{"id":246272,"date":"2021-03-31T09:00:14","date_gmt":"2021-03-31T03:30:14","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/?p=246272"},"modified":"2021-04-16T16:27:01","modified_gmt":"2021-04-16T10:57:01","slug":"privacy-2","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2021\/03\/31\/privacy-2\/","title":{"rendered":"\u201cDid RICA do enough?\u201d- South Africa\u2019s top Court highlights inadequate privacy safeguards of RICA; declares it unconstitutional"},"content":{"rendered":"<p style=\"text-align: justify;\"><strong>Constitutional Court of South Africa: <\/strong>In a significant judgment delivered last month, the South African Apex Court, with a ratio of 8:2, declared the <strong><em>Regulation of Interception of Communications and Provision of Communication-Related Information Act<\/em><\/strong> (hereinafter <strong>RICA<\/strong>) to be unconstitutional, due to lack of privacy safeguards. The Court also held that that collection and monitoring of individuals\u2019 communications under RICA contravened Section 14 of the Constitution of the Republic of South Africa. Having declared RICA unconstitutional, the Court limited the retrospectivity of its declaration of invalidity and suspended its declaration of invalidity for three years in order to allow Parliament adequate time to proceed with its investigations and develop suitable remedial legislation.<\/p>\n<h3 style=\"text-align: justify;\"><span style=\"color: #0000ff;\"><strong>Background<\/strong><\/span><\/h3>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\"><strong><em>\u00a0<\/em><\/strong><strong><em>The<\/em> <\/strong><strong><em>Regulation of Interception of Communications and Provision of Communication-Related Information Act<\/em><\/strong> was passed in order to regulate the interception of communications and associated processes, such as, applications for and authorisation of interception of communications. RICA was enacted to control the interception of both direct and indirect communications, which are defined broadly to include oral conversations, email and mobile phone communications (including data, text and visual images) that are transmitted through a postal service or telecommunication system<\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\">Some of the key provisions of RICA that were focused on by the Constitutional Court were\u2013<\/p>\n<ul style=\"text-align: justify;\">\n<li>Section 2- prohibits all forms of interception and monitoring of communications, unless they take place under one of the recognised exceptions under this provision.<\/li>\n<li>Sections 16 to 18 and 20 to 23- these provisions direct that without a \u201cdesignated Judge\u201d RICA would be substantially inoperable. With the exception of only one type, at the centre of all surveillance directions issued under RICA is a designated Judge; she or he must authorise all directions that fall within the purview of functions of a designated Judge. Surveillance under sections 16 to 18 and 20 to 23 covers almost the entire spectrum of State surveillance.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\"><strong>AmaBhungane Centre for Investigative Journalism<\/strong> <strong>NPC<\/strong> and its managing partner, Stephen Patrick Sole (also an investigative journalist who was under State- surveillance), had approached the High Court of South Africa (Gauteng Division, Pretoria), challenging the constitutionality of RICA, wherein Mr. Sole recapitulated his first hand experience with RICA. In 2008 he suspected that his communications were being monitored and intercepted. In 2009 he took steps to obtain full disclosure of the details relating to the monitoring and interception of his communications from the Office of the Inspector-General of Intelligence. The efforts proved to be fruitless because the Inspector-General had found the National Intelligence Agency (NIA) and the crime intelligence division of the police not guilty of any wrongdoing. It was stated that RICA prohibits disclosure of information relating to surveillance; therefore Mr Sole could not be furnished with the information. Stephen Sole was thus left in the dark as to whether his communications had in fact been intercepted and, if so, what the basis for interception was.<\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\"><strong>The High Court <\/strong>upon perusal of the facts and the relevant provisions, declared RICA to be unconstitutional based on some of the following grounds (these grounds also formed the core issues which were then addressed by the Constitutional Court)-<\/p>\n<ul style=\"text-align: justify;\">\n<li>RICA makes no provision for a subject of surveillance to be notified that he or she has been subjected to surveillance.<\/li>\n<li>RICA permits a member of the Executive unfettered discretion to appoint and renew the term of the designated Judge (the functionary responsible for issuing directions for the interception of private communications), and thus fails to ensure the independence of the designated Judge.<\/li>\n<li>RICA lacks any form of adversarial process or other mechanism to ensure that the intended subject of surveillance is protected in the ex parte application process.<\/li>\n<li>RICA lacks adequate safeguards for examining, copying, sharing, sorting through, using, destroying and\/or storing the surveillance data (management of information issue); and fails to provide any special circumstances where the subject of surveillance is a journalist or practising lawyer.