Author: Asmita Sarkar, Heritage Law College
To the Point
The historical case of Justice K.S. Puttaswamy (Retd.) & Anr. v. Union of India & Ors., (2017) 10 SCC 1, in which a nine-judge bench of the Supreme Court of India held, acknowledged the Right to Privacy. The case arose in the backdrop of petitions against the Aadhaar scheme, where petitioners had claimed that the collection and use of personal data by the State infringed upon the privacy of citizens. The Court held unanimously that privacy is an integral component of the right to life and individual liberty, as also other freedoms enshrined in Part III, and cannot be withheld just because it is not specifically mentioned in the Constitution. In so holding, the Court explicitly overruled earlier judgments, such as M.P. Sharma v. Satish Chandra (1954) and Kharak Singh v. State of UP (1962), which had previously taken a constricted view of privacy. This decision not only formed the basis of reinforcing individual freedoms in the digital era but also became a cornerstone of further constitutional jurisprudence in India.
Legal Jagron
The nine-judge constitutional bench in Justice K.S. Puttaswamy (Retd.) v. Union of India handed down a landmark ruling whereby the right to privacy was interpreted into the purview of Article 21, Right to Life, and the galaxy of rights under Part III of the Constitution. It was noted that the lack of explicit textual protection does not exclude the possibility of privacy as a penumbral right emerging from the doctrine of substantive due process and the transformative nature of constitutional interpretation.
The ruling categorically overruled the ratio in M.P. Sharma v. Satish Chandra (1954) and Kharak Singh v. State of U.P. (1962). The court appealed to principles of constitutional morality, proportionality, and legitimate state interest, defining the negative duty of the State to avoid arbitrary intrusion as well as its positive obligation to protect privacy from non-State actors. By putting privacy on the footing of a fundamental right that can be enforced under Article 32, the Court laid down a doctrinal basis for the later jurisprudence dealing with data protection, surveillance, and informational privacy, and thus constitutionalized privacy as a part of the basic structure doctrine.
The Proof
Constitutional Text & Interpretation–
The Court has ruled that while privacy is not directly referred to in the Constitution, it arises from the “right to life and personal liberty” under Article 21 and also coincides with freedoms under Articles 14, 19, and 25. Rights are not to be read narrowly but purposively and expansively, as part of a living Constitution.
Overruling Old Precedents –
The M.P. Sharma (1954) and Kharak Singh (1962) judgments were held to be bad in law since they adopted a strict, literal interpretation and did not fully understand the revolutionary and dynamic nature of fundamental rights.
Doctrines Applied –
Substantive Due Process→ Privacy-violating laws need to be fair, just, and reasonable.
Proportionality Test → Any limitation shall have a valid state purpose, be necessary and proportionate, and be supported by procedural protections.
Constitutional Morality → Rights may not be abridged merely by majoritarian fiat; they shall be consistent with constitutional values.
Positive & Negative Obligations –
Privacy was viewed as having both a negative (shield against capricious state invasion) and a positive aspect (the State’s obligation to establish frameworks safeguarding citizens’ privacy from private actors, such as data protection legislation).
Abstract
The constitutional landmark in Justice K.S. Puttaswamy (Retd.) v. Union of India, (2017) 10 SCC 1, is a constitutional turning point in Indian jurisprudence wherein a nine-judge bench of the Supreme Court unequivocally declared the right to privacy to be a fundamental right under Part III of the Indian Constitution. The Court held that privacy cannot be an elitist notion but a natural right of every individual, part and parcel of Article 21 (right to life and liberty), and inextricably linked with the freedoms guaranteed under Articles 14, 19, and 25. It reversed earlier judgments such as M.P. Sharma v. Satish Chandra(1954) and Kharak Singh v. State of U.P., in replacement of which it did so. (1962), which had previously rejected the idea of privacy as a part of the constitutional framework, the Court acknowledged that the fundamental rights are not rigid in character but evolve by purposive interpretation according to the living nature of the Constitution.
The decision emphasized that privacy bears both negative and positive dimensions—while it protects individuals against arbitrary state monitoring and intrusion, it simultaneously confers a positive obligation on the State to offer informational privacy in the age of information. By invoking doctrines of substantive due process, proportionality, constitutional morality, and intergenerational equity, the Court firmly established privacy as a core constitutional principle, safeguarding its inviolability from legislative as well as executive interference. Aside from mere identification, the judgment provided a solid doctrinal foundation for the subsequent jurisprudence on surveillance control, data protection, and informational self-determination, positioning privacy at the very core of dignity, autonomy, and liberty in a modern constitutional democracy. This precis encapsulates the significance of the Puttaswamy judgment as a sea change in Indian constitutional law, for it aligns the country’s own rights thinking with the evolving international human rights norms.
Case Laws
1. Kharak Singh v. State of U.P., AIR 1963 SC 1295
Court: Supreme Court of India (Constitution Bench)
Year:1962
Citation: AIR 1963 SC 1295
Facts
Subsequently, the U.P. Police enforced “domiciliary visits at night” and round-the-clock surveillance upon him in accordance with the U.P. Police Regulations. He complained of these actions as being violative of his fundamental rights under Articles 19(1)(d) and 21.
Issue
Whether police surveillance and domiciliary visits amounted to a violation of the right to life and personal liberty under Article 21.
