Justice K.S. Puttaswamy (Retd) And Anr. Vs Union of India and Ors. (2017) 10 SCC 1 Air 2017 SC 4161

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA 

Constituted by a 9-judge constitutional bench – 

1. Justice Jagdish Singh Khehar (CJI),  
2. Justice Jasti Chelameswar,  
3. Justice D Y Chandrachud,  
4. Justice Rohinton Nariman,  
5. Justice R K Agarwal,  
6. Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul,  
7. Justice Abdul Nazeer,  
8. Justice SA Bobde,  
9. Justice Abhay Manohar Sapre. 

JUDGEMENT DELIVERED on August 24th, 2017. 

PARTIES TO THE CASE 

• PETITIONER(S) – Justice K.S. Puttaswamy (Retd.)1, Centre for Civil Society (CCS), S.G.  Vombatkere and others. 
• ADVOCATES – Adv. Shyam Divan, Adv. Kapil Sibal, Adv. Gopal Subramanium, Adv. K.V.  Vishwanathan, Adv. P. Chidambaram, Adv. Arvind Datar, Adv. Meenakshi Arora. • RESPONDENT(S) – Union of India, States of India 
• ADVOCATES – K.K. Venugopal2(Attorney General for India), Adv. Rakesh Dwivedi, Adv.  Tushar Mehta. 
• Puttaswamy was born in 1926. He became a senior government advocate and a judge of the Karnataka High Court in 1977.  • In 2012, Justice Puttaswamy challenged the Constitutional validity of the Aadhaar scheme, which was introduced by the Union  government in 2009.  
• Justice KS Puttaswamy (Retd) vs Union of India is widely cited as a landmark document that defines the citizen’s right to privacy in  India. 

CASE BACKGROUND 

• Aadhaar is a 12-digit unique identity number issued by the UIDAI3to Indian residents in 2009, which was under the Digital India initiative. This links an individual’s biometric and demographic  information to create a unified identity system used for government, financial services, and digital  authentication. 
• Aadhaar captures both biometric (fingerprints, iris scans, facial photographs) and demographic  data (name, age, gender, address). 
• The Aadhaar project was controversial since its inception. Concerns arose regarding privacy,  security, large-scale collection of biometrics, and a lack of a legal framework due to its poor  execution. 

FACTS OF THE CASE 

(i) The issue of whether privacy is a fundamental right was raised in 2015, concerning the  constitutionality of the Aadhaar system.  

(ii) The Attorney General claimed that Part III of the Constitution did not protect this fundamental  right in the M.P. Sharma and Kharak Singh cases, hence right to privacy was not guaranteed  by the Constitution. 

(iii) The 2015 judgement, the Supreme Court observed that the collection of biometric data and  other personal details by the government was questioned as it violates the right to privacy. (iv) Consequently, the matter was referred to a five-judge bench. 

(v) On 18 July 2017, the said Constitution Bench presided over by the learned Chief Justice  considered it appropriate that the issue be resolved by a Bench of nine judges. 

ISSUES 

(i) Was the decision in M.P. Sharma v Satish Chandra4, correct in law? 

(ii) Was the decision in Kharak Singh v State of Uttar Pradesh5correct in law? 

(iii)Is the right to privacy an intrinsic part of Article 216, i.e., right to life and personal liberty, guaranteed by Part III of the Constitution? 

ARGUMENTS  

PETITIONER 

• The Petitioners contended that the A.K. Gopalan case7 was held not to be good law by an eleven judge Bench in Rustom Cavasji Cooper vs. Union of India (1970) 1 SCC 248. Hence, the  decisions of the M.P. Sharma case and Kharak Singh case were not valid.  
• The Petitioners argued for a multi-dimensional model of privacy as a fundamental right. • Petitioners argued that the Constitution should be read in line with the Preamble, keeping in mind  that privacy was a natural right and an international human right. 

RESPONDENT  

• Respondents argued that as the judgments in the cases of M.P. Sharma, as well as the case  of Kharak Singh, were pronounced by an eight-judge and a six-judge Bench, respectively, they  would be binding over the judgments of smaller benches and the Constitution did not specifically  protect the right to privacy.  
• The Respondents further argued that the makers of the Constitution had no intention to make the  right to privacy a fundamental right, as it is an ambiguous concept and cannot be given protection. 