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\">However, the declaration of invalidity was suspended for two years to allow Parliament to cure the defects. Interim relief, in the form of reading-in, was granted in respect of the notification issue <strong><em>(i)<\/em>,<\/strong> the independence issue <strong><em>(ii)<\/em><\/strong> and the practising lawyers and journalists issue <strong><em>(iv).<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n<h3 style=\"text-align: justify;\"><span style=\"color: #0000ff;\"><strong>Observations<\/strong><\/span><\/h3>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\"><strong>The Majority <\/strong>judgment was authored by <strong>Madlanga J<\/strong>., (with Khampepe J, Majiedt J, Mathopo AJ, Mhlantla J, Theron J, Tshiqi J and Victor AJ concurring). The Majority observed that that interception and surveillance of an individual\u2019s communications under RICA provisions are highly invasive of privacy, and thus infringes Section 14 of the Constitution. Acknowledging the <strong>constitutional importance of privacy<\/strong>, the Bench noted that Right to Privacy is tied to dignity. Analyzing impugned legislation in the backdrop of Section 36(1) of the Constitution, the Court observed that even though one of the important purposes of State surveillance is to investigate and combat serious crime, guarantee national security, maintain public order, thereby ensuring the safety of the Republic and its people, however in light of the intrusive nature of the limitation, the Court must question that whether RICA is doing enough to reduce the risk of unnecessary intrusions? In other words, are there safeguards that acceptably minimise the trampling of the privacy right, thereby meeting the standards of reasonableness and justifiability?<\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\">On the notification issue <strong><em>(i)<\/em><\/strong>, the Majority held that such a blanket prohibition facilitates the abuse of interception directions, which are applied for, granted and implemented in complete secrecy. The fact that the subject never knows whether they are under observation and thus there is no opportunity to seek legal redress for the violation of her or his right to privacy. This renders the rights guaranteed the Constitution to approach a court to seek appropriate relief for the infringement of the right to privacy, as illusory and, promotes impunity.<\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\">Dealing with the independence issue <strong><em>(ii)<\/em><\/strong>, the Court observed that that the open-ended discretion in respect of appointments and their renewal could raise a reasonable apprehension that the independence of the Designated Judge may be undermined by external interference by the Executive. As a result, RICA does not allow the Designated Judge an adequate level of structural, operational or perceived independence. RICA was therefore declared unconstitutional to the extent that it fails to ensure adequate safeguards for an independent judicial authorisation of interception.<\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\">Dealing with the issue of inadequate safeguards <strong><em>(iv)<\/em><\/strong>, the Court considered the applicant\u2019s concerns revolving around the lack of regulation as to how intercepted information is handled, stored and eventually destroyed and how this deficiency exposes subjects of interceptions to even more aggravated intrusions into their privacy. The Court noted that RICA provisions do not prescribe the relevant procedures, and that they allow the Director of the Office for Interception Centres an unacceptable unrestrained discretion to regulate the management of information. Thus RICA was declared unconstitutional to the extent that it fails adequately to prescribe procedures to ensure that data obtained pursuant to the interception of communications is managed lawfully and not used or interfered with unlawfully.<\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\">Regarding the lawyers and journalists issue (<strong><em>also iv<\/em><\/strong>), the Majority acknowledged that the confidentiality of journalists\u2019 sources is protected by the rights to freedom of expression and the media. The Court also acknowledged that legal professional privilege is an essential part of the rights to a fair trial and fair hearing. These rights weigh in favour of special consideration being given to the importance of the confidentiality of lawyer-client communications and journalists\u2019 sources, in order to minimise the risk of infringement of this confidentiality. RICA\u2019s failure to provide such special circumstances makes it violative of the Constitution.<\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\"><strong>The Dissenting <\/strong>opinion penned by <strong>Jafta J.,<\/strong> (with Mogoeng CJ., concurring) noted that that RICA does not empowers the Minister of Justice to designate a judge for the purposes of determining applications for authorisation to intercept private communications and also to perform other functions. It was held that the definition in Section 1 of RICA does not include a provision that the Minister has the power to designate but merely defines the meaning of the term \u201cdesignated judge\u201d. Consequently, it was held that the suspension of the declaration of invalidity proposed as a remedy is inappropriate as it will not cure the problem of the lack of power to designate. This kind of problem can only be remedied by Parliament granting the Minister the relevant power.[AmaBhungane Centre for Investigative Journalism NPC v. Minister of Justice and Correctional Services, <a href=\"http:\/\/www.scconline.com\/DocumentLink\/g1gLj9Nc\"><b>2021 SCC OnLine CCSA 1<\/b><\/a>, decided on 04-02-2021]<\/p>\n<hr \/>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\"><span style=\"color: #008000;\">Sucheta Sarkar, Editorial Assistant has reported this brief.