- In S.K. Pavithran vs. Laisy Santhosh and ors. the Kerala HC has reversed a single bench decision that held that establishing a toddy shop in a residential locality would be an infringement of the right to privacy. The bench had held that anything and everything that affects the peaceful residence of a person would infringe his right of privacy.
- Disagreeing with this, the Court held that if the fundamental rights enshrined in the Constitution were expanded to such a degree, then it would violate the fundamental right of livelihood of other people as anything which a person does to earn a living would, in some way, cause some amount of nuisance to other people. The interpretation which the Single Judge had given would give rise to a number of conflicts regarding what can and cannot be allowed to be done near residential areas.
- The Division Bench was hearing an appeal filed by a bunch of toddy shop owners who were aggrieved by the decision of the single bench. The decision of the single bench was taken following the report of the amicus curiae wherein he stated that toddy shops made the lives of residents miserable. Drunkards would pass lewd comments on passing girls and would engage in brawls which would disturb the peace in the vicinity.
- The Division Bench held that these above stated factors would amount to nuisance or breach of public peace, but would be an excess to call it as a violation of privacy. The Court further said that disruption of public peace and other concerns find remedy in the rules subject to which the licenses are granted and violation of the same would empower the authorities to revoke the license or relocate the shop to another place.
- Taking note of the judgement of the Hon’ble SC in K.S.Puttaswamy’s case, the Court held that the right of privacy will not extend beyond reasonable expectation and that it has to be exercised subject to the right of others to lead an orderly and peaceful life.
- Taking note of the fact that when the respondent’s bought their land, the toddy shop was already in existence, the Court said that there was no question of the infringement of the right to privacy of the respondents, as they always had a right to choose not to buy the land adjacent to the shop. Thus, a case of violation of privacy in Article 21 is not made out.
- Thus, the appeal was allowed and the judgment of the Single Bench was set aside.
"Loved reading this piece by Shweta?
Join LAWyersClubIndia's network for daily News Updates, Judgment Summaries, Articles, Forum Threads, Online Law Courses, and MUCH MORE!!"
Join LAWyersClubIndia's network for daily News Updates, Judgment Summaries, Articles, Forum Threads, Online Law Courses, and MUCH MORE!!"
