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

Facts of the Case 

Justice K.S. Puttaswamy, a retired judge of the Karnataka High Court, filed a writ petition in 2012  challenging the constitutionality of the Aadhaar scheme, which mandated the collection of  biometric and demographic data of citizens. The primary contention was that the Aadhaar project  violated the right to privacy by enabling mass surveillance and unchecked access to personal  information. 

Earlier judgments of the Supreme Court, such as M.P. Sharma v. Satish Chandra (1954) and  Kharak Singh v. State of U.P. (1962), had denied the existence of privacy as a fundamental right.  Hence, the question of whether the right to privacy was constitutionally protected required  resolution by a larger bench. 

Issues Before the Court 

1. Whether the right to privacy is protected as a fundamental right under the Constitution of  India. 
2. Whether earlier decisions denying privacy as a fundamental right required reconsideration.
3. The scope and dimensions of privacy in the context of personal liberty and state  restrictions. 

Arguments of the Petitioners 

∙ The Aadhaar scheme involved excessive collection and centralization of personal data,  violating individual autonomy and dignity. 

∙ Privacy is an intrinsic part of the right to life and personal liberty guaranteed under Article  21, and also flows from the freedoms under Part III of the Constitution. 

∙ Earlier judgments (M.P. Sharma and Kharak Singh) were outdated and inconsistent with  modern constitutional jurisprudence.

Arguments of the Respondents (Union of India) 

∙ The Constitution does not explicitly guarantee the right to privacy. 

∙ Privacy is at best a common law right, subject to statutory protection but not enforceable  as a fundamental right. 

∙ Recognizing privacy as a fundamental right may impede welfare schemes like Aadhaar,  aimed at delivering benefits to marginalized groups. 

Judgment 

Delivered on 24 August 2017, a nine-judge constitutional bench of the Supreme Court  unanimously held: 

1. Right to Privacy is a Fundamental Right: Privacy is intrinsic to life and liberty and is  protected under Article 21 as well as the freedoms guaranteed under Part III of the  Constitution. 
2. Overruling Previous Judgments: The decisions in M.P. Sharma (1954) and Kharak  Singh (1962) were overruled, as they incorrectly denied the recognition of privacy as a  constitutional right. 
3. Scope of Privacy: The Court identified privacy as including bodily integrity,  informational privacy, and decisional autonomy. 
4. Restrictions on Privacy: Like other fundamental rights, privacy is not absolute. The  State may impose restrictions only if they satisfy the tests of legality, necessity,  proportionality, and procedural safeguards. 

Impact on Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity 

One of the most notable aspects of the Justice K.S. Puttaswamy (Retd.) v Union of India decision  was its direct impact on issues related to sexual orientation and gender identity. The Supreme  Court held that discrimination against individuals based on sexual orientation is deeply offensive  to their dignity and self-worth. The court recognised that sexual orientation is an essential  attribute of privacy and that every individual has the right to decide their sexual preferences  without interference from the state. This part of the judgement laid the groundwork for the eventual decriminalisation of homosexuality in India through the Navtej Singh Johar v. Union of  India (2018) case, where the Supreme Court struck down Section 377 of the Indian Penal Code,  which criminalised consensual homosexual acts between adults. 

The ADM Jabalpur Case Overruled 

The Justice K.S. Puttaswamy (Retd.) v Union of India judgement also took a bold step in  overruling the ADM Jabalpur v. Shivkant Shukla (1976) case. In ADM Jabalpur, the Supreme  Court had ruled that during a state of emergency, the right to life and personal liberty could be  suspended. The Puttaswamy judgement reaffirmed the sanctity of the right to life, declaring that  it is inalienable and cannot be suspended even during an emergency. The judgement reminded  the government that the right to life and personal liberty exists independently of the Constitution  and is an inherent natural right. The court firmly rejected any notion that these rights could be  overridden by the executive or the legislature. 

Aftermath and Implications 

The Justice K.S. Puttaswamy (Retd.) v Union of India case has had profound implications for  several key issues in Indian law and society. The recognition of privacy as a fundamental right  paved the way for greater protection of personal data and digital rights. It also strengthened  individual autonomy, particularly in areas such as sexual orientation, marriage, and reproductive  rights. In addition to the Navtej Singh Johar decision, the judgement also played a crucial role in  the Joseph Shine v. Union of India (2018) case, where the Supreme Court decriminalised adultery,  further affirming the protection of privacy in personal relationships. The case has been cited in  numerous subsequent rulings, ensuring that privacy remains a critical part of the discourse on  fundamental rights in India. It also triggered debates on the regulation of technology, especially in  the context of data protection and privacy laws.

Conclusion 

Justice K.S. Puttaswamy (Retd.) v Union of India is a landmark case that solidified the right to  privacy as a fundamental right in India. The case addressed important issues surrounding personal  autonomy, state surveillance, and individual freedoms, while striking down outdated precedents  that had denied the existence of privacy as a constitutional right. The decision not only reaffirmed  the significance of privacy in modern society but also opened the doors for further reforms in areas  like sexual orientation, data protection, and reproductive rights.