Justice K.S. Puttaswamy (Retd.) & Anr. vs. Union of India & Ors.commonly known as the Right to Privacy verdict.

Case Name: Justice K.S. Puttaswamy (Retd.) & Anr. vs. Union of India & Ors.  commonly known as the Right to Privacy verdict. 

WP (C) 494/2012 

[10 SCC 1, AIR 2017 SC 4161] 

• SUPREME COURT OF INDIA 
• NINE BENCH: D. Y CHANDRANCHUD CJI 

ABDUL NAZEER J 

ROHINTON NAEIMAN J 

J S KHEHAR CJI 

S A BOBDE CJI 

JASTI CHELAMESWAR J 

ABHAY SAPRE J 

A K SIKRI J 

• CONSTITUTIONAL BENCH 
• DATE OF JUDGMENT: 24 August 2017 
• PETITIONER(S) / APPELLANT(S): Justice K.S. Puttaswamy; Centre for Civil Society  (CCS); S.G. Vombatkere; Mathew Thomas; Raghav Tankha; Kalyani Menon Sen; Ram  Prasad Misal; Shantha Sinha 

Lawyers: Shyam Divan; Kapil Sibal; Gopal Subramanium; K.V. Vishwanathan; P.  Chidambaram; Arvind Datar; Meenakshi Arora; Sajan Poovayya. 

• RESPONDENT(S) / DEFENDANT(S): Union of India; Planning Commission; Unique  Identification Authority of India; Andhra Pradesh; Assam; Arunachal Pradesh; Bihar;  Chattisgarh; Gujarat; Goa; Haryana; Himachal; Jharkhand; Jammu and Kashmir; Karnataka;  Kerala; Madhya Pradesh; Maharashtra; Manipur; Meghalaya; Mizoram; Nagaland; Orissa;  Punjab; Rajasthan; Sikkim; Tamil Nadu; Tripura; Uttarakhand; Uttar Pradesh; West Bengal;  Daman and Diu; Dadra and Nagar Haveli; National Capital Territory of Delhi; Andaman  Nicobar Islands; Lakshadweep; Chandigarh; Puducherry. 

Lawyers: K. K. Venugopal; Rakesh Dwivedi; Tushar Mehta

FACT OF THE CASE:  

2009 – Aadhaar project launched by UIDAI to issue 12-digit unique ID numbers linked with  welfare schemes for efficient delivery and elimination of duplicate or fake beneficiaries. 

2012 – Justice K.S. Puttaswamy (Retd.) filed a petition challenging Aadhaar on the grounds of  privacy and constitutional validity. 

2015 – A three-judge bench considered the matter; the Attorney General argued that privacy is  not a fundamental right, citing M.P. Sharma (1954) and Kharak Singh (1962). Conflicting  precedents noted, as later judgments had recognized privacy as a constitutional right. The  matter was referred to a Constitution Bench, which decided it should be heard by a nine-judge  bench in July 2017 to settle the issue definitively. 

ISSUES RAISED:  

WHETHER THE RIGHT TO PRIVACY IS A PART OF THE RIGHT TO LIFE AND  PERSONAL LIBERTY UNDER ARTICLE 21 OF THE CONSTITUTION? 

