Author: Ashima Sarin, student at Maharaja Surajmal Institute, GGSIPU
Case Citation: Justice K.S. Puttaswamy (Retd.) v. Union of India, AIR 2017 SC 4161
ABSTRACT
In today’s era of advanced technology, personal information is among the most valuable resources owned by any individual, the government or even corporate organisations. With increasing involvement of technology in people’s lives, the matters related to surveillance, collection of data, and individual autonomy have gained constitutional importance. The historic judgment delivered by the Supreme Court of India in the case of Justice K.S. Puttaswamy (Retd.) vs. Union of India (2017), has made major amendments in the constitutional law of India by unanimously declaring the Right to Privacy as a Fundamental Right under Part III of the Constitution of India. The judgment was passed by a Constitution Bench consisting of nine judges that solved a long standing judicial controversy and clearly stated that privacy is an essential element of dignity, liberty and autonomy. In this article, the background, constitutional aspects, arguments and implications of the judgment will be discussed along with its relevance to India of the modern times.
TO THE POINT
Every telephone conversation, transaction carried out online, interaction on social media sites or biometric authentication inevitably generates a stream of personal information. With an ever increasing amount of data being created and captured, the protection of privacy has emerged as one of the foremost constitutional questions of the modern era. The fundamental question before the Supreme Court of India in the case of Justice K.S. Puttaswamy (Retd.) v. Union of India was thus clear and basic: Does the Constitution guarantee a person’s right to privacy?
The verdict delivered on 24 August 2017 radically transformed the jurisprudence of Indian constitutional law. In a unanimous verdict, a nine-judge bench of the Constitution Bench declared that privacy is a Fundamental Right under the Constitution of India. The ruling has not only resolved a longstanding debate of legal nature but also laid further constitutional foundations for liberty, dignity and personal autonomy.
USE OF LEGAL JARGON
Fundamental Right means a right which is provided for in Part III of the Constitution and enforceable against the State. Personal liberty means the rights protected under Article 21 of the Constitution. Constitutional morality means adherence to the values of the constitution. Human dignity means inherent dignity of all human beings. Proportionality is a constitutional doctrine that ensures that the restriction placed on the right must be a proportional one to achieve a legitimate aim. Judicial precedent means the principles that have been laid down by earlier courts in their judgments.
THE PROOF
I. Background of Right to Privacy in India
It is interesting to note that there never existed any doubt as to whether privacy should be treated as a constitutional right. The reason being, while some constitutions include privacy within its provisions, the Indian Constitution does not have any such provision relating to the right to privacy. In such circumstances, the courts had to decide as to whether privacy could be said to be included within the Fundamental Rights of the citizen.
The matter first came up for determination in the case of M.P. Sharma v. Satish Chandra (1954). There, the Supreme Court decided against recognising any such constitutional right of privacy. Later, after several years in the case of Kharak Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh (1962), the Court examined the constitutionality of police surveillance measures. While some of the intrusions were ruled as unconstitutional, the verdict could not conclusively hold privacy as a Fundamental Right.
However, with the passage of time, the Supreme Court slowly widened the interpretation of Article 21 of the Constitution. Various judgments recognised various aspects of privacy, dignity, reputation and personal choice of the individual. This remained a case of uncertainty until the time of Aadhaar litigations’ where the matter was brought before the Supreme Court for consideration.
II. The Set of Facts Pertaining to the Puttaswamy Petition
In the context of the above case, the matter in question was the Aadhaar Scheme, which was an initiative by the government to provide its residents with a unique identity by using biometrics and other personal details.
The matter pertained to the challenges posed by Justice K.S. Puttaswamy, who is a retired Judge from the Karnataka High Court, against the Aadhaar Scheme. In the hearing, it was argued by the Union Government that privacy was not a Fundamental Right as there was a failure by the Supreme Court in recognising it as such in earlier rulings.
The above argument put forth a greater constitutional question than simply the one pertaining to Aadhaar. Before making any decision on biometric data and informational privacy, the question before the court was whether privacy enjoyed constitutional protection. The above matter was referred to a bench of nine judges due to its significance and previous conflicting decisions.
III. Issues Before the Supreme Court
The fundamental issue raised in the case was: Whether Right to Privacy is a Fundamental Right, guaranteed under Part III of the Constitution of India.
For addressing this issue, the Court had to consider the relation of privacy, dignity, liberty, equality and constitutionalism. Further, it had to be decided whether the stand taken in the cases of M.P. Sharma and Kharak Singh were in accordance with the constitutional framework.
Therefore, the matter involved far more than an assessment of the legitimacy of a governmental scheme. It was about the very nature of freedom and the protection afforded by the Constitution against the violation of the same.
IV. The Judgment of the Nine Judge Bench
In its judgment dated 24 August 2017, the Supreme Court of India, by unanimous opinion, ruled that privacy was a Fundamental Right available under the Constitution of India.
It was noted that privacy forms a part of life and personal liberty and cannot be separated from the dignity of the person. It ruled against the idea that privacy was a mere statutory or common law right and recognised the protection afforded by the Constitution for personal choices, confidentiality, bodily security and personal information.
Crucially, the Court has not found privacy in any one Article of the Constitution. Rather, the Court has held that privacy is protected through the cumulative rights guaranteed in Articles 14, 19 and 21. In doing so, it has upheld privacy as a constitutional value that cuts across all the Fundamental Rights in the Constitution.
The judgment has corrected the prior constitutional understandings. Insofar as the judgments in M.P. Sharma and Kharak Singh had denied privacy a constitutional recognition, they have been expressly overruled. Thus, this judgment put to rest a long standing debate on constitutional law.
