On the other hand, the Aadhaar program (which is the context the above argument was made for) can be viewed as impinging on the fundamental "Right to Constitutional Remedies" as its governing body the UIDAI is set up in such a way that the UIDAI itself has sole authority on whether or not a grievance needs the intervention of the established judicial system[1].
[0]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fundamental_Rights,_Directive_...
[1]http://www.firstpost.com/tech/news-analysis/the-uidai-has-in...
This is not true. Food, water, education and shelter are fundamental rights under Article 21.
Although article 21 itself doesn't say anything about food, shelter etc, the courts have established precedent by including those in their interpretation of article 21 and the directive principles in the past. However, I'm not sure there has been a ruling specifically affirming those rights as being fundamental, and the text of the constituion definitely does not mention them as fundamental rights. The full text of Article 21 is simply: "No person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty except according to procedure established by law."
Since the right to education is specifically included under Article 21(A), it is a fundamental right.
In the specific case of Aadhaar and UIDAI as they currently exist, I think the "Right to Privacy" which has now been affirmed, and the "Right to Constitutional Remedies" (Article 32) should take precedence.
Right to clothing isn't mentioned anywhere as far as I can tell.
Yes, there are rulings specifically affirming food, water etc. as fundamental rights.
The implication seems to be that it's the collection of personal information in excess of that needed to perform the function appropriately - why do you need iris scans and fingerprints, when a name and a photo would arguably be sufficient?
Your argument and many similar ones are now boring and have been countered enough times already.
Not sure if you are aware, but the context around this specific discussion in India is around the use of Aadhar for targeted govt. assistance. The govt. position is pretty much that we need Aadhar for any subsidy and the courts are arguing against it.
Aadhaar as of now is a direct coercion to part with biometrics and has inadequate features to protect against identity theft. Not having aadhaar means not getting driving license, passport, marriage license etc.
> He said that in developing countries, something as amorphous as privacy could not be a fundamental right, that other fundamental rights such as food, clothing, shelter etc. override the right to privacy.
It's a question which has alway bothered me. What happens when two fundamental rights clash with each other?