<\/span><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Constitutional Court of South Africa: In a significant judgment delivered last month, the South African Apex Court, with a ratio of 8:2, <\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":67011,"featured_media":167554,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[3,12],"tags":[33921,29785,11171,27474],"class_list":["post-246272","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-casebriefs","category-foreigncourts","tag-communications","tag-law","tag-privacy","tag-surveillance"],"yoast_head":"<!-- This site is optimized with the Yoast SEO Premium plugin v26.4 (Yoast SEO v26.4) - https:\/\/yoast.com\/wordpress\/plugins\/seo\/ -->\n<title>\u201cDid RICA do enough?\u201d- South Africa\u2019s top Court highlights inadequate privacy safeguards of RICA; declares it unconstitutional | SCC Times<\/title>\n<meta name=\"description\" content=\"Privacy\" \/>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2021\/03\/31\/privacy-2\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"\u201cDid RICA do enough?\u201d- South Africa\u2019s top Court highlights inadequate privacy safeguards of RICA; declares it unconstitutional\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:description\" content=\"Privacy\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2021\/03\/31\/privacy-2\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"SCC Times\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/scc.online\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2021-03-31T03:30:14+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2021-04-16T10:57:01+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/11\/Constitutional-Court-of-South-Africa.jpg\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"1330\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"887\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Editor\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Editor\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"7 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\/\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2021\/03\/31\/privacy-2\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2021\/03\/31\/privacy-2\/\",\"name\":\"\u201cDid RICA do enough?\u201d- South Africa\u2019s top Court highlights inadequate privacy safeguards of RICA; declares it unconstitutional | SCC Times\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website\"},\"primaryImageOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2021\/03\/31\/privacy-2\/#primaryimage\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2021\/03\/31\/privacy-2\/#primaryimage\"},\"thumbnailUrl\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/11\/Constitutional-Court-of-South-Africa.jpg\",\"datePublished\":\"2021-03-31T03:30:14+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2021-04-16T10:57:01+00:00\",\"author\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/84e42bab48238baf12c7e33b3d9761fe\"},\"description\":\"Privacy\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2021\/03\/31\/privacy-2\/#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2021\/03\/31\/privacy-2\/\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2021\/03\/31\/privacy-2\/#primaryimage\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/11\/Constitutional-Court-of-South-Africa.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/11\/Constitutional-Court-of-South-Africa.jpg\",\"width\":1330,\"height\":887,\"caption\":\"Constitutional-Court-of-South-Africa\"},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2021\/03\/31\/privacy-2\/#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"\u201cDid RICA do enough?\u201d- South Africa\u2019s top Court highlights inadequate privacy safeguards of RICA; declares it unconstitutional\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/\",\"name\":\"SCC Times\",\"description\":\"Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/84e42bab48238baf12c7e33b3d9761fe\",\"name\":\"Editor\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/34e366be721c41333586de05faa13743195f5b142dcd7a015c6fabd2389521d0?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/34e366be721c41333586de05faa13743195f5b142dcd7a015c6fabd2389521d0?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Editor\"},\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/author\/editor_4\/\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO Premium plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"\u201cDid RICA do enough?\u201d- South Africa\u2019s top Court highlights inadequate privacy safeguards of RICA; declares it unconstitutional | SCC Times","description":"Privacy","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2021\/03\/31\/privacy-2\/","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"\u201cDid RICA do enough?\u201d- South Africa\u2019s top Court highlights inadequate privacy safeguards of RICA; declares it unconstitutional","og_description":"Privacy","og_url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2021\/03\/31\/privacy-2\/","og_site_name":"SCC Times","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/scc.online\/","article_published_time":"2021-03-31T03:30:14+00:00","article_modified_time":"2021-04-16T10:57:01+00:00","og_image":[{"width":1330,"height":887,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/11\/Constitutional-Court-of-South-Africa.jpg","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Editor","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Editor","Est. reading time":"7 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2021\/03\/31\/privacy-2\/","url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2021\/03\/31\/privacy-2\/","name":"\u201cDid RICA do enough?