Authored By:Gopika Krishna
Government law college Kozhikode
This case was decided by the Supreme Court of India, sitting as a Nine-Judge Constitution Bench, one of the largest benches constituted in recent constitutional history
The Bench consisted of:
Chief Justice J.S. Khehar, and Justices J. Chelameswar, S.A. Bobde, R.K. Agrawal, R.F. Nariman, A.M. Sapre, Dr. D.Y. Chandrachud, S.K. Kaul, and Abdul Nazeer
The judgment was delivered on 24 August 2017, marking a defining moment in India’s constitutional jurisprudence
Parties Involved
Petitioner
The petitioner, Justice K.S. Puttaswamy (Retd.), a former judge of the Karnataka High Court, approached the Supreme Court challenging the constitutionality of the Aadhaar programme
He contended that the State’s insistence on collecting biometric and demographic information violated the fundamental right to privacy.
Respondent
The Union of India represented the Central Government and defended the Aadhaar project, arguing that privacy was not a fundamental right and that the government had the authority to collect such data for welfare governance
Facts of the Case
The Aadhaar scheme was introduced by the Government of India as a nationwide identity programme to provide a unique biometric-based number, aiming to streamline welfare delivery. However, over time, Aadhaar began to be demanded for various services such as subsidies, bank accounts, SIM cards, and income tax filings
Concerns began to rise regarding potential surveillance, data profiling, and the vulnerability of individuals’ biometric information. Justice Puttaswamy challenged this expansion, arguing that Aadhaar violated personal liberty and autonomy.
Two earlier Supreme Court judgments — M.P. Sharma (1954) and Kharak Singh (1962) — had held that privacy was not a fundamental right. Because of this, a five-judge bench referred the question of privacy to a nine-judge bench to settle this foundational constitutional issue
Thus, the case before the nine-judge bench did not directly decide the validity of Aadhaar. Instead, it sought to resolve the larger constitutional question: Is the right to privacy a fundamental right?
This became the most significant constitutional reference in decades, influencing not only Aadhaar but the future of digital rights, data protection, and personal liberty.
Issues Raised
The Court framed three main questions:
Issue 1:
Whether the right to privacy is protected as a fundamental right under the Constitution of India
Issue 2:
Whether the earlier decisions in M.P. Sharma and Kharak Singh, which denied the existence of a fundamental right to privacy, were correctly decided
Issue 3:
Whether privacy can be located within the framework of Articles 14, 19, and 21, and whether it forms an intrinsic component of dignity and personal liberty.
Arguments of the Parties
Petitioner’s Arguments
The petitioners emphasized that privacy is inseparable from dignity, liberty, autonomy, and human freedom. They argued that:
Privacy is deeply rooted in the constitutional scheme of liberty under Article 21 and freedom under Article 19
Democracies around the world — including the U.S., U.K., Canada, and South Africa — recognize privacy as a protected constitutional value
The Aadhaar programme creates risks of surveillance, enabling the State to track individuals’ behavior, habits, and movements. It undermines decisional autonomy and personal identities.
They relied on precedents such as:
- Rajagopal v. State of Tamil Nadu
Gobind v. State of Madhya Pradesh
These cases already recognized facets of privacy, implying that privacy was embedded within Part III of the Constitution.
Respondent’s Arguments
The Union of India argued that:
Privacy is not expressly mentioned in the Constitution, and the framers did not intend to elevate it to a fundamental right
In a developing country, the right to life must emphasize socio-economic rights such as food, shelter, and livelihood, rather than abstract values like informational privacy.
The Aadhaar system was essential for targeted governance, preventing leakages in welfare schemes.
They relied on M.P. Sharma and Kharak Singh, asserting that those decisions accurately reflected the framers’ intent.
The government also warned that recognizing privacy as an absolute right could impede State welfare programmes and administrative efficiency.
Judgment
The Supreme Court delivered a unanimous judgment, holding that the right to privacy is a fundamental right protected under Part III of the Constitution
The Court clarified that:
Privacy is a constitutionally protected right derived from Articles 14, 19, and 21.
It is not absolute but can be restricted through reasonable, fair, and just laws.
The earlier decisions in M.P. Sharma and Kharak Singh were overruled.
The Court did not decide the Aadhaar issue here; that question was left for a separate bench.
This judgment reaffirmed that privacy is central to liberty, autonomy, and dignity in a democratic society
Ratio Decidendi
The Court’s reasoning is one of the richest in India’s judicial history. Several strands form the foundation of the ratio:
- Privacy as an intrinsic component of life and liberty
The Court held that privacy is not a standalone concept but flows from personal liberty, dignity, and autonomy. It enables individuals to make intimate personal decisions about their bodies, relationships, beliefs, and choices
- Privacy under Articles 14, 19, and 21
Privacy is linked with equality under Article 14 because arbitrary intrusions violate dignity.
It is connected to freedoms under Article 19 because free speech, association, and movement require a protected private sphere.
And it is naturally embedded in personal liberty under Article 21
- Overruling older precedents
The Court declared that M.P. Sharma and portions of Kharak Singh were wrongly decided. The framers did not reject privacy; they simply did not frame it explicitly. The Constitution, being a living document, must evolve with societal changes.
- Privacy in the digital age
One of the most crucial parts of the reasoning addressed modern technological concerns. With rapid digitization, informational privacy — the right to control personal data — becomes vital. Without privacy, individuals risk losing autonomy and becoming objects of surveillance
- Balancing test
The Court held that privacy is not absolute. Any infringement must satisfy:
- Legality,
- Necessity for a legitimate State aim, and
- Proportionality.
This ensures that privacy cannot be curtailed except through fair and reasonable laws
- Human dignity as a constitutional value
The Court emphasized that the Constitution protects individuals, not merely the State. Privacy guarantees the dignity of individuals to define their identity, personal sphere, and choices without unjustified State interference
The ratio thus established a definitive and progressive understanding of privacy as a constitutional guarantee essential for a democratic society.
Conclusion
The Puttaswamy decision is widely regarded as a constitutional milestone. It recognized that individual autonomy, personal dignity, and freedom from unwarranted intrusion lie at the heart of democratic citizenship. This judgment laid the intellectual foundation for upcoming developments such as the Personal Data Protection Bill, decisional autonomy rights, digital privacy protections, and jurisprudence on bodily autonomy and reproductive choice
This case illustrates how the Court balances individual liberty with State interests while interpreting the Constitution as an evolving, living document. Its influence extends far beyond Aadhaar, shaping privacy law for future generations.
