Author: Aniket Digra, Thakur Ramnarayan College of Law
Introduction
The Supreme Court of India’s ruling in K.S. Puttaswamy vs. Union of India represents a landmark moment in the legal landscape, especially concerning the constitutionality of the Aadhaar program. This case, initiated by retired judge K.S. Puttaswamy, questioned whether the Aadhaar system, aimed at improving welfare delivery and ensuring security through biometric data, violated fundamental rights, particularly the right to privacy. The Court’s judgment has significant implications for privacy and state surveillance, balancing technological progress with individual freedoms.
Background
In 2012, K.S. Puttaswamy and other petitioners challenged the Aadhaar initiative, which aimed to create a universal ID system using biometric data for government services. The petitioners argued that this scheme violated the right to privacy and lacked proper safeguards against misuse. The Supreme Court was tasked with determining if Aadhaar infringed upon constitutional rights and whether the scheme could be justified under reasonable restrictions. In 2017, the Court upheld Aadhaar’s constitutionality while emphasizing the necessity of strong privacy protections.
Privacy Jurisprudence before This Case
1. M.P. Sharma v. Satish Chandra (1954): This case questioned whether privacy could be considered a fundamental right. The Court, with an eight-judge bench, ruled that the Indian Constitution did not explicitly grant a fundamental right to privacy. It noted that the power of search and seizure for social security did not imply a right to privacy.
2. Kharak Singh v. State of U.P. (1964): In this case, a six-judge bench ruled that privacy was not a guaranteed fundamental right under the Constitution. However, Justices K. Subba Rao and J.C. Shah dissented, arguing that privacy was an essential part of personal liberty, although not explicitly mentioned as a fundamental right.
3. Govind v. State of Maharashtra (1975): The Supreme Court acknowledged that privacy is a key aspect of personal liberty, implicitly protected under Article 21. However, it held that this right is not absolute and can be restricted under reasonable conditions for public order.
Facts of the Case
1. In 2012, Justice K.S. Puttaswamy (Retd.) and Mr. Pravesh Khanna filed a significant writ petition challenging the Aadhaar scheme, questioning its compliance with the fundamental right to privacy under Article 21 of the Indian Constitution. At this time, the Aadhaar scheme had yet to be formally legislated.
2. The Aadhaar scheme, launched in 2009, aimed to create a unique identification system to streamline the delivery of social benefits and reduce fraud.
3. Various milestones marked its development, including key meetings in 2006 and 2007 that established the UID authority and the phased linkage with databases. By September 2011, substantial progress had been made, with 10 crore enrolments and 3.75 crore Aadhaar numbers issued.
4. Despite its ambitious goals, the scheme faced scrutiny regarding its potential impact on privacy.
5. Concerns were raised about data retention, with the Aadhaar (Authentication) Regulations, 2016 stipulating the retention of authentication data for six months, with archival for five years. Issues related to the robustness of data protection measures and the adequacy of privacy safeguards was central to the debate.
6.As the Aadhaar Act was enacted in 2016, it aimed to regulate the scheme and address identity verification issues for accessing benefits, but further petitions, including Writ Petition (C) No. 231 of 2016 and Writ Petition (C) No. 797 of 2016, challenged its constitutionality. Petitioners feared that the scheme could lead to a surveillance state and undermine privacy rights.
7. Interim orders from the Supreme Court addressed various aspects of Aadhaar, including security obligations, authentication logs, and e-KYC procedures. These interim measures aimed to safeguard privacy while evaluating the broader constitutional concerns raised by the petitioners.
8. In essence, the case represented a critical juncture in balancing technological advancements with fundamental rights, as the Supreme Court deliberated on the constitutional validity of the Aadhaar Act and its implications for privacy and data protection.
Issues in the Case
1. The primary issue was whether the right to privacy is a fundamental right under the Indian Constitution, particularly as part of the right to life and personal liberty under Article 21.
2. Whether the collection and use of biometric data through Aadhaar violated the right to privacy.
3. The tension between individual privacy and state interests, such as national security and public welfare.
4. How privacy intersects with other fundamental rights, including freedom of expression and the right to information.
5. The justification for state surveillance and data collection within constitutional boundaries.
Petitioners’ Arguments
1. The petitioners argued that Aadhaar’s probabilistic approach could exclude individuals it aimed to assist, leading to denial of benefits.
2. They contended that strict enforcement of Aadhaar could violate Articles 14, 19, and 21, infringing on fundamental rights.
3. The Act was seen as a gateway to transforming the state into a surveillance entity by centralizing personal information.
4. The petitioners argued that Aadhaar violated the right to privacy, an essential part of Article 21, and that the Act lacked reasonable justification.
5. The Act was also criticized for allegedly compelling citizens to disclose sensitive information, violating their religious freedom under Article 25.
