Justice K.S. Puttaswamy (Retd.) v. Union of India (2017): Privacy as a Constitutional Cornerstone

Author: Tanya Bharti, Bharati Vidyapeeth New Law College, Pune



1. To the Point

In 2017, the Supreme Court of India delivered a landmark judgment in Justice K.S. Puttaswamy (Retd.) v. Union of India, declaring the right to privacy as a fundamental right under the Indian Constitution. This verdict not only overruled outdated judicial precedents but also revolutionized the understanding of personal liberty in a democracy. The decision came amidst national debates about the Aadhaar biometric identification project, where concerns were raised about State surveillance, consent, and autonomy. In its unanimous decision, the nine-judge Bench ruled that privacy is inherent to human dignity and therefore must be protected as a part of the Right to Life and Personal Liberty (Article 21).


2. Use of Legal Jargon

The judgment drew from a variety of constitutional doctrines and terms of art. Below are some key legal concepts discussed in the case:

a. Fundamental Rights (Part III)

Part III of the Indian Constitution outlines fundamental rights. The Court clarified that privacy is not an independent right but a derivative one that flows from the combined reading of Articles 14, 19, and 21, which ensure equality, freedoms, and personal liberty respectively.

b. Substantive Due Process

A concept borrowed from American constitutional law, it asserts that laws affecting life and liberty must not only follow correct procedures but must also be fair, just, and reasonable. This principle was key in evaluating laws impinging on privacy.

c. Proportionality Doctrine

To assess the validity of State-imposed restrictions on privacy, the Court laid down a proportionality test:

Legality – Is there a law?
Legitimate aim– Does it serve a public purpose?
Necessity– Is the measure essential?
Proportionality – Is the intrusion minimal and least harmful?

d.Informational Privacy

This covers an individual’s right to control personal data and how it’s collected, stored, and shared. It forms a critical part of privacy in the digital age, where data is the new currency.

e. Horizontal and Vertical Application

While fundamental rights primarily apply against the State (vertical application), the Court suggested that privacy may also apply to relationships between private entities, such as between a user and a tech company (horizontal application).

f. Constitutional Morality

This concept underlines that interpretations of the Constitution must uphold its core values like dignity, autonomy, and justice, even if those values conflict with societal norms or government interests.


3. The Proof

A. Background of the Case

Justice K.S. Puttaswamy, a retired judge of the Karnataka High Court, filed a public interest litigation (PIL) in 2012, challenging the constitutional validity of the **Aadhaar** project. Aadhaar was being linked to welfare benefits, financial services, and even school admissions. Critics feared that this widespread linking of biometric data without proper safeguards violated the right to privacy.

The Union Government, however, argued that privacy was not a fundamental right, citing older judgments from the 1950s and 60s. These cases (M.P. Sharma and Kharak Singh) had held that the Indian Constitution did not explicitly protect privacy.

As a result, a constitutional question emerged: Is the right to privacy a fundamental right under Part III of the Constitution?

B. Nine-Judge Bench Formation

Due to conflicting precedents by larger benches, a nine-judge Constitution Bench was constituted. This was one of the largest benches formed in India since the famous Kesavananda Bharati case (1973), which laid down the basic structure doctrine. The significance of such a large bench indicated the seriousness of the issue.

C. The Judgment

On 24 August 2017, the Bench unanimously held that:
“Privacy is the constitutional core of human dignity and it is protected as an intrinsic part of the right to life and personal liberty under Article 21.”

The Court reasoned that privacy is not just the absence of interference but a positive freedom to make personal choices without fear or coercion. The judgment overruled the earlier decisions of M.P. Sharma* (1954) and Kharak Singh(1962), holding them to be outdated and incompatible with modern constitutional values.

Each of the judges delivered a separate but concurring opinion, with Justice D.Y. Chandrachud writing the lead opinion.



4. Abstract

This landmark decision expanded the scope of constitutional rights in India by declaring the right to privacy as an essential, inviolable component of human dignity and autonomy. Although the trigger for the case was the Aadhaar scheme, the broader implications touched nearly every aspect of civil liberty—from sexual autonomy and reproductive rights to data protection and freedom from surveillance.

By invoking both Indian and international precedents, the Court not only clarified the position of privacy in the Indian context but also aligned the nation with global human rights standards. In doing so, it set the foundation for legislative and judicial reforms in data governance, digital rights, and bodily integrity.


