Justice K.S.Puttaswamy (Retired). vs Union of India And Ors. 2017

Case Title & Citation 

• Justice K.S.Puttaswamy (Retired). vs Union of India And Ors., 2017.
• Citation: Writ Petition (Civil) No. 494 of 2012, (2017) 10 SCC 1

Court Name & Bench 

• Supreme Court of India
• Constitutional Bench including Nine Judges 
• J.S. Khehar (CJI), J. Chelameswar, S.A. Bobde, R.K. Agrawal, R.F. Nariman, A.M. Sapre, D.Y. Chandrachud, S.K. Kaul, S.A. Nazeer

Date of Judgment

26 September, 2018

Parties Involved 

• Appellant: Justice K.S. Puttaswamy (Retired), former judge of Karnataka High Court, petitioner seeking protection of privacy rights
• Respondent: Union of India and Others (Central Government, UIDAI et al.)

Facts of the Case

The case initially stemmed from a challenge to the Aadhaar initiative, launched by the UPA administration in 2009. This initiative aimed to assign a unique identification number to every resident of India, which would be linked to biometric information, including fingerprints and iris scans. Over time, concerns arose regarding the potential misuse of this extensive personal information. These worries intensified when it was disclosed that the data might be shared with several private organizations, prompting concerns about individuals’ right to privacy. 

In 2015, a three-judge panel consisting of Justices Chelameswar, Bobde, and C. Nagappan directed that the case be referred to a larger bench. They aimed to review the validity of previous rulings in M.P. Sharma v. Satish Chandra (1954) and Kharak Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh (1964), which had ruled that the right to privacy was not a fundamental right under the Constitution. The bench, recognizing the significance of the matter, sent the case to a larger bench for consideration. 

Ultimately, the case was presented to a nine-judge bench in 2017, signalling the onset of a landmark legal confrontation.

Issues Raised 

1. Is there a fundamental right to privacy enshrined in the Constitution of India?
2. Is the ruling by the Court in M.P. Sharma & Ors. vs. Satish Chandra, DM, Delhi & Ors. and Kharak Singh vs. The State of U.P., stating that no such fundamental rights exist, an accurate reflection of the constitutional stance?

Arguments of the Parties 

Petitioner’s Argument:

• The petitioner’s argument presented to the court pointed that the right to privacy is a fundamental aspect of the right to life and personal liberty as outlined in Article 21, and is a part of the freedoms defended by Part III of the Constitution of India.  
• Also, it was suggested to review the delicacy of the rulings in Karak Singh vs. The State of Uttar Pradesh and M. P. Sharma vs. Satish Chandra, asserting that they infringe upon the Right to Privacy under Article 21 of the Constitution.  

Respondent’s Argument:

• The defense battled that the Indian Constitution does not explicitly guard the Right to privacy, and on this basis, it was argued that the right to privacy is not guaranteed under the Constitution. Thus, Article 21 of the Indian Constitution (which pertains to the right to life and personal liberty) was held inapplicable in the cases of M. P. Sharma vs Satish Chandra and Karak Singh vs. State of UP.

Judicial Precedents Considered

Before the Justice K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India case, the Supreme Court consistently maintained that privacy was not a fundamental right. In M.P. Sharma v. Satish Chandra (1954), an eight-judge bench decided that privacy was not covered by Article 21 (right to life and personal liberty) or any other provision in Part III of the Constitution. Likewise, in Kharak Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh (1962), a six-judge bench also declined to recognize privacy as a constitutional right, although it invalidated some intrusive surveillance practices

Subsequent judgments acknowledged the importance of privacy in specific contexts, including telephone tapping and medical confidentiality. However, judicial decisions on this issue remained inconsistent. Some courts identified privacy as an essential component of personal liberty, whereas others prioritized state interests such as law enforcement and national security, thereby limiting the scope of privacy. These divergent rulings generated considerable uncertainty regarding the precise boundaries of privacy rights under the Constitution.

In order to address this ambiguity and establish a definitive legal framework, the Supreme Court referred the Puttaswamy case to a nine-judge Constitutional Bench. The Bench was assigned the responsibility of determining whether the right to privacy constitutes an independent fundamental right under Articles 14, 19, and 21 of the Constitution. This referral aimed to harmonize and clarify the legal position on privacy in India.

Judgment

A nine-judge bench of the Supreme Court of India delivered a major ruling on 24th August 2017, asserting the fundamental right to privacy under Article 21 of the Indian Constitution.

