Author: Sujen Rafik Shaikh, Siddharth College of Law, Mumbai
Aadhaar and Privacy: How Puttaswamy Judgement Reshaped Fundamental Rights
Abstract
The Supreme Court of India’s decision in Justice K.S. Puttaswamy (Retd) V. Union of India (2017) is a landmark judgement that reaffirmed the constitutional right to privacy under Article 21 of the Indian Constitution. The case arose from concerns over the Aadhaar program and its implications for personal privacy. This article provides an in-depth analysis of the case, including its background, key issues, argument, judicial reasoning, and its impacts on existing precedents. The verdict has far-reaching consequences for digital privacy, government surveillance, and the future of data protection laws in India. It addresses the balance between an individual’s rights to privacy and the state legitimate interests, laying the foundation for jurisprudence on informational privacy and data security.
Introduction
Privacy has long been a contested issue in Indian Constitution law. The verdict in Justice K.S. Puttaswamy V. Union of India [1] (Justice K.S. Puttaswamy (Retd.) v. Union of India, 2017)marked a defining moment by recognizing privacy as an intrinsic part of the right to life and personal liberty. The Judgement overruled past decisions that denied the fundamental nature of privacy and established a legal framework for data protection and individual rights in the India. In an era of rapid technological advancement and increase state surveillance, the ruling underscored the importance of privacy as a fundamental right that extends to both personal and information spheres.
The case gained significance against the backdrop of the Indian government’s push for a mandatory Aadhaar identification system. The scheme, which requires the individuals to submit its biometric and demographic data to access welfare schemes and financial services, raised concerns information and government overreach. The Supreme Court’s verdict not only redefines the privacy but also established the safeguards for state intervention in matters of individual rights.
Facts of the Case
On 24th August 2017, the Supreme Court unanimously recognized privacy as a fundamental right guaranteed by the Constitution. In 2012, Justice K.S. Puttaswamy a retired Judge of Karnataka High Court Filed a Write Petition in Supreme Court against the law passed by the then UPA Government in Parliament challenging the Constitutional Validity of the Aadhaar Scheme, which mandated biometric identification for accessing welfare services. He argued that this violated the right to privacy. On 11th August 2015, a three-Judge Bench comprising Justice Chelameswar, Bobde and C. Nagappan passed an order that a higher bench of appropriate strength must examine the correctness of the decision in M.P Sharma V. Satish Chandra, District Magistrate, Delhi, 1954 (Eight Judge Bench) [2] ( M.P. Sharma v. Satish Chandra, 1954) and Kharak Singh V. State of Uttar Pradesh, 1964 (Six Judge Bench) [3] (Kharak Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh, 1962). The Three Judge Bench Court order that we must decide whether we have a Fundamental Right to Privacy. The case was referred to nine judge bench to determine whether privacy is a fundamental right under the Indian Constitution.
The petitioner contended that privacy is an essential aspect of individual autonomy aspect of individual autonomy and human dignity. The mandatory collection of biometric data, without adequate safeguards, identify theft, and mass surveillance. Additionally, the government’s insistence on linking Aadhaar with essential services such as banking and mobile connections created a coercive system where citizens were forced to submit sensitive information to the state.
Background
Historically, privacy rights were not explicitly recognized under the Constitution. Earlier Supreme Court rulings, including M.P. Sharma V. Satish Chandra (1954) and Kharak Singh V. State of Uttar Pradesh (1962), held that privacy was not a fundamental right. The evolution of jurisprudence on privacy in cases like Gobind V. State of Madhya Pradesh (1975) and R. Rajagopal V. State of Tamil Nadu (1994) laid the foundation for a broader interpretation of Article 21.
In M.P. Sharma V. Satish Chandra the Supreme Court held that privacy was not a fundamental right under the Indian Constitution, primarily because the text of the constitution did not explicitly mention it. Similarly, in Kharak Singh V. State of Uttar Pradesh, the Court ruled that unauthorized police surveillance did not violate any fundamental rights. However, over time, subsequent rulings began to recognize aspects of privacy in different contexts, leading to an evolving jurisprudence that culminated in the Puttaswamy Judgement.
First the matter was handled by the five-judge bench headed by then Chief Justice Khehar, after that the matter was referred to the higher bench the nine judge bench on 18th July 2017.
The bench comprising by CJI Khehar, Justice Jasti Chelameshwar, S.A. Bobde, D.Y. Chandrachud, Abdul Nazeer, Nariman, R.K. Agrawal, Abhay Manohar Sapre, and Sanjay Kishan Kaul [7] (Judgment, 2017). The Court Started the Arguments on 19th July 2017 and concluded it on 2nd August 2017.
Key Issues Before the Court
Is the decision in M.P. Sharma V. Satish Chandra, District Magistrate, Delhi is correct in law? [4] (Privacy, 2017)
Is the decision in Kharak Singh V. State of Uttar Pradesh is Correct in Law?
Is the right to privacy is an intrinsic part of the right to life and personal Liberty under Article 21 and a part of the freedoms guaranteed by Part III of the Constitution?
What legal tests should be applied to determine the validity of state intervention in matters of privacy?
The judgement also addressed the intersection of privacy with other fundamental rights, such as the freedom of speech, dignity, and personal autonomy. The Supreme Court deliberated on whether privacy should be considered an absolute right or subject to reasonable restrictions.
Arguments of Both Sides
Petitioners Argument:
The Aadhaar Scheme violated personal autonomy and data protection.
Right to privacy is implicit in Articles 14,19, and 21 of the Constitution.
