Justice K.S. Puttaswamy (Retd.) & Anr. v. Union of India & Ors. (2017),

Case Title & Citation

Justice K.S. Puttaswamy (Retd.) & Anr. v. Union of India & Ors., (2017) 10 SCC 1; Writ Petition (Civil) No. 494 of 2012. 

Court Name & Bench Composition

Supreme Court of India, Constitutional Bench (Nine Judges):

• Chief Justice J.S. Khehar
• Justice J. Chelameswar
• Justice S.A. Bobde
• Justice R.K. Agrawal
• Justice Rohinton Fali Nariman
• Justice Abhay Manohar Sapre
• Justice D.Y. Chandrachud
• Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul
• Justice S. Abdul Nazeer 

Date of Judgment

24 August 2017. 

Parties Involved

• Petitioners: Justice K.S. Puttaswamy (Retd.), former Judge, Karnataka High Court, and others.
• Respondents: Union of India and others. 

Facts of the Case

The petition was filed by Justice K.S. Puttaswamy (Retd.) challenging the constitutional validity of the Aadhaar scheme, which mandated biometric and demographic data collection from Indian citizens to enable access to welfare and other services. This case was pivotal in addressing whether the right to privacy, specifically regarding personal data, is a fundamental right under the Indian Constitution.

Existing precedents (M.P. Sharma v. Satish Chandra (1954) and Kharak Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh (1962)) had earlier held that privacy was not a constitutional right. This case called for revisiting those views in the context of contemporary constitutional values and technological advances.

Issues Raised

• Is the right to privacy a fundamental right within the meaning of the Constitution?
• Are previous decisions (M.P. Sharma, Kharak Singh) which denied such a right still valid?
• Does the Aadhaar scheme’s data collection infringe upon the right to privacy?. 

Arguments of the Parties

• Petitioners: Claimed privacy is an essential element of Article 21 (right to life and personal liberty), protected also under Articles 14 and 19. Argued that Aadhaar violated privacy by intrusive biometric collection and risk of surveillance. 
• Respondents: Contended that privacy is not a constitutionally enumerated right, citing earlier decisions as authority. 

Judgment & Decision

The Court unanimously held that the right to privacy is a fundamental right intrinsic to the right to life and liberty under Article 21, overruling the outdated precedents of M.P. Sharma and Kharak Singh. It underscored that privacy is essential for human dignity, autonomy, freedom of choice, and protection against unwarranted state intrusion.

The Court formulated a “triple test” to validate any restrictions on privacy rights:

• Legality: Restrictions must be enacted through clear, accessible laws.
• Legitimate Aim: They must serve a valid state interest such as security, public order, or welfare.
• Proportionality: The least intrusive means to the end must be chosen, balancing individual rights and state interests.

Ratio Decidendi

The Court articulated the following ratio decidendi:

• Privacy as an Inherent Fundamental Right: Privacy is not expressly stated but implied in the Constitution, flowing from and essential to Article 21 and associated with Articles 14 and 19. Privacy is foundational to human dignity and liberty, and its protection is vital for autonomy, personal choices, bodily integrity, and informational self-determination.[3][1][2]
• Overruling Past Precedents: M.P. Sharma and Kharak Singh were found inconsistent with contemporary constitutional interpretation. The bench clarified that constitutional rights evolve per the needs of a democratic society, and dignity-oriented rights must reflect that advancement. 

Triple Test for Limiting Privacy:

• • Legality: Authorized by law
  • Legitimate Aim: Necessary to serve a state purpose
  • Proportionality: Least intrusive means, strictly necessary. Any action affecting privacy must be justified in these terms. 

Information & Autonomy: Recognizing informational privacy, the Court stressed that citizens have the right to safeguard their data and that legislative safeguards are required in the digital era.

Balancing Welfare with Privacy: The judgment acknowledged legitimate goals in welfare delivery but asserted such schemes cannot override privacy without meeting strict constitutional standards.

Aadhaar and Data Protection Laws

This landmark right to privacy ruling had a decisive effect on the Aadhaar scheme:

• Constitutionality of Aadhaar Scrutinized: The Court mandated that Aadhaar’s data collection and usage comply strictly with privacy protections. Mandatory collection must have legal backing, pursue legitimate aims, and be proportionate.
• Limitations on Mandatory Linkage: The ruling paved the way for later decisions that restricted mandatory Aadhaar linkage with essential services, especially where it violated privacy rights.
• Data Protection and Security: Emphasis was placed on the need for robust safeguards to secure biometric and demographic data against misuse. Informed consent and limitations on data sharing became constitutional imperatives.
• Legislative Reforms Triggered: The ruling encouraged the government to draft data protection laws aligned with constitutional privacy mandates. Subsequent legislative efforts, including the Personal Data Protection Bill, drew heavily on this judgment’s principles.
• Informational Autonomy: The case affirmed that individuals have the right to control the collection, storage, and dissemination of their personal information, influencing the development of Indian data privacy rights jurisprudence.

Bench Opinions & Concurring Views

• Justice D.Y. Chandrachud: Delivered the lead decision, setting out the reasoning about the “triple test”, refuting earlier precedents, and detailing the scope of privacy.
• Chief Justice J.S. Khehar, Justices Chelameswar, Bobde, Nariman, Kaul, Sapre, Nazeer, Agrawal: All wrote concurring judgments, some separately, which agreed with the conclusion but added perspectives on digital rights, data protection, and international law considerations. Justice Kaul focused especially on informational privacy; Justice Nariman emphasized comparative constitutional jurisprudence. All judges affirmed privacy as inherent to dignity and constitutional liberty. 

Impact & Significance

• The case is a constitutional landmark, establishing privacy as a central, enforceable right in Indian law.
• It sets doctrinal standards for all future privacy claims and legislative developments regarding personal data and digital governance.
• The judgment provides the foundation for subsequent legislation and judicial rulings on privacy, autonomy, and surveillance.

Conclusion

The Puttaswamy judgment fundamentally transformed India’s constitutional law by affirming privacy as a fundamental right. It crucially shaped the governance of Aadhaar and provided the constitutional basis for emerging data protection law. Its principles continue to influence judicial scrutiny of laws and policies affecting personal data and privacy, deeply embedding constitutional values in India’s digital governance landscape.

Bibliography 

• Supreme Court of India: Justice K.S. Puttaswamy (Retd.) & Anr. v Union of India, (2017) 10 SCC 1. 
• Supreme Court Observer: Right to Privacy Case Files & Judgment Analysis.  
• WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO 494 OF 2012, K.S. Puttaswamy judgment, 24 August 2017. 

1. https://digiscr.sci.gov.in/admin/judgement_file/judgement_pdf/2018/volume 8/Part I/justice k. s. puttaswamy (retd.) & anr._union of india & ors._1698832759.pdf              
2. https://www.scobserver.in/wp-content/uploads/2021/10/1-266Right_to_Privacy__Puttaswamy_Judgment-Chandrachud.pdf              
3. https://cdnbbsr.s3waas.gov.in/s3ec0490f1f4972d133619a60c30f3559e/documents/aor_notice_circular/43.pdf