Justice K.S. Puttaswamy (Retd.) and Anr. v. Union of India and Ors.

Full case name: Justice K.S. Puttaswamy(Retd.) and Anr. v. Union of India and Ors.

Case Number: Writ petition (Civil) No. 494 of 2012

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

Court: Supreme Court of India

Date of Decision: 24^th of August 2017

Bench Composition: 9-Judge Constitutional Bench

Key Highlights:

• Result: Overturned the previous verdicts [M.P. Sharma and Kharak Singh] which had held that privacy was not a fundamental right.
• Significance: Laid down that while the right to privacy was a fundamental, yet not an absolute, ingredient of Part III of the Constitution, which dealt with Fundamental Rights.
• Background: The appeal of the requirement of compulsory linking with the Aadhar biometric identification system was challenged.

INTRODUCTION

On the 24^th of August, 2017, the Supreme Court of India, in the landmark case of K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India, upheld the constitutional validity of the right to privacy as an essential qualifying feature of Part III of the Indian Constitution, which includes fundamental rights like equality, liberty of speech, etc. This ruling was in response to the Aadhar act, which was criticized for violating privacy rights.

The court further clarified in their judgement that while privacy is a fundamental right, it is not absolute and may even be restricted based on the test of proportionality and reasonableness. The judgment further highlighted that all actions by the states have to be in accordance with the fundamental rights, the evolving standards of privacy as reflected in Article 21.

CASE SUMMARY AND OUTCOME

A nine-judge bench of the Supreme Court of India decided that the right to privacy was protected under the Constitution of India as well as being an incident of other rights to freedom that are guaranteed under the Constitution of India. In the case, Puttaswamy, who was a retired High Court Judge, argued that the proposed plans by the Government regarding a uniform identity card based upon bio-data that would be necessary for access to government benefits was a disregard for the Right to privacy that was to be enjoyed by the people of India. The Government argued that there was nothing in the Constitution that guaranteed or even mentioned the Right to privacy, but the Supreme Court held that the Right to privacy was an incident of the right to freedom or liberty guaranteed under the Constitution of India under Article 21, which states that: “No person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty except according to procedure established by law”.

This is a landmark case, which is likely to result in constitutional challenges to a plethora of Indian legislation, for instance, laws prohibiting same-sex relationships, as well as laws prohibiting the consumption of beef and alcohol in various states in India. There is also an expectation for the Indian Government to introduce laws with regards to data protection to secure the privacy of an individual. The case is also likely to be significant in the sense that privacy advocates are likely to use it in furtherance of pursuing the constitutional debate in multiple countries.

FACTS

1. ‘Aadhar’ was conceived and introduced in the form of a card whereby an individual may be identified. It was created and given in the form of a ‘Unique Identity’. The issuing authority and enrolling body of individuals in relation to the ‘Aadhar’ card are called ‘Unique Identification Authority of India’.
2. UIDAI was formed in 2009. The major reason for implementing the Unique Identification Scheme (UIS) was to provide a unique identity number, as it is unique and all individuals will have their own single identity without any possibility of duplication.
3. UIDAI has achieved enrollment of almost 1.1 billion citizens in this country.
4. The petitioners challenged the Aadhar project. A writ petition was filed by Justice K.S. Puttaswamy (Retd.) and Mr. Pravesh Khanna when the entire scheme was at that time not under the legislative umbrella.
5. It was challenged on the ground that it violates fundamental rights of innumerable citizens of India, namely right to privacy falling inder Article 21 of the Constitution of India.
6. When the Aadhar Act was passed in 2016, many other petitioners challenged the constitutionality of the Aadhar Act by filing writ petition. The other writ petitions have similar objectives and were, therefore, clubbed together.

ISSUES RAISED

The main issues the Supreme Court had to consider were:

1. Whether the right to privacy is a fundamental right under the Indian Constitution?
2. In other words, if the right to privacy is a fundamental human right, then what is its extent and limitations?
3. Whether the scheme, as implemented, violates the right to privacy.

