Justice K.S. Puttaswamy (Retd.) and Another v. Union of India and Others 

1. Case Title, Citation & Court  

• Title: Justice K.S. Puttaswamy (Retd.) and Another v. Union of India and Others 
• Citation: (2017) 10 SCC 1  
• Court: Supreme Court of India (Nine-Judge Constitutional Bench) 
• Date of Judgment: August 24, 2017  
• Judges: Chief Justice J.S. Khehar, Justices D.Y. Chandrachud, R.F. Nariman,  A.M. Sapre, Dr. A.K. Sikri, S.A. Bobde, R.K. Agrawal, Abhay Manohar Sapre,  and S. Abdul Nazeer  

2. Facts of the Case (Brief)  

The genesis of the case lies in the legal challenges to the Aadhaar scheme, which required  Indian residents to submit biometric and demographic data to access government welfare  services. Concerns were raised regarding the invasive collection and storage of personal  information, arguing that it infringed on the individual’s right to privacy.  

In response to petitions challenging Aadhaar, a question arose: Does the Indian Constitution  guarantee the Right to Privacy as a fundamental right?  

Retired Justice K.S. Puttaswamy filed a writ petition claiming that the Aadhaar scheme violated  the Right to Privacy, which the Union government argued was not a fundamental right under  the Constitution.  

Two earlier Supreme Court decisions — M.P. Sharma v. Satish Chandra (1954) and Kharak  Singh v. State of U.P. (1963) — held that privacy was not a fundamental right. To resolve the  contradiction, a Constitution Bench of nine judges was set up to determine whether privacy is  protected under the Constitution. 

3. Issues Involved  

• Is the Right to Privacy a constitutionally protected fundamental right under Part III of  the Indian Constitution?  
• Does the right to privacy derive from Articles 14 (Right to Equality), 19 (Right to  Freedom), and 21 (Right to Life and Personal Liberty)?  
• Whether previous judgments in M.P. Sharma v. Satish Chandra (1954) and Kharak  Singh v. State of U.P. (1963) which denied the existence of a fundamental right to  privacy were correctly decided?  
• What is the scope and nature of the Right to Privacy in the Indian constitutional context? 

        4. Arguments of Both Sides  

Petitioners’ Arguments (Justice K.S. Puttaswamy & Others):  

• Constitutional Interpretation: Privacy is implicit in the guarantees of life and  liberty under Article 21, and freedoms under Article 19. Even if not explicitly mentioned, the  right to privacy is an essential component of dignity and autonomy.  
• Overruling Precedents: Earlier rulings (M.P. Sharma and Kharak Singh) are  outdated and failed to appreciate the evolving nature of constitutional rights.  
• Global Jurisprudence: Privacy is recognized internationally as a core human  right, enshrined in instruments such as the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (Article 12)  and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR).  
• Technological Context: In the digital age, unregulated data collection and  surveillance pose grave risks to personal liberty. Therefore, the court must explicitly affirm the  right to privacy.  
• Stressed the need to reinterpret previous judgments in light of evolving  constitutional jurisprudence and global human rights standards. 
• Emphasized that privacy is essential to individual autonomy, dignity, and  freedom of choice.  

Respondents’ Arguments (Union of India):  

• Textual Argument: The Constitution does not explicitly mention “privacy” as a  fundamental right, hence it cannot be judicially read into it.  
• Legislative Authority: The Aadhaar scheme is backed by statute and has  sufficient safeguards; hence, the claim of infringement is not legally valid.  
• State Interest: The Aadhaar scheme serves a compelling public interest in  delivering welfare and curbing fraud. A right to privacy, if recognized, should be subject to  reasonable restrictions.  
• Judicial Restraint: Courts should not “create” new rights and should leave it to  the legislature to determine the scope of privacy in specific contexts.  
• Argued that recognizing such a right would hinder the state’s ability to  implement welfare schemes like Aadhaar.  
• Maintained that the right to privacy, if any, is only a common law right, not a  fundamental right.  

