Author: Jaivardhan Singh Rathore, National Law University and Judicial Academy, Assam
To the Point
The historic judgment affirming the constitutional right to privacy was passed by nine-judge bench of the Supreme Court of India on 24th August 2017 in Justice K.S. Puttaswamy and Anr. v. Union of India and Ors. Under Part III of Constitution of India, which lays down our fundamental rights, right to privacy was also declared an integral component of it, particularly under Article 21- the right to life and personal liberty. The backdrop behind the case was Government of India’s Aadhar project, identification system which was based on biometric, raised serious concerns about data security, and protection of personal information.
Modern democratic societies although recognize privacy as an integral part to individual’s right to freedom, but Supreme Court of India in its previous rulings held that privacy is not a constitutionally protected right.
In the current era, due to rapid expansion of digital technologies and growing use of personal data in both private and public sector, it poses a great risk to an individual’s privacy. The Puttaswamy case was not just about the Aadhar case but to lay the foundation of an individual’s right to protection of his/her/their personal information.
This article delves into the case’s background, legal arguments and far-reaching implication of Puttaswamy verdict, which underscored the new relationship between citizens and the modern Indian state.
Background and Origins of the case
Puttaswamy case traces its origins from the introduction of the Aadhar project by Government of India in 2009. Originally this scheme was conceived as a means to felicitate welfare delivery and to eliminate fraud. The 12-digit unique identification number was assigned to every Indian resident based on their biometric and demographic data. Without comprehensive data protection laws at the time, the concerns mounted over potential surveillance and data breaches of such sensitive and personal data of individuals.
By 2012, legal scholars, technologists and citizens had begun to express their concerns regarding lack of safeguards surrounding Aadhaar database. These concerns materialized into a legal challenge when in 2015, Justice K.S. Puttaswamy (Retd.), a former Karnataka High Court judge, filed a PIL (Public Interest Litigation). The government in the case argued about the failure of earlier judgements like Kharak Singh vs. State of UP and M.P. Sharma vs. Union of India to recognise right to privacy as a Fundamental Right. The three-judge bench hearing the matter referred the right to privacy question to a nine-judge constitutional Supreme Court bench.
Issues before the Court
The Aadhar matter’s referral to the nine-judge Constitution bench was not just about biometric identification. It raised foundational questions concerning the very relationship between the individual and the state, and also the scope of fundamental rights under Part III of the Constitution. The central issues framed by court are:
1. Existence of a Fundamental Right to Privacy
Under the ambit of Fundamental rights, does right to privacy finds its place in Indian Constitution even though it’s not expressly enumerated?
And if the answer is yes, is it located within a specific article, like Article 21 (right to life and personal liberty), or is it spread across multiple rights?
2. Nature and Scope of the Right
Should right to privacy be kept in ambit of absolute right or is it subject to restrictions similar to other Fundamental rights?
If it can be subjected to restrictions, what should the criteria be applied while putting on such restrictions?
3. Balancing Individual Rights with State Interests
How should protects individual’s right to privacy against legitimate state concerns such as national security, prevention of crime, etc.?
Can schemes like Aadhar be constitutionally justified if it serves a “compelling state interest”?
These issues reflected a constitutional dilemma as to whether India would continue to treat privacy as implied liberty or elevate it to a position of core fundamental right.
Analysis of the Judgement
The nine-judge Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court, in a unanimous decision held right to privacy as a constitutionally protected fundamental right. Although separate opinions were authored by each judge, they agreed on the conclusion that privacy is very much a part of liberty and dignity under the Constitution.
The bench comprised of Chief Justice J.S. Khehar and justices J. Chelameswar, S.A. Bobde, R.K. Agarwal, Rohinton Nariman, Abhay Sapre, D.Y. Chandrachud, S.K. Kaul, and Sanjay Kishan Kaul.
Key Holdings
1. Fundamental Right Status: Privacy is inherent part to right to life and liberty under Article 21 and interwoven with articles 14 and 19.
2. Overruling Precedent: Earlier decisions in M.P. Sharma v. Satish Chandra (1954) which held that the right to privacy is not protected under Constitution was completely overruled and Kharak Singh v. State of U.P. (1962) is also overruled to the extent it denied privacy not being protected under the Constitution.
3. Universal Application: The bench of judges emphasized on the fact that right to privacy is not an elitist privilege but important part of human dignity and autonomy and applies to all regardless of their socio-economic status.
Tests Developed for infringement of privacy
The Supreme Court outline the three-fold test for determining the legitimacy of the reasonable restrictions that can be put by state:
· Legality: Any restriction that is put on privacy must have a valid legal basis.
· Legitimate State aim: The state’s objective to put restrictions must have a justifiable reason in a constitutional democracy i.e. national security, public welfare, etc.
· Proportionality: The means adopted to put a check on privacy must be least intrusive and reasonably proportionate to the aim pursued.
The proportionality doctrine discussed here became the guiding framework for evaluating privacy infringements in later cases.
Dimensions of privacy
The multifaceted approach was used to recognize the right to privacy by the Court. The various aspects of privacy protected are:
· Bodily privacy: It includes autonomy over one’s body, medical confidentiality, reproductive rights.