V. Privacy, Dignity and Constitutional Morality
One of the most important aspects of the judgment was the importance of dignity and constitutional morality.
It was made clear in the judgment that the protection of constitutional rights is not limited to physical liberty. The right to lead a meaningful life means being able to make certain decisions, form personal relations, and have control over all matters that relate to one’s identity and existence. In this case, the concept of privacy serves as a guarantee of one’s dignity.
Furthermore, there was the consideration of constitutional morality in the judgment, which holds that governance should be conducted in accordance with constitutional principles and not with the majority rule. The protection of privacy was used to establish the notion of an individual’s personal freedom space, protected by the Constitution.
Thus, privacy became an essential aspect not just of legal protection, but also of maintaining liberty and dignity.
VI. Dimensions of Privacy Identified by the Court
The Court has accepted the fact that privacy is a multidimensional right and cannot be reduced to one definition only. The following dimensions of privacy have been enumerated in the judgment:
Bodily Privacy: It ensures that an individual’s body should not be subjected to any intrusion without justifiable reasons.
Informational Privacy: It deals with the right of the individual to control his/her personal information and the process of collecting and disclosing it.
Decisional Privacy: It ensures the right of the individual to take decisions with regard to matters like family and relationships.
This recognition of dimensions was necessary to keep the right adaptable to changing times.
VII. Constitutional Constraints on Privacy
Despite being declared a Fundamental Right, it was made amply clear by the Court that privacy is not an absolute right.
In this case, the judgment laid down a number of conditions to be satisfied by the constraints placed on privacy. Firstly, there should be a valid law placing such a constraint. Secondly, the law should have a legitimate objective behind it. Thirdly, the means chosen to achieve the said objective should be proportionate to the objective. Finally, there should be proper procedural constraints to avoid any arbitrary exercise of authority.
This doctrine assumes great importance since it takes into consideration the balance between individual liberty and the legitimate interests of the government. Hence, both unbridled governmental authority and absolute privacy were ruled out by the Court. The principle of proportionality laid down in the judgment has gained much significance since then.
VIII. Effect on Indian Constitutional Jurisprudence
The importance of the Puttaswamy judgment goes well beyond the immediate matter of dispute which necessitated its issuance.
Firstly, it finally clarified the status of privacy as a Fundamental Right by resolving years of ambiguity within constitutional jurisprudence.
Secondly, it further entrenched the link between liberty, dignity and autonomy in the context of Indian constitutional law. The decision made it clear that there can be no real liberty without people having control over their own choices and data.
Thirdly, the decision provided a constitutional underpinning to contemporary deliberations regarding surveillance, technological governance, data protection and regulation. In an ever growing connected world, privacy has come to occupy centre stage in discussions about the dynamics between the citizenry, private enterprise and the state.
Most importantly, the judgment showed that the Indian Supreme Court was willing to construe the Constitution as a dynamic legal instrument. In doing so, the court ensured that Fundamental Rights remain relevant in rapidly changing times.
CASE LAWS
1. M.P. Sharma v. Satish Chandra (1954)
This case dealt with matters related to searches and seizures. The Supreme Court refused to accord privacy as a right under the Constitution and noted that the Constitution does not have any explicit privacy clause. For many years, the said decision was taken to be the authority against the recognition of privacy as a Fundamental Right, which was later overruled in Puttaswamy.
2. Kharak Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh (1962)
In this case, surveillance carried out by the police and its effect on individual liberty was considered. Although some surveillance activities were held invalid, the Court did not unequivocally recognise privacy as a Fundamental Right. The decision left room for uncertainty for many decades before being settled by the nine judge Bench in Puttaswamy.
3. Justice K.S. Puttaswamy (Retd.) v. Union of India (2017)
This case is a unanimous decision rendered by the Supreme Court wherein privacy is recognised as a Fundamental Right under Part III of the Constitution. The decision associated privacy with dignity, autonomy and liberty and set constitutional parameters regarding limitations on privacy.
CONCLUSION
The judgment in Justice K.S. Puttaswamy (Retd.) v. Union of India marks a turning point in the history of Indian Constitutional law. The Supreme Court by recognising privacy as a Fundamental Right was able to resolve a long pending constitutional dispute and provide greater protection to individual liberty, dignity and autonomy.
The Court in its judgment held that constitutional freedom not only means freedom from physical restraint but also the freedom to make personal choices, maintain confidentiality in relationships and control personal data. At the same time, it also recognised a fine balance between privacy rights and state interest through the principles of legality, proportionality and procedures.
The real importance of Puttaswamy is not just in declaring privacy a Fundamental Right, but it is in confirming the fact that the Constitution is meant for the purpose of securing the dignity and liberty of the individual from the increasing power of the modern age.
FAQ
Q1. What was the main question before the Court in Puttaswamy?
The primary issue was whether the Right to Privacy a Fundamental Right of Constitutional import under the Constitution of India?
Q2. In which Bench was the case decided?
The case was decided by a nine judge Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court of India on 24 August 2017.
Q3. Was privacy declared as an absolute right in the Puttaswamy judgement?
No. The Court has held that Right to Privacy is a Fundamental Right, however, it is not an absolute right.
Q4. On which Constitutional provisions does Right to Privacy find protection?
The Right to Privacy finds its Constitutional protection from Articles 14, 19 and 21 of the Constitution.
Q5. Why is Puttaswamy called a landmark judgement?
It conclusively held that the Right to Privacy is a Fundamental Right, overruled earlier decisions, affirmed the Constitutional protection to liberty and dignity of individuals and set guidelines in the modern day issues of privacy.