\u201d- South Africa\u2019s top Court highlights inadequate privacy safeguards of RICA; declares it unconstitutional | SCC Times","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website"},"primaryImageOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2021\/03\/31\/privacy-2\/#primaryimage"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2021\/03\/31\/privacy-2\/#primaryimage"},"thumbnailUrl":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/11\/Constitutional-Court-of-South-Africa.jpg","datePublished":"2021-03-31T03:30:14+00:00","dateModified":"2021-04-16T10:57:01+00:00","author":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/84e42bab48238baf12c7e33b3d9761fe"},"description":"Privacy","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2021\/03\/31\/privacy-2\/#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2021\/03\/31\/privacy-2\/"]}]},{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2021\/03\/31\/privacy-2\/#primaryimage","url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/11\/Constitutional-Court-of-South-Africa.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/11\/Constitutional-Court-of-South-Africa.jpg","width":1330,"height":887,"caption":"Constitutional-Court-of-South-Africa"},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2021\/03\/31\/privacy-2\/#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"\u201cDid RICA do enough?\u201d- South Africa\u2019s top Court highlights inadequate privacy safeguards of RICA; declares it unconstitutional"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/","name":"SCC Times","description":"Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/84e42bab48238baf12c7e33b3d9761fe","name":"Editor","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/34e366be721c41333586de05faa13743195f5b142dcd7a015c6fabd2389521d0?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/34e366be721c41333586de05faa13743195f5b142dcd7a015c6fabd2389521d0?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Editor"},"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/author\/editor_4\/"}]}},"jetpack_featured_media_url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/11\/Constitutional-Court-of-South-Africa.jpg","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[{"id":202031,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2018\/09\/20\/private-use-of-cannabis-declared-as-matter-of-right-to-privacy-under-section-14-of-the-constitution-of-republic-of-south-africa\/","url_meta":{"origin":246272,"position":0},"title":"Private use of cannabis declared as matter of right to privacy under Section 14 of the Constitution of Republic of South Africa","author":"Bhumika Indulia","date":"September 20, 2018","format":false,"excerpt":"Constitutional Court of South Africa: A 10-Judge Bench comprising of Zondo, ACJ., Cameron, Froneman, Jafta, Madlanga, Mhlantla, Theron, JJ., Kathree-Setiloane, Kollapen, Zondi, AJ., unanimously declared private use of cannabis a matter of privacy and thereby appeal was dismissed. \u00a0The facts of the case are that High Court gave an order\u2026","rel":"","context":"In &quot;Case Briefs&quot;","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"Constitutional-Court-of-South-Africa","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/11\/Constitutional-Court-of-South-Africa.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/11\/Constitutional-Court-of-South-Africa.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/11\/Constitutional-Court-of-South-Africa.jpg?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/11\/Constitutional-Court-of-South-Africa.jpg?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/11\/Constitutional-Court-of-South-Africa.jpg?resize=1050%2C600&ssl=1 3x"},"classes":[]},{"id":211039,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2020\/01\/09\/sc-of-canada-articles-infringing-right-to-vote-of-temporary-citizens-unconstitutional\/","url_meta":{"origin":246272,"position":1},"title":"SC of Canada | Provisions infringing \u201cRight to Vote\u201d of temporary citizens unconstitutional","author":"Bhumika Indulia","date":"January 9, 2020","format":false,"excerpt":"Supreme Court of Canada: The appeal was before Wagner C.J. and Moldaver, Karakatsanis, Gascon, C\u00f4t\u00e9, Brown and Rowe JJ. The combined effect of Sections 11(d), 222 and other related provisions of the Canada Elections Act is to deny Canadian citizens who have resided abroad for five years or more, the\u2026","rel":"","context":"In &quot;Case Briefs&quot;","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"Canada SC","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/01\/supreme_court_of_canada.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/01\/supreme_court_of_canada.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/01\/supreme_court_of_canada.jpg?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/01\/supreme_court_of_canada.jpg?