Justice K. S. Puttaswamy (Retd.) And Ans. vs. Union of India and Ors.

UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. 

Case Name and Citation 

Name: Justice K. S. Puttaswamy (Retd.) And Ans. vs. Union of India and Ors. Citation: (2017) 10 SCC 1, AIR 2017 SC 4161, 2017 SCC OnLine SC 996 Court and Bench Details 

Court: Supreme Court of India 

Bench : 9-Judge Constitution Bench comprising: 

– Chief Justice J.S. Khehar 

– Justice J. Chelameswar 

– Justice S.A. Bobde 

– Justice R.K. Agrawal 

– Justice R.F. Nariman 

– Justice A.M. Sapre 

– Justice D.Y. Chandrachud 

– Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul 

– Justice S. Abdul Nazeer  

Date of Judgment 

August 24, 2017  

Parties Involved  

Petitioners:  

1. Justice K.S. Puttaswamy (Retd.) – Retired Judge of Karnataka High Court  2. Certain other petitioners who are senior advocates, activists, and citizens concerned  Respondents: 
2. Union of India  
3. Other Government authorities and organizations  

Facts of the Case 

The case originated as a cluster of writ petitions challenging the validity of the Aadhaar  scheme by the Government of India. The Government of India introduced the Aadhaar  scheme in 2009 for distribution of a unique 12-digit identity number to all Indian residents on  the basis of collection of demographic and biometric data. 

Petitioners, led by retired Karnataka High Court Judge Justice K.S. Puttaswamy, challenged  the Aadhaar program on a range of reasons. The program requested citizens to forfeit  tremendous amounts of personal data, including biometric information like fingerprints, iris  scans, and photos, as well as demographic information. This was gathered in one centralized  repository of the Unique Identification Authority of India (UIDAI). 

The issue was worsened by the government’s move to make Aadhaar mandatory for services  like banking, mobile, income tax return filing, and cash benefits under government schemes.  It again deepened the issue. The citizens had to give their own biometric and personal  information in order to access basic services and fundamental rights. 

The petitioners had argued that the Aadhaar scheme violated basic rights, i.e., the right of  privacy, which was a part of the right of life and liberty according to Article 21 of the  Constitution. They had argued that compulsory collection and storage of biometric data  without sufficient legal framework and protection was violative of the right of privacy.

Before this case, it was not clear if the law of privacy was a constitutional right under the  Indian Constitution. The earlier Supreme Court decisions in M.P. Sharma (1954) and Kharak  Singh (1963) had taken the stance that there was no right to privacy in the Indian  Constitution. This had left a lacuna in law in the area of protection of privacy in the context  of digitalization. 

Issues Raised 

The primary constitutional question before the Court was: 

Whether privacy is a Constitutional right in light of the Constitution of India. And if it is, to  what extent and to what large an extent its application? 

Subsidiary Questions: 

1. Whether the earlier judgments in M.P. Sharma and Kharak Singh correctly construed the  Constitutional provisions dealing with privacy 
2. Relationship between privacy rights and other constitutional rights under Articles 14, 19,  and 21 
3. To what extent privacy rights are liable to be restricted by the state in the interests of  national security and public welfare 
4. Whether or not compulsory biometric data collected under the Aadhaar program violates  constitutional rights 

Arguments of the Parties 

Arguments of the Petitioners: 

The petitioners made some salient points on behalf of privacy as a fundamental right: 

1. Constitutional Interpretation: They argued that privacy is an aspect of human dignity  and comes within the purview of Articles 14 (equality), 19 (liberty), and 21 (life and liberty)  of the Constitution. They argued that the earlier Supreme Court decisions didn’t take into  account the dynamic nature of constitutional rights.
2. Comparative Constitutional Law: They compared privacy legislations of other  democracies such as the United States, Germany, Canada, and South Africa, and showed that  privacy is internationally accepted as a basic human right. 
3. Context of Technology: The petitioners highlighted the fact that in the internet age and  other technological advances, privacy never became more important than it has been today.  They argued that because biometric data are not only permanent but also unique, they need to  be accorded the highest level of protection. 
4. Test of Proportionality: They explained that any limitation of the right to privacy must be  tested by proportionality, i.e., that the threshold should be necessary, relevant, and  proportionate to the purpose to be fulfilled. 
5. Deficiency of Legislative Framework: The petitioners further pointed out the fact that the  Aadhaar program was established into existence in the absence of parliamentry law and  complete statutory data protection law, thus giving rise to constitutional problems. 

Arguments by Respondents 

The Union of India and the remaining respondents defended the scheme on the following  grounds: 

1. No Constitutional Right to Privacy: They had placed reliance on the judgments of M.P.  Sharma and Kharak Singh, assuming that privacy is not a fundamental right under the Indian  Constitution. Therefore, citizens cannot claim such protection. 
2. National Security and Public Interest: The government had argued that biometric data  collection was in the fundamental state interests like national security, anti-terrorism, and de duplication of identities in welfare programs. 
3. Voluntary Scheme: The government initially declared that Aadhaar enrollment was  voluntary and the citizens had the freedom to decide if they wished to enroll or not. 
4. Technological Advantages: They highlighted the advantages of the digital identity system  like timely disbursement of government benefits and curbing corruption in welfare schemes.
5. Reasonable Constraints: It had been a contention of the government that even if  assuming that privacy was a fundamental right, the Aadhaar program imposed constraints  which were reasonable and in the public interest. 