5. Case Laws

The Puttaswamy judgment directly addressed and overruled previous decisions and also cited various landmark judgments to support its conclusions:

(i) M.P. Sharma v. Satish Chandra (1954)

Held that privacy was not a fundamental right. This was based on a narrow interpretation of search and seizure under Article 20(3).
Status: Overruled

### **(ii) Kharak Singh v. State of U.P. (1962)**

Upheld surveillance by police and denied recognition of a right to privacy, except in the dissenting opinion of Justice Subba Rao.
Status: Majority view overruled; dissent upheld

(iii) Gobind v. State of M.P. (1975)

Recognized that privacy may be part of Article 21 but subject to compelling public interest.
Status: Expanded upon in Puttaswamy

(iv) R. Rajagopal v. State of Tamil Nadu (1994)

Established that privacy includes the right to prevent unauthorized publication of one’s personal life.
Status: Reaffirmed

(v) PUCL v. Union of India (1997)

Held that telephone tapping violates the right to privacy unless done under legal procedures.
Status: Reaffirmed

(vi) Selvi v. State of Karnataka (2010)

Found that narco-analysis, brain mapping, and lie detector tests without consent violated bodily and mental privacy.
Status: Strongly cited and followed

(vii) Naz Foundation v. NCT of Delhi (2009) and Navtej Singh Johar v. Union of India (2018)

The Puttaswamy verdict laid the groundwork for later decriminalization of homosexuality, recognizing privacy in matters of sexual orientation.
Status: Direct beneficiary


6. Conclusion

The decision in Justice K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India will go down in history as one of the most significant rulings on individual freedom and State limits. It came at a time when the country was grappling with rapid technological advancement, increasing surveillance, and growing concerns over data misuse. The ruling brought clarity to a previously grey area of Indian jurisprudence and recognized that autonomy, dignity, and liberty are not negotiable.
The judgment has had ripple effects across legal, political, and policy spheres. It was followed by the decriminalization of homosexuality, the recognition of the right to die with dignity, and calls for a robust data protection framework. Parliament responded with the Digital Personal Data Protection Act, 2023, which, though imperfect, owes its existence to this landmark judgment.
Ultimately, the verdict told every Indian that
they have the right to be left alone, to make decisions about their own life, and to control how their personal information is used. In an era where privacy is often sacrificed for convenience or security, this ruling rebalanced the scales in favour of the individual.

7. FAQS

Q1. What is the Justice K.S. Puttaswamy case all about?
A: The Justice K.S. Puttaswamy (Retd.) v. Union of India (2017) case is a landmark Supreme Court ruling that recognized the Right to Privacy as a fundamental right under the Indian Constitution. The case arose from concerns over the Aadhaar biometric ID system and its implications on individual autonomy, surveillance, and personal data. The Court unanimously ruled that privacy is intrinsic to Article 21, which guarantees the right to life and personal liberty.

Q2. Is the right to privacy specifically mentioned in the Indian Constitution?
A: No, the word “privacy” does not appear explicitlyin the Constitution. However, the Supreme Court interpreted privacy as being an integral part of Articles 14, 19, and 21, which collectively uphold equality, freedom, and personal liberty. The judgment emphasized that the Constitution is a living document, and its interpretation must evolve with time.

Q3. Why was a nine-judge Bench constituted for this case?
A: A nine-judge Bench was required because earlier decisions—M.P. Sharma v. Satish Chandra (1954) and Kharak Singh v. State of U.P. (1962)—delivered by benches of eight and six judges respectively, had denied the existence of a fundamental right to privacy. A larger bench was needed to revisit and overrule those precedents.

Q4. What was the final decision of the Supreme Court in the Puttaswamy case?
A: The Court held that:

“Privacy is the constitutional core of human dignity. It is a fundamental right, protected under the Right to Life and Personal Liberty (Article 21) and forms an essential part of freedoms guaranteed by Part III of the Constitution.”

In essence, privacy was elevated to the same level of protection as other fundamental rights like freedom of speech or the right to equality
.
Q5. Did the Supreme Court strike down Aadhaar in this case?
A: No. This case (Puttaswamy-I, 2017) only decided the constitutional status of privacy. The validity of Aadhaar was decided separately in Puttaswamy-II (2018), where the Court upheld Aadhaar but placed limitations on how it can be used and mandated a robust data protection framework.

Q6. What does “informational privacy” mean?
A: Informational privacy refers to an individual’s right to control their personal data—how it is collected, stored, shared, and used. This conceptis especially relevant in the digital age where tech companies, apps, and governments collect massive amounts of personal data. The judgment recognized that data protection is a critical part of privacy.

Q7. What is the proportionality test introduced in this case?
A: The proportionality test helps determine when the State can limit a citizen’s fundamental rights, such as privacy. The test has four elements:

Legality – There must be a valid law authorizing the intrusion.

Legitimate Aim – The purpose of the intrusion must be constitutionally valid.

Necessity – The action must be necessary to achieve the aim.

Proportionality – The intrusion must be minimal and not excessive.

Q8. How does this case affect everyday life in India?
A: The decision impacts several aspects of daily life:

It protects citizens from unauthorized surveillance.

It ensures data protection and consent-based data sharing.

It upholds bodily autonomy, influencing rights related to reproductive choices, sexual
orientation, and lifestyle decisions.

It laid the groundwork for legislation like the Digital Personal Data Protection Act, 2023.

Q9. How did this case influence future judgments?
A: The recognition of privacy as a fundamental right influenced several major cases:

Navtej Singh Johar v. Union of India (2018) – Decriminalized homosexuality.

Joseph Shine v. Union of India (2019) – Struck down the adultery law.

Common Cause v. Union of India (2018) – Upheld the right to die with dignity.