Respondents’ Arguments
1. The respondents argued that Aadhaar’s main goal was ensuring that eligible citizens receive government benefits efficiently.
2. They claimed that Aadhaar did not infringe on privacy, as it only collected basic demographic information, excluding sensitive data like religion and medical history.
3. The respondents emphasized the encryption and secure storage of Aadhaar data to protect personal information.
4. Aadhaar was seen as a tool to reduce fraud in subsidy programs by eliminating duplicates and impersonation.
5. They pointed to the Personal Data Protection Bill, 2018, as a framework aligning Aadhaar with global data protection standards.
6. Linking Aadhaar with PAN cards and bank accounts was justified as a measure to prevent tax evasion and financial fraud.
Judgment of the Court
On August 24, 2017, the Supreme Court ruled that the right to privacy is a fundamental right under the Constitution. A nine-judge bench delivered the unanimous judgment with six concurring opinions.
Justice Chandrachud’s Judgment:
Justice Chandrachud and others traced the right to privacy in Indian law, recognizing inconsistencies in past rulings, especially Kharak Singh. This case was overruled to the extent that it had not explicitly recognized privacy.
He emphasized that fundamental rights stem from liberty and dignity, with privacy being integral to both. Privacy is a core part of Article 21’s protection of life and personal liberty.
The state has a duty to protect privacy and cannot infringe on it without following due process.
Justice Bobde’s Judgment:
Justice Bobde stated that privacy is both a natural and a fundamental right tied to human dignity. While privacy is a fundamental right, any restrictions must pass the test of fairness, justice, and reasonableness under Article 21.
Justice Chelameshwar’s Judgment
He stated that privacy is crucial for the exercise of personal liberty, which is a fundamental, inalienable right. The right to privacy includes aspects such as repose, sanctuary, and intimate decision-making.
Justice Chelameshwar’s acknowledged that while privacy is a fundamental right, it is not absolute. Any state interference must be justifiable as per the standards of fairness, reasonableness, and legality required under Article 21
He emphasized that privacy safeguards essential human values and freedoms against unwarranted state intrusion, aligning with the freedoms guaranteed under Part III of the Constitution.
Analysis of the Case
The Supreme Court’s decision in K.S. Puttaswamy vs. Union of India (2017) established privacy as a fundamental right, influencing future legal and legislative efforts on privacy and data protection. Petitioners argued that Aadhaar’s implementation could lead to excessive state surveillance, infringing on personal privacy and violating Articles 14, 19, and 21. The Court overruled earlier judgments that did not explicitly recognize privacy as a fundamental right, marking a significant shift in privacy jurisprudence.
Conclusion
The K.S. Puttaswamy vs. Union of India case is a groundbreaking decision that redefined the landscape of privacy rights in India. By establishing privacy as a fundamental right under Article 21, the Supreme Court laid the foundation for stronger legal protections against intrusive state actions, especially in the digital era. The Aadhaar scheme, while upheld, was subject to significant scrutiny to ensure that privacy safeguards were in place. This judgment not only corrected the inconsistencies in earlier legal precedents but also emphasized the importance of personal autonomy and dignity. It set the stage for a balance between individual rights and state interests, urging the government to adopt more stringent data protection measures. Moving forward, this case remains a cornerstone in discussions on privacy, surveillance, and data security, shaping the trajectory of India’s approach to personal freedoms in a rapidly evolving technological landscape.
FAQS
1. What was the main issue in the K.S. Puttaswamy case?
The key issue was whether the Aadhaar program, which collects biometric data, violated the right to privacy. The petitioners argued that Aadhaar could lead to excessive state surveillance, while the government claimed it was essential for efficient welfare delivery. The Supreme Court ultimately declared that the right to privacy is a fundamental right under the Constitution.
2. How did the Supreme Court balance privacy rights with the Aadhaar program?
The Court upheld the Aadhaar program’s constitutionality but imposed strict privacy safeguards. It ruled that while Aadhaar can be used for welfare schemes, it cannot be mandatory for services like opening bank accounts or obtaining mobile phone connections. This balanced technological progress with individual privacy protections.
3. How did this case change the legal view on privacy in India?
Before this case, privacy wasn’t clearly recognized as a fundamental right. The Supreme Court’s ruling in 2017 overruled previous judgments and firmly established that privacy is protected under Article 21 of the Indian Constitution. This decision now serves as a foundation for future privacy and data protection laws in India.
References
Website References
https://indiankanoon.org/doc/127517806/
https://translaw.clpr.org.in/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Justice-K.S.-Puttaswamy-.pd
Additional Case law Citations
M.P. Sharma v. Satish Chandra, AIR 1954 SC 300 (1954).
Kharak Singh v. State of U.P, AIR 1964 SC 410 (1964)
Govind v. State of Maharashtra, AIR 1975 SC 1378 (1975).
