In Re: Snoopgate

I must admit I almost lost equanimity and wanted to ….. the judges (whoever they are) who issued notice to the State on the plea of the father of the lady architect in reference Snoopgate. The news is that the father of the girl has approached the SC to restrain the State from conducting any enquiry in the Snoopgate to protect the privacy of the girl, who is now married. Though I can’t confirm, but I think the enquiry has been restrained till the next date which is 9th May, 2014. Now, after regaining my equanimity, here are my objections:
1. The father has no locus standi to petition the court as next friend of the married girl as she is free to move herself.
2. The petition is prima facie motivated because no such petition was filed when the Gujarat State set up the enquiry commission exposing the girl to a similar privacy infringement.
3. The allegation of infringement of privacy by being a subject of surveillance by the State on the request of the father tantamount to saying that the father is an accused of stalking and the Gujarat state is an abettor; definitely, the identity of the victim should be protected but not at the initiation by the father/stalker, who himself is an accused.
4. The SC has issued the notice to restrain inquiry on petition of a prospective accused without any allegations/averment of any prejudice being caused to the accused/father.
5. It is clear from the prima facie evidence available in the media that the surveillance was illegal, and the petition has been filed to protect the Gujarat State, an abettor.
6. The petition is in disguise an anticipatory bail application by the father admitting to initiation of surveillance by him. The father should have been immediately arrested and sent to jail on the the basis of the averments made in the petition, which was not done.
7. In case the petition has also been signed by the girl, then the girl is an accused herself by instigating the State to carry out illegal surveillance, and, in such a case, she obviously doesn’t deserve any protection of privacy.
8. Even if the father’s petition on behalf of the girl as a next friend is admitted, the girl by agreeing and acquiescing to the illegal surveillance by the State has already foregone her right to privacy, and the same relinquishment applies in the case of Central Government as well.

About the Author

Ankur Mutreja
Ankur Mutreja is an advocate-cum-writer, and his blogs are amongst his modes of expression. He has also authored six books: "Kerala Hugged"; "Light: Philosophy"; "Flare: Opinions"; "Sparks: Satire and Reviews"; "Writings @ Ankur Mutreja"; and "Nine Poems"; which can be downloaded free from the links on the top menu.

Be the first to comment on "In Re: Snoopgate"

Trolls Welcomed :-)

%d bloggers like this: