Author- Rose, Bharati Vidyapeeth, New Law College, Pune.
Introduction
The case is very landmark case in the eyes of law. The Supreme Court heard the case because of privacy concerns raised by the extensive gathering and archiving of personal data under the Aadhaar scheme. Beyond the scope of Aadhaar, the decision addressed the more fundamental question of whether the right to privacy may be considered a fundamental right under the Indian Constitution.
The Supreme Court held in its majority decision that the right to privacy is a fundamental right that is necessary for the right to life and personal liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution. This decision ruled that earlier decisions that had denied the existence of such a right were unconstitutional. It was revolutionary for India’s individual liberty.
Facts of the Case
Without any legal support, the Indian government issued an executive order in 2009 to start the Aadhaar initiative. The Aadhaar (Targeted Delivery of Financial and Other Subsidies, Benefits, and Services) Act, 2016 was later enacted as legislation. This Act mandated that Aadhaar numbers be used for identity verification in order to ensure that subsidies and social benefits reached the right people.
The main worry was that by collecting private biometric data like fingerprints and iris scans, Aadhaar constituted a significant risk to individual privacy and would ultimately lead to the creation of a surveillance state. Additionally, the petitioners contended that requiring Aadhaar to access basic services including social programs, bank accounts, and cellular connections violated fundamental rights guaranteed by Articles 14, 19, and 21.
After a nine-judge panel in August 2017 decided that the right to privacy was a fundamental right in the case’s earlier phase, the case was reviewed by a five-judge Constitution Bench in light of the difficulties.
The Bench and Legal Representation
The case has nine- bench of judges which are listed below;
Chief Justice J.S. Khehar
Justice D.Y. Chandrachud
Justice Abdul Nazeer
Justice Rohinton Nariman
Justice S.K. Kaul
Justice Sharad Bobde
Justice Jasti Chelameswar
Justice Abhay Sapre
Justice A.K. Sikri
In the case, the Union of India and several states, represented by Attorney General K.K. Venugopal and other government attorneys, were the respondents, while Justice K.S. Puttaswamy and a number of civil society activists, represented by renowned attorneys Shyam Divan, Kapil Sibal, Gopal Subramanium, K.V. Vishwanathan, and Meenakshi Arora, were the petitioners.
Legal Issues
The Supreme Court considered the following primary issues in Justice K.S. Puttaswamy (Retd.) v. Union of India:
Whether it was legally correct to conclude that privacy was not a basic right in M.P. Sharma v. Satish Chandra (1954).
Should the Kharak Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh (1964) decision, which likewise rejected privacy as a fundamental right, be reviewed and overturned?
If the freedoms guaranteed by Part III of the Constitution, as well as the right to life and personal liberty under Article 21, inherently include the right to privacy.
The extent of individual rights and the state’s authority to control personal data were both heavily influenced by these concerns.
Law Applied under the case ambit
“No individual shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty unless in conformity with a procedure established by law,” according to Article 21 of the Constitution.
Article 21 guarantees two rights: the ‘right to life’ and the ‘right to personal liberty’. It prohibits the removal of these rights unless it follows the legally established procedure.
The interpretation of ‘life’ in Article 21 extends beyond mere existence. It does not refer to mere survival or a life that is devoid of quality. It encompasses a broader spectrum of rights, including the right to a dignified standard of living, the right to sustenance, the right to health, the right to clean air, and now also the ‘right to privacy’.
Court’s Decision
A fundamental component of the liberties recognized by Part III of the Constitution, the right to privacy is protected by Article 21 (Right to Life and Personal Liberty), according to Justice D.Y. Chandrachud’s majority ruling.
The court reversed earlier rulings that had denied privacy as a basic right in the cases of M.P. Sharma v. Satish Chandra and Kharak Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh. The ruling made it clear that people’s privacy is essential to their autonomy and sense of dignity and cannot be violated without a valid reason. The court determined that the following three requirements must be met by any violation of the right to privacy:
Legality: The breach of privacy must be permitted by law.
Necessity: The state must have a justifiable purpose in order to defend the violation.
Proportionality: The methods must be commensurate with the violation in order to accomplish the goal.
The ruling also emphasized that privacy encompasses all aspects of life, including family, sexual orientation, and intimate relationships. It emphasized that sexual orientation is a fundamental component of an individual’s privacy and that discrimination based on it is against Articles 14 and 15 of the Constitution, which safeguard equality and dignity.
