Is there a trade-off between life and privacy amid a pandemic?

As we grapple with a global pandemic, governments across the world increasingly rely on information technology to advance their fight against the virus. From contact tracing to quarantining selfies, smartphone applications have started determining the course of public health actions. Naturally, debates on the use (and misuse) of surveillance data have re-emerged in the public sphere. Unlike normal times, where the concerns of data privacy conflict with individual convenience (of using a credit card or Facebook), times of crisis bring pressing issues like national security to the fore. The present controversies relating to the collection and processing of health data to fight coronavirus takes this issue to a different level. It represents a tension between two fundamental rights: the right to life and right to privacy.

Though we may engage in political debates on this conundrum, a trade-off between the two is pointless in terms of the law. As the Supreme Court of India held in the Puttaswamy verdict, the right to privacy is a fundamental right enshrined under Art 21 of the Constitution which guarantees the right to life and personal liberty. Further, in the absence of a defined hierarchy among the two, political arguments championing the protection of life at the expense of individual privacy is problematic. Though governments hold the considerable public authority to keep certain rights (such as freedom of movement) under control during an emergency, keeping a basic human right such as privacy at bay is questionable. The real danger is the ‘emergency’ track record of our institutions of last resort. Yes, it is challenging to rely on a deferential judiciary to protect a seemingly