As was already mentioned, the equilibrium of rights and privileges between the self and the state is not an extensive battle field in the event of a conflict where either party can take or plan to take a tactical position in the anticipation of a strategic triumph, but a very delicate cord of the very sensitive causes and the very vulnerable reactions, a cord that is tied up on the top of two edging mountains forming a gorge, where an impending fracas can be catastrophic to either side and can end up in a mess where both the parties cease to exist.
Coming back to the contemporary episodes, the most interesting fact is that neither the US department of State nor the India based multinational corporate giant TATA don’t disagree with the factuality of the revelations, but they disagree with the legality of the revelations of these facts by the media to the public as an infringement of the right of their privacy as guaranteed by the constitutions of both the countries. This is where the definition of privacy as a right of individual attracts attention, as on to what extent this privacy can be presumed to be a right even when the interests of a third party, in these cases of the general public and that of the international community are dragged into.
This is what makes it striking in the case of TATA’s claim on privacy. Rattan Tata has all the rights to argue that he has all the rights for privacy, but if and only if those conversations in context in no way have an impact on the rights of others. Or in a different sense had the government taped his conversions just for the sake of corporate which hunting or to intervene in his private life, he could have definitely claimed the privilege of the law and he could have sued the executive and the media, and the judiciary would have totally been in his favor. But here, these conversations in context are part of a criminal conspiracy which in an ideal system, law is expected to take its own course, and naturally a billion people of India shall have the privilege to know how a scandal that has coasted the exchequer multi billion dollars proceeded.
Coming on to the wikileaks episode, the issue is further complicated by a lot of combinations and permutations of so many factors from individual rights to national security to diplomatic unease to international relations and so on. The United States behaves as if it wants to try Julian Assasnge, the founder of wikiLeaks under the US law, but he is neither a US citizen nor a current resident of the US and the process of a judicial trial requires that this man will have to be arrested in a county with which the US has an extradition treaty and that he will have to be handed over to the United States.
But ironically enough, this requires diplomatic involvements and it is the hypocrisy of the very US diplomacy that this man has exposed to the international community, and the countries which have already been embarrassed by these revelations may naturally have a second thought on how to handle Julian Assasnge in favor of the American government; most probably there may be another round of embarrassing conversations going on in the US department of State and between its missions abroad in parallel with the US diplomatic tactics, regarding the country which can possibly arrest him and extradite him to the United States.
Now let us assume hypothetically that Julian assenge is all set be tried under the US law. What will be and shall be jurisprudence applied here? Whose rights and privileges shall take natural precedence; that of Mr. Assenge as an individual or that of the United States as a State? The United States as any other nation state has every right in insisting that what the state considers to be confidential shall be confidential and any citizen or a resident of the United States can be prosecuted under the provisions of the Espionage Act, but given that Julian assenge is neither a US citizen nor a US resident the US Espionage Act shall not be applied to him and the prosecution of this man will be against all the principles of natural justice. Will the US government apply here the same principle, if Saudi Arabia or any other theocratic Islamic state wants a man or woman to be prosecuted on the grounds of immodesty or for that matter any crime in the view of Islam, be blasphemy, apostasy or adultery under the Sharia?