5. Judgment (Holding)  

The nine-judge bench unanimously held that the Right to Privacy is a fundamental right,  protected under Part III of the Constitution.  

• Overruled the judgments in M.P. Sharma and Kharak Singh to the extent they  denied the existence of a constitutional right to privacy.  
• Held that privacy is protected under Articles 14, 19, and 21. 
• Declared that the right to privacy is not an absolute right, but any infringement  must meet the tests of:  
• Legality (existence of law),  
• Legitimate aim (serving a public purpose),  
• Proportionality (least restrictive means), and  
• Due procedure (judicial review and fairness).  

6. Legal Reasoning  

• The Court held that privacy is an essential part of dignity and liberty, both of  which are core values under Article 21.  
• The Court adopted a liberal and purposive interpretation of the Constitution,  emphasizing that the document must be read in the spirit of liberty and dignity, not just its text.  
• It cited various international precedents and human rights instruments,  affirming that privacy is globally recognized as essential to freedom and democracy.  
• Justice D.Y. Chandrachud, writing for the majority, asserted that:  

“Privacy is the constitutional core of human dignity. It is not lost or surrendered merely because  an individual is in a public place.”  

• The Court recognized three aspects of privacy:  
• Bodily privacy: autonomy over one’s body  
• Decisional privacy: freedom to make intimate personal choices (e.g., sexual  orientation, reproductive choices)  
• Informational privacy: control over the collection and use of personal data  
• Distinguished the earlier cases on the ground that they were decided before the  evolution of privacy jurisprudence and the expansion of Article 21 post- Maneka Gandhi v.  Union of India (1978). 
• Affirmed that the Indian Constitution is a living document and must be  interpreted to reflect changing societal values.  

7. Significance and Impact  

• Landmark Ruling: One of the most important constitutional decisions in Indian  history. It reshaped the discourse on individual rights in India.  
• The judgment laid the constitutional foundation for data protection and digital  rights in India.  
• Foundation for Future Cases:  

Navtej Singh Johar v. Union of India (2018) — decriminalized homosexuality 

Joseph Shine v. Union of India (2019) — struck down adultery law 

Common Cause v. Union of India (2018) — upheld right to die with dignity  

• Data Protection and Digital Rights: Prompted the formulation of the Personal  Data Protection Bill (now the Digital Personal Data Protection Act, 2023)  
• Emphasized the need for safeguards against state surveillance and corporate  misuse of data  
• Checks on State Power: Strengthened judicial scrutiny over actions that may  infringe on citizens’ digital and personal rights.  
• The ruling also constrained the scope of Aadhaar, later refined in Puttaswamy  (Aadhaar) case (2018).  

8. Your Critical Opinion  

The Puttaswamy judgment is a milestone in Indian constitutional law. By recognizing the Right  to Privacy as fundamental, the Court aligned Indian jurisprudence with global democratic  values and protected citizens from state overreach. However, the decision also places a heavy 

responsibility on the legislature and judiciary to define and enforce privacy norms in concrete  terms, particularly in an era of rapid technological advancement.  

The Puttaswamy judgment is a progressive and visionary interpretation of constitutional  values. It rightly places human dignity, individual autonomy, and democratic liberty at the heart  of constitutional governance. By reaffirming that the Constitution protects privacy, the Court  safeguarded the citizen from both state excesses and corporate exploitation.  

However, several challenges remain:  

• Implementation: The absence of an effective and independent data protection  authority hinders enforcement.  
• Ambiguity: The scope of “reasonable restrictions” on privacy remains  somewhat vague and prone to judicial discretion.  
• State Surveillance: Despite the ruling, India lacks a clear legal framework to  regulate government surveillance and uphold informational privacy.  

In sum, Puttaswamy v. Union of India is not just a judgment but a constitutional moment —  one that deepens democracy and prepares India for the ethical challenges of a digital future.  

Critically, while the judgment affirms individual dignity, its practical enforcement remains a  challenge due to lack of awareness, surveillance practices, and insufficient regulatory  mechanisms. Future challenges will likely focus on the balance between privacy and state  interests, especially in national security and digital governance