Justice K.S. Puttaswamy (Retd.) v. Union of India (2017)

Case Title and Citation

Justice K.S. Puttaswamy (Retd.) v. Union of India (2017)[1]

Citation: (2017) 10 SCC 1; AIR 2017 SC 4161

Court name and Bench

Court: Supreme Court of India

Bench: Nine-Judge Constitutional Bench

Date of Judgement

24 August 2017

Parties Involved

Petitioner:

The writ petition was filed in the interests of the people because the constitutional validity of the Aadhaar scheme was called into question and the petition was filed by justice K.S. Puttaswamy (Retd.) who was a former judge of the High Court of Karnataka.[2]

Respondent:

Union of India, on behalf of the Central Government, which was the defender of the Aadhaar programme and challenged the existence of privacy as a fundamental right.[3]

Facts of the case

The current case was precipitated by the fear of the Aadhaar scheme that the Government of India had started in 2009. The plan implied gathering and saving in large amounts of biometric information, such as fingerprints and iris scans, and demographic data of the inhabitants to issue a unique identification number. Gradually Aadhaar was made compulsory in order to access many government welfare schemes and other government services.

The scheme was challenged by Justice K.S. Puttaswamy as a writ petition on the basis that compulsory gathering of the biometric data was tantamount to an invasion of personal liberty and human dignity. It was stated that the lack of proper data protection measures turned exposed people into the threats of surveillance, misuse of personal data, and loss of individual control.

In the process, the Union of India put a preliminary objection claiming that the right to privacy was not a fundamental right in the Constitution. To prove this argument, two previous Supreme court decisions- M.P. Sharma v. Satish Chandra (1954) and Kharak Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh (1963) that had upheld that privacy was not constitutional.[4]

But, a number of subsequent opinion of the Supreme court had acknowledged privacy as an implication of the right to life and personal liberty under Article 21. Based on this seeming conflict in judicial precedent, the case was appealed to a nine-judge panel through which it was decided conclusively whether the right to privacy was basic right under the Constitution.

Issues Raised

The primary issues before the Court were:

• Whether the Right to Privacy is a fundamental right under the Constitution of India.
• Whether the earlier decisions in M.P. Sharma and Kharak Singh correctly interpreted the constitutional position on privacy.
• Whether privacy forms an integral part of the right to life and personal liberty under Article 21.

Arguments of the Parties

Petitioner’s Arguments

The petitioner held that, human dignity, and autonomy are five fundamental features of privacy without which the right to life and personal liberty in Article 21 would have been meaningless. It was argued that the Constitution should be read between the lines to show the current social realities and emerging ideas about liberty.[5]

The petitioner was basing his case on a number of Supreme Court decision, such as Gobind v. Madhya Pradesh and R. Rajagopal v. state of Madhya Pradesh.[6] The State of Tamil Nadu that had recognised the privacy as an interest that had been granted constitutional protection. Even the comparative constitutional jurisprudence of other jurisdictions like the United States and European union was also referred to to prove that privacy as a human right was universally acknowledged.[7]

It was also argued that mass data collection without informed consent or sufficient safeguards has a chilling effect on the freedom of the individual and enables excessive surveillance by the state.

Respondent’s Arguments

According to the union of India, the right to privacy was not mentioned in the constitution, and its exclusion had been intentional. They relied on M.P. Sharma and Kharak Singh to argue that privacy is not a significant right.[8]

The Respondent also reasoned that the acknowledgment of privacy as a fundamental right would have a negative impact on governance, national security and the proper execution of welfare schemes. Privacy was argued to be an elitist ideal that could not fit well in a developing nation like India as they should be given attention to socio-economic rights and not individual liberties.[9]

Judgment

The Supreme Court unanimously established that the Right to Privacy was a fundamental right under Part III of the Constitution of India that was guarded.

The Court made a categorical overruling of M.P. Sharma v. Kharak Singh v. Satish Chandra. State of Uttar Pradesh as far as they refused to acknowledge an existence of a constitutional right to privacy. The Court explained that privacy is secured in the first place in Art. 21 but the same resonates in Art. 14 and 19.

The Court also ruled that the right to privacy is not absolute even though it is fundamental. Any limitation to privacy has to meet constitutional specifications of legality, necessity and proportionality.

Ratio decidendi

The reasoning of the Court was based on the idea of human dignity which the Court found to be the fundamental value of the Constitution. The judges believed that privacy is a part of the dignity and autonomy and that right of life in Article 21 will encompass the right to live with dignity.[10]

The Court dismissed a narrow and textual interpretation of fundamental rights and accepted a purposive and broad interpretation. It believed privacy to be an umbrella concept which entails bodily autonomy, decisional autonomy and informational privacy.[11]

One of the major contributions of the judgment was the statement of the three-fold proportionality test whereby:

• It must have a law permitting the violation of privacy;
• The law should be seeking a legitimate state purpose; and
• The adopted means should be commensurate to the goal that is to be attained.

It further observed that privacy intersects with other fundamental rights, including equality under Article 14 and freedoms under Article 19.[12]

The case law of the decision is that the right to privacy is a valued and inseparable aspect of the right to life and individual liberty in Article 21 and that any intrusion should be reasonable and proportionate to the constitution.

Observations

The judgment in Justice K.S. Puttaswamy (Retd.). v. Union of India is one of the main developments in the constitutional jurisprudence in India. In declaring privacy a very basic right, the Supreme Court reinstated individual dignity and autonomy that are central to a democratic society.

Simultaneously, the decision does not provide answers to some practical issues, especially on how data protection measures should be implemented and how the privacy concerns can be reconciled with massive welfare programmes. Although the proportionality test offers a useful constitutional test, its success lies in its interpretation by the courts in the future and legislative intervention.[13]

On balance, the ruling is quite sensible as it establishes equilibrium, securing the rights of individuals and allowing the reasonable limitation in the best interest of the State, making the constitutional government in India stronger.

Reference(S):

[1] Justice K.S. Puttaswamy (Retd.) v Union of India (2017) 10 SCC 1 (SC).

[2] ibid paras 2–4.

[3] ibid paras 5–6.

[4] M.P. Sharma v Satish Chandra AIR 1954 SC 300; Kharak Singh v State of Uttar Pradesh AIR 1963 SC 1295.

[5] Justice K.S. Puttaswamy (Retd.) v Union of India (2017) 10 SCC 1 (SC) paras 12–18.

[6] Gobind v State of Madhya Pradesh (1975) 2 SCC 148; R Rajagopal v State of Tamil Nadu (1994) 6 SCC 632.

[7] Justice K.S. Puttaswamy (Retd.) v Union of India (2017) 10 SCC 1 (SC) paras 19–30.

[8] ibid paras 31–34.

[9] ibid paras 35–44.

[10] ibid paras 168–169

[11] ibid para 170.

[12] INDIA CONST arts 14, 19.

[13] B N Srikrishna, A Free and Fair Digital Economy: Protecting Privacy, Empowering Indians (2018).