Author: Bhoumik Swami , Student at Kalinga University
ABSTRACT
The Constitution of India is not a static document but a living instrument that evolves with societal, technological, and political developments. One of the most significant examples of such evolution is the recognition of the right to privacy as a fundamental right by the Supreme Court of India in Justice K.S. Puttaswamy (Retd.) v. Union of India (2017). Decided by a unanimous nine-judge Constitution Bench, the judgment resolved decades of judicial ambiguity surrounding privacy and firmly embedded it within the framework of Articles 14, 19, and 21 of the Constitution.
This decision marked a decisive shift in constitutional jurisprudence by overruling earlier precedents that denied privacy constitutional status. The Court conceptualised privacy as intrinsic to human dignity, autonomy, and personal liberty, while also recognising its multifaceted nature—encompassing bodily privacy, decisional autonomy, and informational privacy. Importantly, the judgment laid down a structured proportionality test to assess the validity of privacy infringements by the State.
This article undertakes a comprehensive analysis of the Puttaswamy judgment by examining its factual background, constitutional reasoning, judicial proof, doctrinal contributions, and long-term impact on Indian law. It also evaluates how the decision has influenced subsequent judicial pronouncements, data protection legislation, and the broader relationship between the individual and the State in a digital society.
TO THE POINT
Privacy recognised as a fundamental right
Overruled colonial-era and outdated precedents
Linked privacy with dignity, autonomy, and liberty
Introduced a three-fold proportionality test
Recognised informational privacy in the digital age
Strengthened judicial review over State surveillance
Became the constitutional basis for modern data protection laws
USE OF LEGAL JARGON
The judgment is a landmark exercise in constitutional adjudication, characterised by doctrinal overruling, purposive interpretation, and reliance on substantive due process. The Court reaffirmed the doctrine of interconnected fundamental rights, rejected a narrow textualist approach, and emphasised constitutional morality as a guiding principle. By invoking proportionality, legitimate state interest, and procedural safeguards, the Court recalibrated the balance between State authority and individual freedoms in a constitutional democracy.
THE PROOF (BACKGROUND, FACTS, AND ISSUES)
Historical Context
The question of whether the Indian Constitution protects a right to privacy has troubled courts for decades. In M.P. Sharma v. Satish Chandra (1954), an eight-judge bench held that the Constitution does not expressly guarantee a right to privacy.
Similarly, in Kharak Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh (1963), the majority denied privacy protection, although a powerful dissent by Justice Subba Rao recognised privacy as integral to personal liberty.
Despite these rulings, later decisions such as Gobind v. State of Madhya Pradesh (1975), R. Rajagopal v. State of Tamil Nadu (1994), and People’s Union for Civil Liberties v. Union of India (1997) gradually expanded privacy protections, creating doctrinal inconsistency.
Immediate Trigger: The Aadhaar Challenge
The immediate cause for the Puttaswamy reference was the constitutional challenge to the Aadhaar Scheme, which mandated biometric identification for access to welfare benefits.
Petitioners argued that mass collection and storage of biometric data posed serious risks to individual privacy and enabled State surveillance.
The Union of India contended that privacy is not a fundamental right and relied on M.P. Sharma and Kharak Singh. Given the conflict between earlier judgments and later jurisprudence, the matter was referred to a nine-judge bench.
Issues Before the Court
Is right to privacy is a fundamental right under the Constitution of India
Whether previous judgments denying privacy were correctly decided
Whether privacy is inherent in Article 21 and other fundamental rights
JUDGMENT AND RATIO DECIDENDI
The Supreme Court said that the right to privacy is a fundamental right protected under Part III of the Constitution. The Court categorically overruled M.P. Sharma and Kharak Singh to the extent they denied privacy protection.
1. Privacy as an Inherent and Natural Right
The Court observed that privacy is not a creation of statute but an inherent aspect of human existence. It flows from the recognition of human dignity, which forms the foundation of all fundamental rights.
2. Privacy as a Facet of Article 21
Article 21 was interpreted expansively to include privacy as an essential component of the right to life and personal liberty. The Court reaffirmed that constitutional interpretation must be dynamic and responsive to societal change.
3. Inter-Relationship of Fundamental Rights
The judgment clarified that privacy also emanates from Articles 14 and 19. The Court rejected the notion that fundamental rights operate in isolated silos and reaffirmed their overlapping nature.
4. The Three-Fold Proportionality Test
The Court laid down a structured test for determining the validity of privacy restrictions:
Legality: The existence of law
Legitimate State Aim: A valid public purpose
Proportionality: Rational nexus and minimal intrusion
This test has since become central to constitutional adjudication.
5. Recognition of Informational Privacy
Acknowledging technological realities, the Court recognised informational privacy as a core component of the right to privacy. It warned against unchecked data collection and emphasised the need for legal safeguards.
CASE LAWS ANALYSED AND REFERRED
Justice K.S. Puttaswamy (Retd.) v. Union of India, (2017) 10 SCC 1
Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India, (1978) 1 SCC 248
M.P. Sharma v. Satish Chandra, AIR 1954 SC 300
Kharak Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh, AIR 1963 SC 1295
Gobind v. State of Madhya Pradesh, (1975)
R. Rajagopal v. State of Tamil Nadu, (1994)
PUCL v. Union of India, (1997) 1 SCC 301
IMPACT ON SUBSEQUENT JURISPRUDENCE
1. Sexual Autonomy
The judgment directly influenced Navtej Singh Johar v. Union of India (2018), where the Court decriminalised consensual same-sex relationships, grounding its reasoning in dignity and privacy.
2. Bodily Autonomy
In Common Cause v. Union of India (2018), the Court recognised the right to die with dignity, relying heavily on privacy and decisional autonomy.
3. Surveillance and State Power
The decision imposed constitutional limits on surveillance programmes and strengthened the requirement of procedural safeguards.
4. Data Protection and Governance
The Puttaswamy judgment became the constitutional foundation for the Digital Personal Data Protection Act, 2023, marking India’s formal entry into data protection governance.
CRITICAL ANALYSIS
While the judgment is widely celebrated, it is not without criticism. Some scholars argue that the broad conceptualisation of privacy may lead to judicial overreach. Others point out that the absence of concrete enforcement mechanisms places excessive reliance on future legislation. Nonetheless, these concerns do not detract from the transformative nature of the decision.
CONCLUSION
The judgment in Justice K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India stands as a constitutional milestone that reshaped Indian jurisprudence. By recognising privacy as intrinsic to life and liberty, the Supreme Court reaffirmed the centrality of human dignity in constitutional governance. The decision corrected historical judicial errors, responded to technological realities, and strengthened democratic accountability. As India navigates the challenges of digital governance and surveillance, the principles laid down in Puttaswamy will continue to guide courts, lawmakers, and citizens alike.
FAQS
Q1. Why is the Puttaswamy case considered a landmark judgment?
Because it unanimously recognised the right to privacy as a fundamental right and overruled earlier contrary precedents.
Q2. Which Articles protect the right to privacy?
Primarily Article 21, with support from Articles 14 and 19.
Q3. What test governs privacy infringement?
The three-fold test of legality, legitimate aim, and proportionality.
Q4. How did the judgment influence data protection law?
It laid the constitutional foundation for regulating data collection and processing in India.