3. The Aadhaar Act of 2016 requires the collecting of biometric and demographic data to issue  a unique identification number to all Indian residents. This legislative measure has aroused  serious concerns about a violation of the fundamental right to privacy, which is tied to the right  to life and personal liberty under Article 21 of the Indian Constitution. to elaborate on the  reasons against the Aadhaar Act concentrating on the infringement of privacy, the risk of state  monitoring, the uniformity of the measures, and the inadequacy of data protection mechanisms. 
4. Mandatory collecting of biometric data, including fingerprints and iris scans, violates individuals’ privacy. The required obligation is a clear invasion of personal privacy. In terms of  privacy, The Supreme Court in Kharak Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh AIR 1963 SC 12951held  that unauthorized intrusion into a person’s home and personal space violates the right to  privacy. widening this principle, the compulsory collection of intimate biometric details without adequate safeguards is a intrusion into personal space. 
5. The collection of huge volumes of personal data in a centralized database increases the risk  of surveillance, ultimately harming individual liberties and autonomy. The Aadhaar  architecture, which entails continual authentication and tracking of individuals, creates a  surveillance regime. This impact on individual liberties contradicts the essence of a democratic  society, in which citizens should be able to express themselves without fear of being observed. 
6. AIR1963 SC 1295
7. In People’s Union for Civil Liberties (PUCL)v. Union of India (1997) 1 SCC 3012, the Supreme  Court emphasized that the right to privacy includes protection from state surveillance. The  Aadhaar’s architecture, which involves continuous authentication and tracking of individuals, creates a surveillance state. This chilling effect on individual freedoms undermines the essence  of a democratic society, where citizens should be free to express themselves without fear of being monitored. 
8. The Aadhaar Act’s measures are not proportionate or necessary. In Modern Dental College  and Research Centre v. State of Madhya Pradesh (2016) 7 SCC 3533the Supreme Court  clarified the idea of proportionality, which states that a measure that violates a fundamental  right must be necessary and the least restrictive way of achieving the legitimate goal. 
9. Petitioners argue that less intrusive procedures can prevent fraud and improve service  delivery efficiency. Existing identity devices, such as voter ID cards, passports, and ration  cards, can be used with improved verification procedures. The mandated connection of  Aadhaar to other services, including as bank accounts and cell phone numbers, is deemed to be  inappropriate. 
10. The Act’s data protection provisions may allow unauthorized access, leading to insufficient  safeguards against misuse and breaches. 
11. 1n This case highlights the necessity for robust data protection legislation. The petitioner wants to point the instances of data breaches and unauthorized access to Aadhaar data to  illustrate the vulnerability of the system. They argue that the lack of robust data protection frameworks exposes individuals to risks of identity theft, financial fraud, and other forms of misuse.
12. The petitioner like to argue that the Aadhaar Act violates the principle of data minimization, which mandates that only the minimum necessary data should be collected and processed. This principle is a cornerstone of data protection jurisprudence, as recognized in various international frameworks, including the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) of the  European Union. Easy access to Aadhaar data exposes the system’s weakness. argue that the  absence of strong data protection frameworks puts individuals at risk of identity theft, financial  fraud, and other sorts of abuse.
13. AIR 1997 1 SCC 301 
14. AIR 2016 7 SCC 353
15. The fundamental right to privacy, the risks of governmental surveillance, and the  insufficiency of data protection safeguards serve as the foundation for the arguments against  the Aadhaar Act of 2016. Aadhaar’s required biometric data gathering and linking is an  intrusive, out-of-proportion measure that falls short of providing sufficient protection for  personal privacy. The Act’s violation of the right to privacy is further highlighted by the  possibility of surveillance and the absence of strong data protection laws. The petitioners  highlight that the Aadhaar Act does not adhere to the constitutional criteria established by the  Supreme Court, which calls for a re-examination of its contents in order to guarantee the  preservation of fundamental rights. They do this by citing significant rulings. 

RESPONDENT: 

As we look at India’s constitution, the right to life and personal liberty necessitates a thorough  examination, particularly in terms of privacy. An individual’s privacy has limitations when it  comes to a country’s security and well-being. 

1. Article 21 states that the right to personal liberty and life is not unqualified. According to  the statute, “no person shall be deprived of his right to personal liberty, except in accordance  with the procedure established by law.” Here it is important to underline the word ‘except  pursuant to the procedure by law’. Therefore, it says that a person’s right to life or personal  liberty may be in danger if a legislation or law demands it. In this respect, the Adhaar Act of  2016 sets fair standards. Therefore, it is the people’s duty to follow the law, which the  government can enforce. To protect the integrity of the country, that is.. 
2. The exercise of the right to privacy guaranteed by the Indian Constitution is not  unrestricted, and the government may impose reasonable restrictions as and when the situation arises in the community’s and the public’s interest. Given the broader public interest  in enhancing state security, reducing corruption, ensuring free and fair elections, and ensuring  welfare, the Indian government must impose reasonable restrictions on the exercise of the  right to privacy of its citizens. 
3. The government’s Aadhaar Act of 2016 mandates Aadhaar cards for all schemes, both  benefit and non-benefit, in accordance with established procedures. Its goal is to eliminate  terrorism, prevent corruption, and ensure people’s welfare, and it includes guidelines for  implementation. 
4. The standards of compelling state interest established in Gobind v. State of MP states that  people’s right to privacy can be jeopardized in the name of compelling state interest. Threats  to state security, high levels of corruption, and identity fraud are all compelling state interests.  Thus, the Aadhaar Policy and the Aadhaar Act, 2016.
5. Terrorism poses a significant threat to the nation’s security. The government’s Aadhaar  Policy and Act of 2016, will aid in the elimination of all forms of terrorism. Furthermore, the  entire operation will aid in keeping track of financial activities across the country, thereby  avoiding terrorist financing and Hawala transactions 
6. Duplicate identities represent a significant threat to the country’s democratic framework,  undermining the fundamental pillar of free and fair elections. The project will help to ensure  free and fair elections. 
7. The remarkable success of Andhra Pradesh government in curbing corruption by mandatory issuing of biometric cards should be taken into consideration here. The State  government collected a range of biometric data including iris scan, photographs, and fingerprints in a period of 4 years after collecting the relevant data, the state government began a structured programmed to sort out Duplicate cards based on biometric information.  This was done by comparing fingerprints and iris scans, initially at the district level and  ultimately at state level. In the process, the state government reportedly weeded out weeded  out 1.1 crore duplicate ration cards. According to the reported statistics, biometric ration  cards have proven to be a great success in the state government’s efforts to streamline its PDS  Network and perhaps reduce corruption and pilferage. 
8. In the case M.P Sharma V. Sathish Chandra, the court The Court rejected the contention of  the Petitioners that the right to acquire, hold and dispose of the property was infringed upon  by the search and seizure process. The Court observed that the act of conducting the search  did not deprive a person of the enjoyment of their property. This case is a clear example of  the fact that the state can interfere into one’s privacy if it is concerned about social security. 
9. The judgement in the Kharak Singh V. State of UP marks the first time the Supreme Court of India, in-relief granted the Right to Privacy although the Court did not acknowledge it as a  fundamental right. So, all these aspects constitute to make the point strong that right to  privacy cannot be included in the right to life and personal liberty in its full meaning. It needs  to be controlled or restricted in certain ways as it comes to the matter of social security. 