International Human Rights instruments recognize privacy as a fundamental right.
Previous Supreme Court rulings were misinterpreted the Constitution by denying privacy as a right.
Technological advancements necessitate an updated understanding of privacy in the digital era.
The Aadhaar Scheme lacked sufficient safeguards to prevent misuse of personal data.
Government Argument:
The Constitution does not explicitly mention privacy as a fundamental right.
The Aadhaar Scheme had safeguards and was essential for welfare distribution.
Privacy must balance against national security and public interest.
An absolute right to privacy is impractical in a digital era.
The state has a legitimate interest in collecting data for efficient governance and policy implementation.
Judgement
Within the one-month Argument the nine-judge bench delivered the Judgement on the privacy is the fundamental right to privacy of every individual guaranteed by the Constitution in the Article 21 in particular and part III on the whole. Th was an historic decision delivered by the Supreme Court. The bench overruled the decision of M.P. Sharma and Kharak Singh. Since the 2017 judgement of Justice K.S. Puttaswamy, the fundamental right to privacy has been cited as precedent in various landmark judgements, such as the Navjet Johar and Joseph Shine.
This Unanimous verdict saw 6 separate concurring decisions Justice Chandrachud authored the decision speaking for himself, Justice Khehar and R.K. Agrawal and Abdul Nazeer [5] ((I), 2017). The remaining 5 judges each wrote individual concurring judgements. [6] ((II), 2017)
The conclusion arrived at by the bench in the concurring judgements record the plurality of opinions and the various facets of privacy that have made their way into the reasoning.
The Supreme Court delivered a unanimous verdict affirming that privacy is a fundamental right under Article 21. The Court observed that:
Privacy is an inalienable right that is inherent in human dignity and liberty.
Any law that infringes on privacy must pass the tests of ‘legality, necessity, and proportionality.’
The right to privacy is not an absolute right and can be subject to reasonable restrictions, provided they are just, fair, and reasonable.
Informational privacy, data security, and digital rights are integral aspects of privacy in the modern era.
The government must ensure that privacy is protected against both state and non-state actors.
The Judgement established that:
Right to Privacy is a Fundamental Right: Privacy is an intrinsic part of Article 21 and is protected under the broader framework of fundamental rights.
Judicial Review on State Action: Any state action that infringes on privacy must be tested against constitutional principles.
Recognition of Informational Privacy: With technological advancements, the ruling emphasized the need for data protection and digital privacy laws.
Overruling of Previous Judgments: The ruling explicitly overruled M.P. Sharma V. Satish Chandra (1954), Kharak Singh V. State of Uttar Pradesh (1962), and ADM Jabalpur V. Shivkant Shukla (1976), correcting the historical misinterpretation of privacy rights.
Overruled Precedents
The verdict explicitly overruled M.P. Sharma V. Satish Chandra (1954), Kharak Singh V. State of Uttar Pradesh (1962), and ADM Jabalpur V. Shivkant Shukla (1976), which had previously stated that privacy was not a fundamental right. The Court held that these judgements were based on a narrow interpretation of the Constitution.
Conclusion
The Puttaswamy ruling laid the foundation for future data protection laws and strengthened individual right in India. It set a precedent for judicial intervention in matters involving digital privacy, surveillance, and government data collection policies. This case remains a cornerstone in Indian constitutional jurisprudence, influencing debates on privacy rights globally. The judgement also paved the way for the Personal Data Protection Bill, emphasizing the need for a comprehensive legal framework to protect citizens data. As India continues to digitize its governance and services, the principles established in Puttaswamy will play a crucial role in shaping privacy laws and policies.
FAQS
What was the key ruling in Justice K.S. Puttaswamy V. Union of India?
The Supreme Court Ruled that the right to privacy is a fundamental right under Article 21 of the Constitution.
How did this judgment impact Aadhaar?
While the case established privacy as a fundamental right, a separate ruling in Aadhaar (2018) upheld the Aadhaar scheme with certain restrictions.
Which cases were overruled by this verdict?
M.P. Sharma V. Satish Chandra (1954), Kharak Singh V. State of Uttar Pradesh (1962), and ADM Jabalpur V. Shivkant Shukla (1976) were overruled.
How does this case influence future privacy laws?
The judgement forms the basis for India’s data protection laws and regulations on digital privacy and government surveillance.
References
M.P. Sharma v. Satish Chandra, AIR 300 (Supreme Court of India 1954).
(I), J. o. (2017, August 24). Supreme Court Observer. Retrieved from Supreme Court Observer: https://www.scobserver.in/reports/k-s-puttaswamy-right-to-privacy-judgment-of-the-court-in-plain-english-i
(II), J. o. (2017, August 24). Supreme Court Observer. Retrieved from Supreme Court Observer: https://www.scobserver.in/reports/k-s-puttaswamy-right-to-privacy-judgment-of-the-court-in-plain-english-ii/
Judgment. (2017, August 23). Supreme Court Observer. Retrieved from Supreme Court Observer: https://www.scobserver.in/wp-content/uploads/2021/10/Right_to_Privacy__Puttaswamy_Judgment_1.pdf
Justice K.S. Puttaswamy (Retd.) v. Union of India, 10 SCC 1 (Supreme Court of India 2017).
Kharak Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh, AIR 1297 (Supreme Court of India 1962).
Privacy, F. R. (2017, August 23). Supreme Court Observer. Retrieved from Supreme Court Oberver: https://www.scobserver.in/cases/puttaswamy-v-union-of-india-fundamental-right-to-privacy-case-background
