Justice K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India, (2017) 10 SCC 1

Court: Supreme Court of India (Nine-Judge Constitutional Bench)

Citation: (2017) 10 SCC 1

Date of Judgment: August 24, 2017

Coram: Khehar CJ, J. Chelameswar, S.A. Bobde, R.F. Nariman, A.M. Sapre, D.Y.  Chandrachud, S.K. Kaul, R.K. Agarwal, Abdul Nazeer, JJ.

FACT OF THE CASE

The matter had come from a writ petition presented by Justice K.S. Puttaswamy (Retd.), who  was a retired Karnataka High Court judge, questioning the constitutional validity of the  Aadhaar scheme that was brought into effect by the Unique Identification Authority of India  (UIDAI)^.1 The scheme made it mandatory for citizens to provide biometric information  (fingerprints, iris scans) to get a 12-digit identification number so they could access  government schemes and services.

Puttaswamy, on the other hand, had posited that the Aadhaar scheme infringed upon the right  to privacy, which was an implied fundamental right under India’s Constitution. The Union  Government responded by arguing that the right to privacy was not a fundamental right,  relying on earlier judgments like those in M.P. Sharma v. Satish Chandra (1954) and Kharak  Singh v. State of U.P. (1962), which had rejected such a status. ²

In view of legal importance and constitutional issues involved, a nine-judge Constitution  Bench was set up to adjudicate the lead question: Whether the right to privacy is a  fundamental right of the Constitution of India.

1. Justice K.S. Puttaswamy (Retd.) v. Union of India, (2017) 10 S.C.C. 1 (India). 2. M.P. Sharma v. Satish Chandra, A.I.R. 1954 S.C. 300 (India); Kharak Singh v. State of U.P., A.I.R. 1963 S.C. 1295 (India).
2. Legal Issues
3. Is the right to privacy a fundamental right under Part III of the Indian Constitution? 2. If yes, what is the scope and content of this right?
4. Do previous judgments (M.P. Sharma, Kharak Singh) that denied privacy as a fundamental right remain valid?

III. Arguments of the parties

Petitioner (Justice K.S. Puttaswamy & Others):

III. Parties’ Statements K.S. Puttaswamy, the petitioner, and others: claimed that the right to  privacy is implicit in the freedoms protected by Articles 14, 19, and 25 and is inherent in the  right to life and personal liberty under Article 21. The Universal Declaration of Human  Rights and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights are two examples of  international human rights law that affirm privacy as a fundamental human right. cited court  rulings that acknowledged privacy as a constitutional value³, such as Gobind v. State of M.P.  (1975) and R. Rajagopal v. State of Tamil Nadu (1994). emphasized how evolving  technological and societal contexts that make privacy more important than ever (such as  digital data protection) should be reflected in the development of constitutional jurisprudence.⁴

Respondent (Union of India):

Stated that there is no broad or absolute right to privacy guaranteed by the Constitution.

Cited M.P. Sharma (1954) and Kharak Singh (1962) to argue that the creators of the  Constitution did not mean to include a right to privacy.

Claimed that privacy is too unclear and flexible to be recognized as a fundamental right.

Asserted that even if such a right exists, it should be subject to reasonable limits, particularly  in relation to national security, public interest, and welfare programs.

1. Universal Declaration of Human Rights, G.A. Res. 217A (III), U.N. Doc. A/810 (1948); International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, Dec. 16, 1966, 999 U.N.T.S. 171.
2. Gobind v. State of M.P., (1975) 2 S.C.C. 148 (India); R. Rajagopal v. State of Tamil Nadu, (1994) 6 S.C.C. 632 (India).

Judgment

In a seminal and unanimous judgment, the nine-judge Constitution Bench of the Supreme  Court of India declared that the right to privacy is a fundamental right of a constitutional  nature, enshrined in the guarantees of life and personal liberty under Article 21, and  inseparably connected with the freedoms under Part III of the Constitution. The Court  explicitly overruled the precedents established in M.P. Sharma v. Satish Chandra (1954) and  Kharak Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh (1962) up to the extent that they had disavowed the  existence of a fundamental right of privacy. Writing the lead opinion for four judges, Justice  D.Y. Chandrachud clarified that privacy is not an isolated or limited right but a multifaceted  right that includes bodily integrity, informational privacy, and decisional autonomy.⁵ The  Court acknowledged privacy as being inherent to human dignity and freedom, reiterating that  it forms the basis for a variety of other basic rights, such as freedom of speech, expression,  movement, and conscience. To determine the constitutional validity of any violation of  privacy, the Court established a three-pronged test—(i) presence of a valid law, (ii) a  reasonable state objective, and (iii) proportionality of the means taken. The verdict  recognized the nuance of the digital era, underscoring the urgent necessity of protecting  people from indiscriminate data collection and surveillance by state and non-state actors  alike. The concurring judgments written by Justices Nariman, Kaul, Chelameswar, and others  detailed multiple aspects of privacy, such as its connection to personal autonomy, control  over information, and the need for a robust data protection regimen. Not only did the decision  bring the right to privacy to the level of a fundamental right but also declare it to be the pillar  of constitutional democracy in India, and one that was to set a strong precedent for future  juridical pronouncements on civil liberties in light of new technologies and state watching.

5.Justice K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India, (2017) 10 S.C.C. 1, ¶ 180 (India).

V.Bibliography 

1. Justice K.S. Puttaswamy (Retd.) v. Union of India, (2017) 10 S.C.C. 1 (India). 2. M.P. Sharma v. Satish Chandra, A.I.R. 1954 S.C. 300 (India).
2. Kharak Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh, A.I.R. 1963 S.C. 1295 (India). 4. Gobind v. State of M.P., (1975) 2 S.C.C. 148 (India).
3. R. Rajagopal v. State of Tamil Nadu, (1994) 6 S.C.C. 632 (India).
4. Universal Declaration of Human Rights, G.A. Res. 217A (III), U.N. Doc. A/810 (1948). 7. International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, Dec. 16, 1966, 999 U.N.T.S. 171.
5. Gautam Bhatia, State Surveillance and the Right to Privacy in India: A Constitutional Biography of K.S. Puttaswamy, 9(1) Indian J. Const. L. 123 (2018).
6. Aparna Chandra, The Supreme Court and the Right to Privacy, 52(2) Econ. & Pol. Wkly. 14 (2017).