JUDGEMENT  

The court held that 8– 

(i) The decision in M P Sharma9, which holds that the right to privacy is not protected by the  Constitution, stands overruled;  

(ii) The decision in Kharak Singh10 to the extent that it holds that the right to privacy is not  protected by the Constitution, stands overruled;  

(iii) The right to privacy is protected as an intrinsic part of the right to life and personal liberty  under Article 21 and as a part of the freedoms guaranteed by Part III11 of the Constitution.

• The court unanimously held that privacy is an integral part of Article 21. Six opinions were shared by the judges. 
• The Bench established that privacy was “not an elitist construct”. It rejected the argument of the  Attorney General that the right to privacy must be forsaken in the interest of welfare entitlements  provided by the state. 
• The judgment gave an overview of the standard of judicial review that must be applied in cases of  intrusion by the State in the privacy of an individual. It held that the right to privacy may be  restricted where such an invasion meets the three-fold requirement of: 

(i) legality, which postulates the existence of law; 

(ii) need, defined in terms of a legitimate state aim; and 

(iii)proportionality, which ensures a rational nexus between the objects and the means adopted to  achieve them. 

• It further discussed the negative and positive aspects of the right to privacy, where the State was obligated to take necessary measures to protect the privacy of an individual. 
• The judgment held informational privacy to be a part of the right to privacy. The Court, while  noting the need for a data protection law, left it in the domain of Parliament to legislate (which  gave rise to the Digital Personal Data Protection Act, 2023). 

RATIO DECIDENDI 

1. In the M.P. Sharma case and Kharak Singh, courts recognised the right to privacy as an integral  part of human rights and overruled their previous judgments. 
2. The constitutional bench of 9 judges unanimously ruled that the right to privacy is an inseparable  part of all human beings and their personality as a whole. The Court observed that the right to  privacy is primarily derived from Article 21.  
3. The judges held that12 “Privacy is an inherent right. It is thus not given, but already exists. It is  about respecting an individual, and it is undesirable to ignore a person’s wishes without a  compelling reason to do so.”  
4. Further, the Court described discrimination based on sexual orientation as “deeply offensive to  dignity and self-worth”. It stated that the right to privacy was an expression of individual  autonomy, dignity, and identity. 

CONCLUSION  

• Though this landmark case gave a new right to its citizens, it’s not absolute and may be limited by  a procedure established by law. 
• The Aadhar Act was held constitutionally valid after striking down a few provisions, but it was  mandatory for all who wished for government subsidies and benefits. 
• The right to privacy is an integral part of human liberty, both as it is specifically enumerated  across Part III and under Article 21. This right, especially in the digital age, extends to control  over personal data and freedom from surveillance, protecting individuals’ autonomy. 

Reference(S):

1JUSTICE K.S. PUTTASWAMY (Retd.) – 

2 K.K. VENUGOPAL is a Senior Advocate of the Supreme Court of India. He has also held the Offices of the President of the Supreme Court  Bar Association in the years 1990-91, 1994-95, and 1999-2000.

3 Unique Identification Authority of India 

4 M.P. Sharma v Satish Chandra (1954) 1 SCR 1077 

5 Kharak Singh vs The State Of U. P. & Others, 1963 AIR 1295 

6 Right to life and personal liberty

7 A.K. Gopalan vs The State of Madras 1950 AIR 27, 1950 SCR 88 

8 Writ petition (civil) no 494 of 2012, order of the court, page 546, para 4. 

https://www.scobserver.in/wp-content/uploads/2021/10/right_to_privacy__puttaswamy_judgment_1.pdf 

9 M.P. Sharma v Satish Chandra (1954) 1 SCR 1077 

10 Kharak Singh vs The State of U. P. & Others, 1963 AIR 1295 

11 Fundamental rights

12 Writ Petition (Civil) No. 494 of 2012 & connected matters, page 510 para 10 https://www.scobserver.in/wp-content/uploads/2021/10/Right_to_Privacy__Puttaswamy_Judgment_1.pdf