A Guide to Litigating Identity Systems demonstrates an effective use of this argument to show an implication of the right to privacy. b) The majority of the Indian Supreme Court does not discuss biometric data collection as a physical search, but the court does express the importance of the physical aspect of privacy in understanding the right to privacy.60 Physical privacy of the person is conceived of as one of the three forms of privacy protected by the right to privacy. 61 Searches have jurisdictionally specific legal definitions, so although the Indian court does not engage in an analysis of biometric data collection as a search, that does not diminish the importance of the physical component of privacy. Rather, it means physical privacy is considered under a different legal framework – the right to privacy framework analysed in the Aadhaar judgment. c) Justice Sykes of the Jamaican Supreme Court suggests that the compulsory taking of biometric data is a violation of the right to privacy of the person because human beings have an inherent right to bodily integrity62 and because biometric data can reveal sensitive health information, such as an individual’s specific medical conditions.63 33. The mandatory collection of personal data as part of an identity system implicates the right to privacy because it interferes with the informational privacy of the individual. a) The dissenting opinion in the Aadhaar judgment references informational privacy specifically in its discussion of what it conceives as an unconstitutional violation of the right to privacy.64 The dissent describes 60 See Aadhaar Judgment, ¶ 83 at 164. 61 Aadhaar Judgment, ¶ 232 at 302. 62 Opinion of Justice Sykes, ¶ 247(A)(10). 63 Opinion of Justice Sykes, ¶ 55. 64 Aadhaar Judgment, ¶ 31 of dissent. 21