Arguments
Petitioner: Constant surveillance violates personal liberty and dignity.
State: Regulations are necessary for public order and the prevention of crime.
Judgment
The Court invalidated night domiciliary visits as unconstitutional but upheld other forms of monitoring. It stated that the phrase “personal liberty” under Article 21 is broad, but it did not explicitly recognize the right to privacy.
Significance
First significant case wherein privacy was indirectly mentioned.
2. Govind v. State of Madhya Pradesh, (1975) 2 SCC 148
Court: Supreme Court of India (Three-Judge Bench)
Year: 1975
Citation: (1975) 2 SCC 148
Facts
Govind, a dweller of Madhya Pradesh, questioned specific police orders allowing surveillance of habitual offenders, such as domiciliary visits, police station reporting, etc., as being violative of Article 21.
Issue
Whether surveillance pursuant to police orders violates the right to privacy and liberty under Article 21.
Judgment
Justice Mathew believed that “the right to privacy may be a fundamental right, though not absolute. It could be abridged in the interest of compulsive state necessity, such as public order, security, and prevention of crime.
Significance
Understood that privacy had to give way to compelling state interests.
3. People’s Union for Civil Liberties (PUCL) v. Union of India, (1997) 1 SCC 301
Court: Supreme Court of India
Year: 1997
Citation: (1997) 1 SCC 301
Facts
PUCL instituted a PIL questioning the constitutional validity of telephone tapping under Section 5(2) of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885, on the ground that it infringed the right to privacy under Article 21.
Issue
Whether telephone tapping is a violation of the right to privacy.
Judgment
The Court held that telephone calls constitute private life, and unauthorized tapping violates Article 21. Section 5(2) was upheld, but procedural safeguards were established: tapping can be permitted only on the advent of a public emergency or in public safety, with sanction by the Home Secretary and under periodic review.
Significance
Strong affirmation of informational privacy.
Ensured guarantees against misuse of surveillance powers.
4. R. Rajagopal v. State of Tamil Nadu, (1994)
Court: Supreme Court of India
Year: 1994
Citation: (1994) 6 SCC 632
Facts
R. Rajagopal, editor of a magazine, wanted to publish the autobiography of “Auto Shankar,” a convicted death row inmate, describing his association with police officers. The State attempted to enjoin publication in respect of privacy and defamation.
Issue
Whether or not the publication of a convict’s autobiography by the State without its consent infringes the right to privacy.
Judgment
The Court ruled that the right to privacy prohibits the unauthorized publication of private information, except when such information is part of public records. However, in this case, the State could not prevent publication because it involved matters of public interest.
Significance
Distinguished between private affairs and affairs of record.
5. Selvi v. State of Karnataka, (2010) 7 SCC 263
Court: Supreme Court of India
Year: 2010
Citation: (2010) 7 SCC 263
Facts
The case concerned the constitutionality of narco-analysis, polygraph testing, and brain mapping done in criminal investigations without the permission of the accused.
Judgment
The Court ruled that compulsory testing of these kinds infringes the right not to be compelled that such tests can be administered only with consent and adequate protection.
Significance
Extended privacy to encompass mental privacy and bodily integrity. Improved individual protection against invasive state action.
Conclusion
The Supreme Court in Justice K.S. Puttaswamy (Retd.) v. Union of India (2017) ultimately confirmed that the right to privacy is a fundamental right protected under Article 21 of the Indian Constitution and is inherent in the right to life and personal liberty. The nine-judge Constitution Bench unanimously agreed that privacy is not an elitist right but a crucial part of dignity, autonomy, and individual freedom. The ruling clarified that privacy encompasses decisional autonomy, informational privacy, and bodily integrity, advancing constitutional jurisprudence on civil liberties. It set the framework for balancing individual privacy with legitimate state interests through the principles of proportionality and necessity, ensuring any privacy intrusion is supported by law and justice is upheld for every person or citizen.
FAQS
Q1. What was the case of Justice K.S. Puttaswamy all about?
It was a historic case in which the Supreme Court had to consider whether the right to privacy was a fundamental right under the Indian Constitution.
Q2. Who was Justice K.S. Puttaswamy?
Justice K.S. Puttaswamy was an elderly judge of the Karnataka High Court who had filed the petition against the Aadhaar scheme on grounds of invasion of privacy.
Q3. What was the central constitutional issue?
Whether privacy is also a part of the basic rights enshrined by Part III of the Constitution, specifically Article 21 (Right to Life and Personal Liberty).
Q4. What was the decision of the Supreme Court?
A nine-judge Constitution Bench, in its unanimous view, held that privacy is a basic right, which is under the cover of Article 21 and other freedoms enshrined by Part III of the Constitution.
Q5. Which previous cases were overruled?
M.P. Sharma v. Satish Chandra (1954)
Kharak Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh (1962)
Both had already held that privacy to not a fundamental right.
Q6. What is the ambit of the right to privacy established?
It encompasses personal autonomy, bodily integrity, informational privacy, and the right to make decisions regarding one’s own life, like marriage, sexual orientation, food habits, and communication.
Q7. Why is this case important?
It consolidated civil liberties by decisively holding that privacy constitutes a component of dignity and liberty, setting the stage for subsequent cases such as Navtej Singh Johar (decriminalizing homosexuality) and Joseph Shine (quashing adultery law).