Legal Reasoning of Case
The Court applied the proportionality principle to strike a balance between the interests of the state and individual rights. It came to the conclusion that Aadhaar serves two legitimate state interests: benefit targeting and identification verification.
However, due to concerns about unrestricted private access to data and broad data sharing, several provisions were reversed. It restated the importance of data minimization, purpose limitation, and security measures.
The “three-pronged proportionality test” was used by the majority ruling to evaluate the validity of the Aadhaar program:
1. Legitimate Goal: It was decided that the state’s goal of guaranteeing targeted benefit delivery was legitimate.
2. Suitability and Necessity: In light of the current difficulties in benefit distribution systems, the Court acknowledged that the Aadhaar system was both appropriate and required to accomplish that objective.
3. Balancing: Although the Court limited the system’s use to guard against abuse, it was considered to establish a fair balance.
The Court also emphasized data protection, informed consent, and minimum data retention. It underlined that Aadhaar should not be utilized by the government as an intrusive tool and that basic biometric data must remain private unless mandated by law or for national security.
Justice Chandrachud’s dissenting opinion was very forceful. He ruled that the entire Aadhaar Act was illegal since it was passed as a Money Bill without first passing the Rajya Sabha. He further argued that Aadhaar might lead to surveillance and infringe upon the constitutionally protected right to privacy.
Impact of the Case on Indian Governmental Order
Indian law and government have been significantly impacted by this ruling. It established the foundation for upcoming privacy and data protection legislation by restating privacy as a basic right. It resulted in major modifications to the way Aadhaar was implemented, limiting its use to government subsidies and perks. The prohibition on private corporations requesting Aadhaar details affected a number of industries, including banking and telecommunications.
The proposed Personal Data Protection Bill, which attempts to control the processing of personal data, was sparked by the case. It exposed digital governance to constitutional examination, particularly with regard to data collecting, storage, and surveillance. Concerns regarding presidential overreach and parliamentary procedure have been brought to light by the opposition’s stance on the Money Bill issue. This ruling upheld the fundamental constitutional right to privacy. Consequently, policies pertaining to Aadhaar were modified. Requests for Aadhaar could not be made by private organizations.
The reforms it sparked led to the adoption of a comprehensive data privacy law in India, such as the Personal Data privacy Bill. This suggested that attention was turning to a constitutional study of digital governance.
Conclusion
One of the most famous cases in Indian constitutional law is the Justice K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India. It acknowledged the significance of protecting digital rights, set limits on government overreach, and delineated the boundaries of privacy rights. Aadhaar was modified to comply with constitutional requirements, but it was still in use.
An important development in Indian jurisprudence, particularly in the digital age, is the K.S. Puttaswamy ruling. It highlights the intricate connections between privacy, government, and identity. Despite passing the legal test, the ruling severely limited Aadhaar’s ability to safeguard individual rights. The ruling opened the door for a constitutional approach to technology and governance by acknowledging the importance of preserving human dignity and informational self-determination in an age of more digital data.
This decision acts as a vital guideline to ensure that technological advancements uphold constitutional ideals and the rule of law as India continues its digitization of governance.
FAQs
1. Right to Privacy is constituted under which Article of Indian Constitution?
Right to Privacy is signified under the Article 21 of the Indian Constitution.
2. Whether the case of Justice K.S. Puttaswamy (Retd.) v. Union of India is a landmark case for right to privacy under Article 21 on Indian constitution?
The case of Justice K.S. Puttaswamy (Retd.) v. Union of India is a landmark case in significance of the Right to Privacy under article 21 of the Constitution as it lays down certain significance with a person’s privacy concern which is an essential element under the eyes of law.
3. What is the scope of Article 21 of Indian Constitution?
The scope of Article 21 is seen being elongated in many landmark judgments laid down by our Indian Judiciary. Courts read Article 21 of the Indian Constitution, which protects the right to life and personal liberty, broadly to include all facets of a respectable human life. It shields people from state actions that take away their life or freedom, unless a legally mandated process is followed, which must be reasonable, fair, and just.
References and Bibliography
Website Referred
https://lawbhoomi.com/justice-k-s-puttaswamy-retd-anr-v-union-of-india-ors/
https://www.manupatracademy.com/legalpost/manu-sc-1044-2017