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/01\/supreme_court_of_canada.jpg?resize=1050%2C600&ssl=1 3x"},"classes":[]},{"id":233453,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2020\/08\/06\/constitutional-court-of-south-africa-declines-confirming-high-court-orders-invalidating-citizenship-amendment-act-2010\/","url_meta":{"origin":246272,"position":2},"title":"Constitutional Court of South Africa declines confirming High Court orders invalidating Citizenship Amendment Act, 2010","author":"Editor","date":"August 6, 2020","format":false,"excerpt":"Constitutional Court of South Africa: 9-Judge Bench of the Constitutional Court unanimously decided upon the constitutional validity of Section 2(1) of the amended South African Citizenship Amendment Act, 2010. The Court did not uphold the order passed by the High Court of South Africa, Gauteng Division, Pretoria, which declared Section\u2026","rel":"","context":"In &quot;Case Briefs&quot;","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"Constitutional-Court-of-South-Africa","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/11\/Constitutional-Court-of-South-Africa.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/11\/Constitutional-Court-of-South-Africa.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/11\/Constitutional-Court-of-South-Africa.jpg?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/11\/Constitutional-Court-of-South-Africa.jpg?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/11\/Constitutional-Court-of-South-Africa.jpg?resize=1050%2C600&ssl=1 3x"},"classes":[]},{"id":256590,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2021\/11\/01\/differentiating-between-married-and-unmarried-fathers-in-relation-to-conferring-a-surname-on-a-child-amounts-to-unjustified-and-unfair-discrimination-on-the-grounds-of-marital-status-sex-and-gender\/","url_meta":{"origin":246272,"position":3},"title":"Differentiating between married and unmarried fathers in relation to conferring a surname on a child, amounts to unjustified and unfair discrimination on the grounds of marital status, sex and gender","author":"Editor","date":"November 1, 2021","format":false,"excerpt":"Constitutional Court of South Africa: While deciding the constitutional validity of S. 10 of the Births and Deaths Registration Act of 1992, the bench of the Court comprising of Mogoeng CJ, Jafta J, Khampepe J, Madlanga J, Majiedt J, Mathopo AJ, Mhlantla J, Theron J, Tshiqi J and Victor AJ.,\u2026","rel":"","context":"In &quot;Case Briefs&quot;","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"Constitutional-Court-of-South-Africa","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/11\/Constitutional-Court-of-South-Africa.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/11\/Constitutional-Court-of-South-Africa.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/11\/Constitutional-Court-of-South-Africa.jpg?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/11\/Constitutional-Court-of-South-Africa.jpg?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/11\/Constitutional-Court-of-South-Africa.jpg?resize=1050%2C600&ssl=1 3x"},"classes":[]},{"id":261392,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2022\/02\/09\/law-passed-by-legislature-is-good-law-till-it-is-declared-unconstitutional-by-a-court\/","url_meta":{"origin":246272,"position":4},"title":"Law passed by legislature is good law till it is declared unconstitutional by a Court: Supreme Court","author":"Bhumika Indulia","date":"February 9, 2022","format":false,"excerpt":"Supreme Court: Stating that declaration by a Court that a statute is unconstitutional obliterates that statute entirely as though it had never been passed, the Bench of L. Nageswara Rao, B.R. Gavai and B.V. Nagarathna, JJ., added that the consequences of the declaration of unconstitutionality of a statute have to\u2026","rel":"","context":"In &quot;Case Briefs&quot;","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/02\/SC.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/02\/SC.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/02\/SC.jpg?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/02\/SC.jpg?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/02\/SC.jpg?resize=1050%2C600&ssl=1 3x"},"classes":[]},{"id":6179,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2015\/03\/24\/section-66a-of-the-information-technology-act-2000-declared-unconstitutional-2\/","url_meta":{"origin":246272,"position":5},"title":"Section 66A of the Information Technology Act, 2000 declared unconstitutional","author":"Sucheta","date":"March 24, 2015","format":false,"excerpt":"Supreme Court: In a quintessential move by the Court, the bench of J. Chelameswar and R.F. Nariman, JJ struck down the Section 66A of the Information Technology Act, 2000 in its entirety for being violative of Article 19(1)(a) and not saved under Article 19(2) of the Constitution. Testing the validity\u2026","rel":"","context":"In &quot;Information Technology Laws&quot;","block_context":{"text":"Information Technology Laws","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/information-technology-laws\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2015\/10\/scc-blog_Page_9.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2015\/10\/scc-blog_Page_9.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2015\/10\/scc-blog_Page_9.jpg?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2015\/10\/scc-blog_Page_9.jpg?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2015\/10\/scc-blog_Page_9.jpg?resize=1050%2C600&ssl=1 3x"},"classes":[]}],"amp_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/246272","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/67011"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=246272"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/246272\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/167554"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=246272"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=246272"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=246272"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}