Court’s Reasoning and Analysis 

The nine-judge bench considered and scrutinized the Constitution and the law of privacy  internationally. The Court considered how the basic rights developed and how it is necessary  to interpret the provisions of the Constitution according to the issues that were prevalent at  that time. 

Historical Context: 

The Court analyzed the context of events to the process of constitution-making and reiterated  that privacy is not constitutionalized but it is intrinsic to the design of basic rights. The judges  agreed that constitutional interpretation has to evolve so that it can keep abreast with  changing social needs. 

Comparative Analysis 

The Court referred to privacy jurisprudence from all over the world. It referred to judgments  of the European Court of Human Rights, the Supreme Court of America, Germany’s  Constitutional Court, among others, to see how the right to privacy developed in the world. 

Philosophical Foundations 

The Court based privacy rights on autonomy and human dignity with an awareness that  privacy grants individuals the power to shape their personality and exercise free decisions in  life. 

Outcome and Judgment 

The Supreme Court delivered a landmark unanimous judgment declaring the right of privacy  as a constitutional right under the Indian Constitution. The Court overruled directly the earlier  rulings in M.P. Sharma and Kharak Singh. 

1. Constitutional Right Status: Privacy has been considered to be a fundamental right on  the basis of Articles 14, 19, and 21 of the Constitution.
2. Overriding Precedents: M.P. Sharma (1954) and Kharak Singh (1963) judgments were  revoked for not holding privacy to be a fundamental right. 
3. Extent of Privacy: Informational privacy and decisional privacy were both recognized as  rights to be protected that encompass personal autonomy, bodily integrity, and management  of personal information. 
4. Three-Fold Test: Any limitation to the privacy rights must pass a three-fold test: – Legality (be founded on law) 

– Reasonable objective (be aimed at a reasonable state aim) 

– Proportionality (must be proportional to the harm to be prevented 

Ratio Decidendi 

The ratio decidendi of the Puttaswamy judgment lays down some simple principles:

1. Privacy as a Fundamental Right 

Privacy is a right at the constitutional level under Articles 14, 19, and 21 of the Constitution.  It is not a common law right but is protected at the level of the Constitution. 

2. Inalienable Nature 

Privacy has been seen as an inherent non-alienable right to human dignity and the basis of  other rights. It can be waived in the most exceptional of situations. 

3. Multi-Dimensional Concept 

Privacy has numerous dimensions: 

– Spatial privacy: Right to physical space and privacy 

– Decisional privacy: Right of control over personal choices 

– Informational privacy: Right of control over personal information 

4. Proportionality Framework 

All state action interfering with privacy should meet the test of four elements of  proportionality:

– Lawful in advance: Should be justified on grounds in law 

– Legitimate object: Should be aimed at a legitimate objective of the state – Necessity: Should be necessary to the attainment of the object 

– Proportionality: Should be proportionate to the harm to be avoided 

5. Evolving Jurisprudence 

The Court stressed that constitutional rights have to be altered in harmony with times and  technological progress. The right to privacy is especially crucial now with the advent of the  digital age and the rapid rise in surveillance and information collection. 

6. Individual Autonomy 

Privacy is a sine qua non of autonomy and self-determination. It allows human beings to  make free choices in their lives without the unwarranted interference of others or the state. 

Legal Impact 

Puttaswamy judgment is a milestone judgment in Indian constitutional law. It has a number  of implications of significant far-reaching importance: 

Legal Implications: 

1. Data Protection: The judgment permitted an entire range of data protection legislations in  India. 
2. Surveillance Acts: It provides a constitutional framework to consider government  proposals for surveillance. 
3. Digital Rights: It provides the basis for legislation on digital rights in India. Social Implications: 
4. Empowerment of Individuals: The citizens are now assured of constitutional protection  against unreasonable invasion into their private lives. 
5. Responsibility of the Government: The government departments are now held responsible  for intrusions into privacy in terms of proportionality.
6. Corporate Responsibility: Private companies handling personal information must also  maintain privacy rights. 

Impact on Technology: 

1. Data Governance: The ruling has implications on processing, collection, and protection of  personal data. 
2. Digital Identity: It offers a constitutional framework for analyzing digital identity  proposals. 
3. Emerging Technologies: It offers statutes for handling emerging technologies that have  implications on privacy. 

The Puttaswamy judgment is a landmark judgment that acknowledged the evolving character  of the constitutional rights in the age of information. It ingrained privacy as a central pillar of  Indian constitutional democracy. The judgment is the witness of Supreme Court’s resolve to  protect personal liberty and reestablish the balance between genuine state interests and paves  the way for good privacy protection in new India. 

Conclusion 

The Justice K.S. Puttaswamy vs Union of India case resulted in a landmark ruling that  radically transformed privacy rights in India. 

The Supreme Court held that the right to privacy is ensconced in the Constitution under  Articles 14, 19 and 21 of the Constitution of India. 

The ruling established a strong legal framework for the safeguarding of privacy that  continues to shape Indian jurisprudence and policymaking on data protection, surveillance,  and individual rights.