Article 21 of the Constitution states:

“No person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty except according to procedure established by law.”

The ruling indicates that privacy is an essential component of Part III of the Indian Constitution, which outlines the fundamental rights of citizens. The Supreme Court also stressed the fact that the state must carefully weigh individual privacy against legitimate objectives, as fundamental rights cannot be bestowed or revoked by law, and all laws and actions must conform to the Constitution. The Court further clarified that the right to privacy is not an absolute right; any breach of privacy by either state or non-state actors must meet the three-part test, which includes:

1. Legitimate Aim
2. Proportionality
3. Legality

The ruling issued by all nine judges states:

(i) The decision in M P Sharma vs. Satish Chandra, which asserts that the right to privacy is not shielded by the Constitution of India, is overruled;

(ii) The decision in Kharak Singh vs. State of UP, insofar as it asserts that the right to privacy is not defended by the Constitution, is also overruled;

(iii) The right to privacy is honored as an intrinsic part of the right to life and personal liberty under Article 21 of the Indian Constitution and as part of the freedoms guaranteed by Part III of the Constitution.

Legal Reasoning / Ratio Decidendi

The Supreme Court’s unanimous nine-judge Constitutional Bench in Justice K.S. Puttaswamy (Retd.) v. Union of India, (2017) 10 SCC 1, held that the right to privacy is a fundamental right protected under Articles 14, 19, and 21 of the Constitution. The Court observed that human dignity and personal autonomy lie at the core of individual liberty guaranteed by Article 21 and that privacy is essential to safeguarding those ideals. The Bench recognized that prior decisions—M.P. Sharma v. Satish Chandra (1954) and Kharak Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh (1962)—which denied privacy as fundamental, were no longer tenable in light of evolving constitutional values and subsequent jurisprudence.

In articulating its reasoning, the Court distilled a three-fold proportionality test for any state intrusion into privacy:

1. Legality: the impugned measure must have a clear legal basis enacted by a competent legislature;
2. Legitimate Aim: the measure must serve a legitimate state or public interest; and
3. Proportionality: the intrusion must be appropriate and not excessive in relation to the stated aim.

This legality–necessity–proportionality test was applied to analyze the Aadhaar scheme’s mandatory biometric enrolment and data linkage. The Court held that while the Aadhaar Act and associated regulations were enacted by Parliament (satisfying legality) and pursued legitimate objectives of efficient subsidy delivery and fraud prevention, certain provisions mandating linkage with bank accounts, mobile numbers, and school admissions failed the proportionality requirement and were struck down.

The Court drew upon a rich body of precedents to evolve these principles. It cited Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India (1978) for the expanded interpretation of Article 21, Gobind v. State of M.P. (1975) and PUCL v. Union of India (1997) for recognition of limited privacy in surveillance and telephone tapping contexts, and Rustom Cavasjee Cooper v. Union of India (1970) for disavowal of the compartmentalized rights approach in A.K. Gopalan v. State of Madras (1950). By repudiating older rulings that marginalized privacy and adopting an integrated view of fundamental rights, the Court established a clear constitutional framework that balances individual dignity with legitimate state interests.

Conclusion

The 2017 case of Puttaswamy v. Union of India represented a pivotal ruling by the Supreme Court of India that affirmed privacy as an essential right under the Constitution. This significant ruling carries extensive repercussions for privacy rights, surveillance regulations, and data protection within India.

The main points from the Puttaswamy judgment include:

• Privacy is now recognized as a constitutionally guaranteed fundamental right under Article 21, providing privacy rights with stronger legal protections. 
• The mandate for biometric identification under the Aadhaar scheme was ruled unconstitutional, thus limiting its reach. 
• Surveillance and data gathering by the government must adhere to standards of proportionality and necessity, thereby reducing unwarranted state interference with privacy. 
• Informational privacy was acknowledged in light of the digital era, addressing privacy issues related to technology. 

The Puttaswamy v. Union of India case continues to be highly significant in today’s Indian legal context. It established a foundation for future data protection laws, such as the Personal Data Protection Bill. Additionally, the ruling has impacted later Supreme Court decisions concerning privacy matters, including the decriminalization of homosexuality and the right to request the removal of information online. By instituting strong constitutional protections for privacy in India, the Puttaswamy case was transformative and remains a crucial reference point for advocacy of privacy rights.