JUDGMENT: 

The Supreme Court held that the right to privacy is a fundamental right under Article 21 of  the Constitution. The appeals were allowed, and the earlier contrary judgments were  overruled. The Court directed that any infringement of privacy must satisfy the tests of  legality, necessity, and proportionality.

LEGAL REASONING:  

The Supreme Court held that while the Aadhaar scheme served a legitimate state interest in  ensuring targeted delivery of subsidies and preventing fraud, it also involved concerns of  privacy and surveillance. Applying the doctrine of proportionality, the Court reasoned that a  balance had to be struck between individual privacy rights under Article 21 and the state’s  interest in welfare distribution. It emphasized that restrictions on privacy must be backed by  valid law, pursue a legitimate aim, and remain proportionate. The majority upheld the validity  of Aadhaar but struck down provisions that enabled its mandatory use by private entities, citing  excessive intrusion into privacy. The Court relied heavily on the principles laid down in K.S.  Puttaswamy (Privacy, 2017), which had already recognized privacy as a fundamental right, and  invoked earlier precedents such as Maneka Gandhi (1978) on due process, R. Rajagopal (1994)  on informational privacy, and Gobind (1975) on the evolution of privacy rights. The reasoning  thus reaffirmed privacy as central to dignity and liberty while allowing Aadhaar within  constitutional limits. 

CONCLUSION/ OBSERVATION: 

This case is the cornerstone of the ‘Right to Privacy’ jurisprudence in India. The nine Judge  Bench in this case unanimously reaffirmed the right to privacy as a fundamental right under  the Constitution of India. The Court held that the right to privacy was integral to freedoms  guaranteed across fundamental rights, and was an intrinsic aspect of dignity, autonomy and  liberty. 

The case began with the question of whether the right to privacy was a fundamental right,  which was raised in 2015 in the arguments concerning the legal validity of the Aadhaar  database. The Attorney General appearing for the State argued that the existence of the right to  privacy as a fundamental right was in doubt in view of the two decisions in the cases of M.P.  Sharma vs. Satish Chandra, District Magistrate, Delhi ((1954) SCR 1077), rendered by an  eight Judge Bench, and Kharak Singh vs. State of Uttar Pradesh ((1964) 1 SCR 332), rendered  by a six Judge Bench. Both the cases, the State argued, contained observations that the  Constitution did not specifically protect the right to privacy as a fundamental right. At the same  time, several subsequent judgments over the years had recognised the right to privacy as a  fundamental right. However, these subsequent decisions that affirmed the existence of the right  to privacy were rendered by benches of a smaller strength than M.P. Sharma and Kharak Singh.  Due to issues relating to the precedential value of judgments and noting the far-reaching  importance of the right to privacy, this case was referred to a nine Judge Bench of the Supreme  Court.

The Bench unanimously held that “the right to privacy is protected as an intrinsic part of the  right to life and personal liberty under Article 21 and as a part of the freedoms guaranteed by  Part III of the Constitution”. In doing so, it overruled previous judgments of the Supreme Court  in M.P. Sharma and Kharak Singh, insofar as the latter held that the right to privacy was not  recognised under the Indian Constitution. 

In addition to cementing the place of the right to privacy as a fundamental right, this case also  laid down the need for the implementation of a new law relating to data privacy, expanded the  scope of privacy in personal spaces, and discussed privacy as an intrinsic value.