· Decisional privacy: this includes freedom to make personal choices regarding family, marriage, procreation, sexuality.
· Informational privacy: It includes use and dissemination of one’s personal data which is very significant in this technological age.
Justice D.Y. Chandrachud’s opinion emphasized on privacy being an integral part of human dignity and is a natural right. He linked it to the broader definition of autonomy, where the control of an individual’s personal sphere should be free from unwarranted intrusion and restrictions.
Impact on Indian Jurisprudence
The historic Puttaswamy judgement became the bedrock for subsequent constitutional developments that reflects the evolution of laws in India. By including privacy under the ambit of Fundamental rights, the Court created a jurisprudential shift that influenced diverse areas of law, from welfare delivery to sexual autonomy.
· Aadhar and Welfare schemes:
In K.S. Puttaswamy (Aadhar-2) v. Union of India (2018), the constitutional validity of the Aadhar scheme was examined by a five-judge bench in light of the right to privacy recognized in K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India (2017). Aadhar was upheld by court
for serving a legitimate state interest in targeted welfare delivery, but did strike down the provisions which enabled private entities like bank and telecom companies, to mandate Aadhar authentication. The delicate balance was struck between individual’s informational privacy and welfare objectives by state.
· LGBTQ+ Rights and Sexual Autonomy
Navtej Singh Johar v. Union of India (2018), where the court decriminalized consensual same-sex relations under the Section 377 IPC was directly influenced by the recognition of privacy as decisional autonomy in the right to privacy case. The rationale given was that sexual orientation is an essential attribute of privacy and that state cannot intrude into or restrict the private choices of consenting adults.
· Women’s Rights and Gender Equality
Joseph Shine v. Union of India (2018), which struck down Section 497 IPC, decriminalizing adultery, was also guided by right to privacy’s decisional autonomy principle. Under this paternalistic law, women’s autonomy and dignity was compromised and the right to privacy safeguards the individual’s right to make intimate decisions which should be free from state interference.
· Surveillance and Digital Privacy
The proportionality test developed in 2017 in the Puttaswamy case was invoked several times against challenges of mass surveillance and spyware (e.g., Pegasus scandal) by state. The judicial responses do keep changing but petitioners from virtue of right to privacy have a constitutional anchor they can hold to contest against the arbitrary state surveillance and internet shutdowns.
Conclusion
The Puttaswamy judgement marks a defining moment in India’s constitutional history. Its not just a legal milestone but also a testament to the fact that Constitution is a living and breathing document which caters to the needs of its people and not just impose rules upon them. By declaring privacy to be a fundamental right, Supreme Court resorted the faith that idea of liberty is not a privilege granted by the state but a right inherent in every individual. It not only overruled regressive precedents like M.P. Sharma and Kharak Singh but also aligned India’s jurisprudence with global constitutional attributes which recognizes privacy to be an integral part of an individual’s liberty and dignity.
It vouched for the fact that privacy is not a static concept but keeps evolving with society, technology and human needs. The true legacy of the Puttaswamy judgement lies in it being a stepping stone for evolving the constitutional law with regard to judgements like decriminalising homosexuality, reproductive autonomy and informational privacy. At the same time became a catalyst for introduction of various legislative initiatives such as data protection frameworks.
However, there still exists challenges and there remains gap between principle and practice in recurring issues like internet shutdowns, mass surveillance and weak enforcement of personal data protection rules. The responsibility of translating the philosophical foundation given by court now rests on legislatures and vigilant citizens.
Ultimately, Puttaswamy judgement marks as a beginning of ‘privacy era’ in India as it will lead to further evolution of scope of privacy and will also draw the careful yet balanced line between the state and the citizen’s rights in this new digital age.
FAQs
1. What was the Puttaswamy Case about?
The Puttaswamy Case arose from a challenge by the retired High Court judge K.S. Puttaswamy against the concerns of privacy and handling of citizens’s personal data in the Aadhar biometric identification scheme. The matter was refereed to the nine-judge bench to decide the important constitutional question if privacy qualifies as a Fundamental Right enshrined under Constitution.
2. What did Supreme Court decide in Puttaswamy Case?
The court unanimously ruled that right to privacy qualifies as a Fundamental Right protected under Article 14 (equality) , Article 19 (freedom) and Article 21( right to life and personal liberty). It overruled the M.P. Sharma (1954) and Kharak Singh (1962) judgements which previously denied the right to privacy as a Fundamental Right.
3. Why is the case considered as a landmark judgement in Indian Constitutional law?
This decision broadened the meaning of Fundamental rights by including privacy as an integral part of human dignity and autonomy. The court developed three part tests- legality, legitimate state aim and proportionality- to check if the state’s infringement on citizen’s privacy is justified or not. This reasoning became a guiding light for cases on data surveillance, sexual orientation, data protection and personal liberty.
4. What are main challenges in implementing right to privacy after the Puttaswamy judgement?
Despite the strong ruling, the implementation of privacy rights remain vague. Mass surveillance, frequent internet shutdowns, weak data protection laws are some challenges in implementing the privacy rights. The effective implementation now rests on legislators, robust policies by them and responsibility by vigilant citizens.
