you will in such important matters sounds like fantasy. But it is also a common misconception that the non-well-off in India do not know or care about privacy.Millions of men and women push back daily against the oppressive hold of their families and communities, and fight for the freedom to make their own choices. They may not have the right word for it, but they are creating space for themselves to exercise the right to privacy.It is in this context that one must understand the hearings in the Supreme Court on the right to privacy. Although the nine-judge bench has decided there is a fundamental right to privacy protected under the Constitution in the specific context of the Aadhaar case, privacy has many more dimensions than just data protection or surveillance by the state. A fundamental right to privacy, enshrined and protected in the Constitution, would mean that all persons have the right to be left alone by the state unless such intrusion is necessitated by a just, reasonable, and fair law. The implications of the judgment will go far beyond just the Aadhaar scheme and law. The law laid down by the Supreme Court on privacy could affect the course of development of the law governing reproductive rights, gay rights, beef bans, prohibition, among a host of other issues that the Indian state and society are grappling with.Q. On a particular day, three escaped convicts intruded into the house of James Hill and held him and members of his family hostage for nineteen hours, whereafter they released them unharmed. The incident became prime news in the local newspapers and the members of the press started swarming the Hills home. Unable to stop the siege of the press correspondents, the family shifted to a far-away place. Life magazine sent its men to the former home of Hill family where they reenacted the entire incident, and photographed it, showing inter alia that the members of the family were ill-treated by the intruders. When Life published the story, Hill brought a suit against Life magazine, for invasion of his privacy. In such a case, based on the authors reasoning, which will be the best option to safeguard the privacy of Hills family as well as the Right to Speech of the Press?a)Life magazine should be restrained from harassing and invading into the personal life of Hills family.b)Hills family should be giv en personal space from the piercing eyes of the media. Media has the right to press but it does not cover the right to invade the privacy of a family.c)Life magazine can only publish the re-enactment of the incident but should be extra cautious about the privacy of Hills family. Under the garb of freedom of speech it cannot reveal the identity of Hills family.d)Life magazine has the right to publish without any concern whether the publication intrudes into personal life or not.Correct answer is option 'C'. Can you explain this answer? theory, EduRev gives you an ample number of questions to practice The first thing to know when talking about privacy in India is that a majority of the population does not always understand what it means. It is at times confused with shame. Its also confused with the emotion we feel when we do something that does not meet our standards or our sense of what is right. Modern Indian languages do not seem to have an exact word which captures the meaning of privacy; theyre usually some variation of the words for isolation, intimacy or secrecy, once again hinting at a conceptual confusion.Privacy, however, is not only about hiding something or keeping it secret. It is, at its core, the right to be left alone. It doesnt mean that one is withdrawing from society. It is an expectation that society will not interfere in the choices made by the person so long as they do not cause harm to others. It means that ones right to eat whatever one chooses, the right to drink what one chooses, the right to love and marry whom one chooses, to wear what one chooses, among others, are rights which the state cannot interfere with. It is natural that the very concept of privacy seems incomprehensible. If you have grown up in a society where everything you do is dictated by someone else, and the cost of disobedience is high, to have the freedom to choose what you will in such important matters sounds like fantasy. But it is also a common misconception that the non-well-off in India do not know or care about privacy.Millions of men and women push back daily against the oppressive hold of their families and communities, and fight for the freedom to make their own choices. They may not have the right word for it, but they are creating space for themselves to exercise the right to privacy.It is in this context that one must understand the hearings in the Supreme Court on the right to privacy. Although the nine-judge bench has decided there is a fundamental right to privacy protected under the Constitution in the specific context of the Aadhaar case, privacy has many more dimensions than just data protection or surveillance by the state. A fundamental right to privacy, enshrined and protected in the Constitution, would mean that all persons have the right to be left alone by the state unless such intrusion is necessitated by a just, reasonable, and fair law. The implications of the judgment will go far beyond just the Aadhaar scheme and law. The law laid down by the Supreme Court on privacy could affect the course of development of the law governing reproductive rights, gay rights, beef bans, prohibition, among a host of other issues that the Indian state and society are grappling with.Q. On a particular day, three escaped convicts intruded into the house of James Hill and held him and members of his family hostage for nineteen hours, whereafter they released them unharmed. The incident became prime news in the local newspapers and the members of the press started swarming the Hills home. Unable to stop the siege of the press correspondents, the family shifted to a far-away place. Life magazine sent its men to the former home of Hill family where they reenacted the entire incident, and photographed it, showing inter alia that the members of the family were ill-treated by the intruders. When Life published the story, Hill brought a suit against Life magazine, for invasion of his privacy. In such a case, based on the authors reasoning, which will be the best option to safeguard the privacy of Hills family as well as the Right to Speech of the Press?a)Life magazine should be restrained from harassing and invading into the personal life of Hills family.b)Hills family should be giv en personal space from the piercing eyes of the media. Media has the right to press but it does not cover the right to invade the privacy of a family.c)Life magazine can only publish the re-enactment of the incident but should be extra cautious about the privacy of Hills family. Under the garb of freedom of speech it cannot reveal the identity of Hills family.d)Life magazine has the right to publish without any concern whether the publication intrudes into personal life or not.Correct answer is option 'C'. Can you explain this answer? tests, examples and also practice Class 12 tests.

Explore Courses for Class 12 exam