ARGUMENTS FROM PETITIONER

1. Challenge to M.P. Sharma and Kharak Singh Case: The petitioners pointed out that these cases abolishing the fundamental right to privacy were based on outdated principles set in the K. Gopalan v. State of Madras case. They also pointed out that the approach of A.K. Gopalan in dealing with each of the fundamental rights separately was rejected in the Rustom Cavasji Cooper v. Union of India Supreme Court case.
2. Approval in the case of Maneka Gandhi: They emphasized the fact that the Supreme Court approved the minority opinion of Justice Subba Rao in the case of Kharak Singh by upholding the right to privacy, as expressed in the judgement, even when it was opposed by the majority.
3. Multi-Dimensional Moel of Privacy: Here, the petitioners sought to expand the concept of privacy, placing it in accordance with principles of natural rights and human rights around the world. They asserted that privacy should be seen as a multi-dimensional concept, as “involving various aspects of personal freedom”.
4. Constitutional and International context: They also contended that privacy is not merely a law or common law construct but it is a basic component of the Constitution and is protected under international human rights law. They urged a consideration of the constitution and its Preamble, where it declares its commitment to justice, liberty, and equality.

ARGUMENTS FROM RESPONDENT

1. Reliance on M.P. Sharma and Kharak Singh: Respondents have pressed the judgments in M.P. Sharma and Kharak Singh holding that privacy is not a constitutionally protected right. They thus urged these judgments by heavier benches should prevail over subsequent judgments by smaller benches.
2. Constitutional Limitations: They argued for a narrow view to include privacy, strictly within the ambit of the fundamental rights chapter of the constitution. They held that it was for parliament to expand the right rather than judicial interpretation.
3. Ambiguity of Privacy: Ambiguity in Privacy, according to the respondents, was something that should be defined through legislation and common law evolution rather than through broad judicial pronouncements.

JUDGEMENT

The judgement in the K.S. Puttaswamy case, pronounced by the Supreme Court on the 24^th of August, 2017, is a landmark judgment that recognized privacy as one of the fundamental rights enumerated in the Indian Constitution under Article 21.

Notably, this ruling overturned existing decisions, with the Court holding the view that the importance of privacy cannot be ignored for the maintenance of human dignity or individual autonomy. Of importance is the observation that the court noted that even though the right to privacy is essential, it does not mean that it is absolute in the sense that it can be limited through legislation in specific state interests. For that reason, the limitations have to follow specific principles: they have to follow the rule of law, be necessary, and proportionate in their objective or end they seek to attain.

The judgment highlighted two aspects of the right to privacy, which are: the right to be left alone and free from unwarranted interference by the state in personal matters, and the right to make free decisions with little or no interference.

It was also recognized that privacy includes informational privacy, which entails the protection of personal information against unauthorized use and/or access, particularly in relation to the use of technology.

With regard to data protection, the court emphasized a need to establish an appropriate legal regime to protect personal data. It acknowledged the significance of data in governance and service delivery, although it was quick to point out that data collection and use had to respect people’s right to privacy.

Furthermore, the judgment also related to the rights of marginal communities of society, including the LGBTQ+ community, as the right to privacy included their sexual orientation as a fundamental part of their personal identity.

CONCLUSION

The significance of the Puttaswamy case: The Puttaswamy case created a precedent wherein the integral importance of the Right to Privacy in the Indian Fundamental rights framework was reestablished, thereby bringing a sense of clarity regarding the scope and limitations of the Right to Privacy, with the objective of respecting the individual’s  autonomy and dignity while at the same time catering to the state’s interests in the digital age, thereby making a landmark judgment in the field of legal jurisprudence in India.

IMPORTANT PRECEDENTS

1. “Justice K.S. Puttaswamy and Anr. V. Union of India and Ors. MANU/SC/1044/2014”
2. “Yogendra Kumar Jaiswal and Ors. v. State of Bihar and Ors. MANU/SC/144/2015”