Public Interest vs. Right to Privacy

Propriety is fast depleting from public domain. What was once considered to be the key characteristic of a public figure has now touched the nadir. Hardly one can find a person in public life who is out and out honest in every dimension of trait calibration. After all they are little mortal and human. They have all those mundane aspirations that often transgress the idealistic fabric when they come across a situation more tempting than the laurels of idealism. And how can a human being become so indifferent to inherited animal instincts that today drive mankind towards unachievable goals through sheer determination? The determination to surpass all established dogmas, doctrines, and demarcations. But along with that proliferates another human trait – hypocrisy – which emboldens human beings to do the unthinkable and still engage in self aggrandizement. Perhaps, that's the most sordid aspect of human evolution.

Well, the world is changing, so is the human perception. In the advent of ubiquitous social media and 24x7 news channels, the jury is out in the open. Any act of corruption, malpractice, wrongdoing, or even unethical private affair is not more privy to the public figure, rather it's analyzed threadbare, disseminated bit by bit, debated unabashed, deliberated to the last grain, and finally bounced back to public domain for a savory relish. For that act becomes a subject of public interest.

The recent CD controversy in which Abhishek Manu Singhvi,a senior Congress leader and a member of Rajya Shabha, is allegedly shown to be indulged in a sexual act in his chamber with a senior advocate and aspirant of a higher judicial position, the arguments supporting right to privacy fall flat on the face of a larger public interest. What's more deplorable here that Singhvi is not only a senior MP, but he is also chairman of a Parliamentary committee on law and justice, and he undoubtedly has the capacity to influence the selection process of the position for which the lady is a contender. So this sexual favor can be treated quid pro quo, given the alleged audio content in the CD proved to be authentic. In that case, the arguments supporting the privacy of a person crumble like a house of cards.

However, this alleged sexual act could have been an absolutely private affair if the lady in the CD would not have any aspiration for a hugely respectable public position, and moreover Singhvi hadn't been in an influential position in the system. Rather not being tempted into character assassination of Singhvi, the subject must be investigated in the light of public interest. Both Singhvi and lady are equally responsible for violating the due diligence selection procedure of a judge, which is largely dependent on meritocracy, intellectual calibre, and other fundamental human traits such as honesty and integrity.

The buck doesn't stop at the resignation of Singhvi from all public positions, rather the lady must also be investigated, and if proven guilty of influencing the selection process through sexual favor must be barred from holding any public position in future. Indeed, that's a matter of judicial enquiry; however, the fact remains that the people who give lecture to public on right to privacy must not tread in the public domain and complaint about their privacy being breached, rather they should shun all public positions and do whatever they want to do in their private life. That could be more sensible and safe charting. Anyway, who does care about those people who don't have any stake in public interest?