Justice K.S. Puttaswamy (Retd.) v Union of India (2017) 10 SCC 1; (2017) 7 MLJ 267

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

Case Title & Citation

Justice K.S. Puttaswamy (Retd.) v Union of India (2017) 10 SCC 1; (2017) 7 MLJ 267[1]

Court Name & Bench

Court: Supreme Court of India

Bench: Nine-Judge Constitutional Bench

Judges: J.S. Khehar CJ, D.Y. Chandrachud J, R.F. Nariman J, A.M. Sapre J, S.A. Bobde J, Dr. A.K. Sikri J, S.A. Nazeer J, A.M. Khanwilkar J, Kurian Joseph J[2]

Date of Judgment

24 August 2017[3]

Parties Involved

Petitioner: Justice K.S. Puttaswamy (Retd.), former judge of the Karnataka High Court – the Petitioner has a group of other Petitioners including legal academics, public interest organizations and citizens affected by privacy breaches causing by the Aadhaar project.

Respondent: Union of India by various government departments including the Unique Identification Authority of India (UIDAI).[4]

Factual Background

The Aadhaar project was initiated by the Government of India as means of granting unique identification number to all residents co-related to biometric and demographic information of people. Petitioners contended that making Aadhaar compulsory for welfare schemes and other services violates the fundamental right to privacy.

The controversy emerged when the Union Government began taking steps towards making it mandatory as a prerequisite to obtain government subsidies as well as services such as mid-day meals, pensions, and scholarships. Petitioners contended that the collection and retention of biometric information by the State without any safeguards is an infringement of personal privacy.

Additionally, the petitioners argued that, while the right to privacy is not expressly guaranteed by the Constitution, it has developed through judicial precedent, and should be recognized as a fundamental right under the aegis of Article 21. Owing to the conflict between the previous Supreme Court decisions in MP Sharma v Satish Chandra (1954) and Kharak Singh v State of UP (1962), it was referred to nine judges for determining whether or not the right to privacy has Constitutional status.[5]

Issues raised

• Whether the right to privacy is a part of the right to life and personal liberty which is protected under Article 21 of the Indian Constitution.
• Whether the rulings made in MP Sharma (1954) and Kharak Singh (1962) which ruled privacy was not a fundamental right were incorrect.
• To what extent the State can invade upon the privacy of individuals in the name of public interest or governance.[6]

Arguments of the Parties

Petitioners:

• Argued that the right to privacy is inherent in Articles 14, 19, and 21
• Relied upon prior cases including Maneka Gandhi v Union of India, and international human rights documents such as Article 12 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and Article 17 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.
• Asserted that informational privacy is an essential trait in modern times and that the State ere enacting surveillance through Aadhaar and this diminishes autonomy and dignity.

Respondents:

• Argued that there was no explicit right to privacy in the Indian Constitution.
• Claimed that privacy as a fundamental right could thwart welfare measures and impede the efficiency of the government.
• Stated that Aadhaar does just minimal biometric and the benefits of Aadhaar outweighed the invasion of privacy.[7]

Judgment / Final Decision

The nine-judge bench held, in a unanimous decision, that the right of privacy is a fundamental right arising from Part III of the Constitution, specifically Articles 14, 19 and 21. The bench overruled prior decisions of MP Sharma and Kharak Singh, finding that those cases were no longer good law.

The court held that privacy embraces bodily integrity, personal autonomy, and informational self-determination. The court held that privacy can be regulated by the states in accordance with law. Further, the regulation of privacy must be a proportionate response as a legitimate aim, and based on a compelling state interest.[8]

Legal Thinking / Ratio Decidendi

The judgement provided a comprehensive constitutional understanding of privacy.  Justice Chandrachud, on behalf of the majority, recognized that privacy is a not singular concept.  Privacy is a multi-faceted right that protects our autonomy over personal choices; protects bodily integrity; protects where we want to get life-protecting medical treatment; protects how, when, and which personal information is shared with whom.

The judgement used the legality, necessity, and proportionality tests to determine the justifiability of State action infringing on privacy. The court highlighted that a constitutional right cannot be outweighed by the executive nor legislation without using the three tests of legality, necessity, and proportionality.

An important aspect of ratio was the idea that constitutional interpretation must stay current and change as the human condition and changes in human technology change, including surveillance governance and data data-driven governance.  The court recognized the chilling effect of surveillance on free speech and freedom of expression.

This decision will provide the legal foundation for jurisprudence, including issues about “personal data protection” and the legality of “surveillance” and “digital rights”.  The judgement directly led to the recommendations for a strong data protection law and the commitment that became the Digital Personal Data Protection (DPDP) Act, 2023.[9]

Conclusion / Observations

The Puttaswamy judgment is a watershed case for the constitution. It did not merely settle the legal issue of privacy rights, but changed the face of Indian constitutional law. It lifted individual autonomy to a constitutional right, requiring the State to respect limits on their power as they pursue governance.

From the vantage point of the present day and especially in the context of the DPDP Act, 2023, this judgment is a primary source of law. It ensures that any governance that uses data must comply with constitutional principles of dignity, consent, and proportionality. Legal scholars and practitioners refer to this case when assessing the boundaries of government power in the digital age.By reinforcing the right to privacy, the court empowered citizens to challenge arbitrary intrusions and ensured that future legislation would require a rights-centric framework. The case exemplifies how constitutional interpretation can evolve to address emerging societal and technological challenges while preserving individual liberty.[10]

Reference(S):

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

[2] ibid.

[3] ibid.

[4] ibid.

[5] MP Sharma v Satish Chandra AIR 1954 SC 300; Kharak Singh v State of UP AIR 1963 SC 1295.

[6] ibid.

[7] Maneka Gandhi v Union of India (1978) 1 SCC 248;

Universal Declaration of Human Rights 1948, art 12;

International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights 1966, art 17.

[8] Justice K.S. Puttaswamy (n 1).

[9] Justice K.S. Puttaswamy (n 1) paras 168–177 (Chandrachud J);

R v Secretary of State for the Home Department, ex parte Daly [2001] UKHL 26.

[10] Justice K.S. Puttaswamy (n 1);

Digital Personal Data Protection Act 2023 (India).