see no warrant for a conclusion (which is absolute) that their lordships held that there is no right of privacy under our Constitution. All that, in my opinion, their Lordships meant to say was that contents of the U.S. Fourth Amendment cannot be imported into our Constitution, while interpreting Article 20(3). That is the boundary of M.P. Singh’sratio.

The observation in regard to the absence of the right to privacy in our Constitution was strictly speaking, not necessary for the decision of the Court in M PSharmaand the observation itself is no more than a passing observation.