Justice K.S. Puttaswamy(Retd.) vs Union of India on 26 September, 2018

Justice K.S. Puttaswamy(Retd.) vs Union of India on 26 September, 2018

IN  THE  SUPREME  COURT  OF  INDIA

CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION

WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO. 494 OF 2012

JUSTICE K.S. PUTTASWAMY(RETD.) 

AND ANOTHER 

VERSUS

UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS 

Judgment 

Date of Judgment: September 26, 2018

Bench: Chief Justice, A.M. Khanwilkar, A.K. Sikri, D. Y. Chandrachud, Ashok Bhushan

Petitioner: Justice K.S. Puttaswamy (Retd.)

Respondent: Union of India

Facts of the case

• Justice K.S. Puttaswamy, a 92-year-old retired judge of the Karnataka High court filed a writ petition in Supreme court. In that writ petition, he challenged the Aadhar scheme of Indian Government which was launched in 2009.

•  The scheme focused on providing a 12-digit identification number to people which was based on demographic information and biometric data (iris scan and fingerprints). It made Aadhar mandatory for public services like opening bank accounts, filing income tax returns, receiving subsidies and benefits.

• According to petitioner, the aadhar scheme violated his right to privacy as it required citizens to provide their sensitive personal information without requisite protection measures.

• The case was heard by the five-judge bench of the Supreme Court, led by Chief Justice Dipak Misra.

• The respondent of the case was the union of India which was represented by the attorney general and there were other respondents also including Unique Identification Authority of India (UIDAI).

• After hearing to both the petitioner and respondent, the Supreme court passed the judgment on 24 august, 2017 acknowledging the right to privacy as a fundamental right under article 21 of the Constitution and curbing the scope of Aadhar.

Petitioner’s Case

Petitioner had to enroll for Aadhar to access various public services, including filing income tax returns and opening a bank account.It is because of privacy and safety concerns that he was against this obligation.

The petitioner raised a question about the government instruction and the existence of the scheme in Writ’s petition filed with the Supreme Court. He maintained that privacy was violated by Aadhaar project, and it went against Indian Constitution.

His case was presented before judges of Supreme Court who passed an important ruling on his right to privacy under Indian constitution.

Respondent’s Plea

Respondent pleaded that: 

•  The government contended that Aadhar is an optional scheme, and individuals are not forced to enroll.
  Also, that the Aadhar is required to ensure that the subsidies and benefits reach the desired people. It proclaimed that Aadhar is important for national security and to avert money laundering and terrorism.
  
• It argued that the Aadhar data is secured by strong protective measures and that the Right to Privacy is not absolute and can be subject to reasonable limits. It stated that data protection laws are made in order to protect the Aadhaar data. Also, that it is not a surveillance tool but instead an identification system.

Issues Addressed 

1. Whether right to privacy, a fundamental right under the Indian Constitution?
2. Does Aadhaar scheme violate upon right to privacy?
3. Is the notification issued by the government of India making Aadhaar mandatory for various public services valid?
4. Are there any chances that Aadhaar scheme may be subject to data breaches or leaks which violate individual privacy?
5. Does Aadhaar scheme this proportionately affect vulnerable populations or marginalized communities?
6. Whether The Aadhaar act was correctly classified as a money bill?

Arguments

•  Petitioner 

Puttaswamy contended that the right to privacy is a fundamental right under the Indian constitution and Aadhaar violates this right by collecting and storing biometric data without consent. He argued that people are not given a choice whether or not to participate of Aadhaar and their consent is not obtained for data collection.
He voiced concern that the Aadhaar information may not be secure, and said that the public must worry about data breaches and data leaks. Puttaswamy argued that the Aadhaar scheme is certainly not voluntary. He also stated that the Aadhaar system has no sense of proportionality for the aims for which it was founded. He remarked that the Aadhaar system lacks a statutory framework, and is armed only with executive policy.

Puttaswamy put forth the argument that the Aadhaar program violates Article 21 of the Indian Constitution, which gives everyone within India the right to life and liberty. He speculated that the Aadhaar project could very well lead to a surveillance state, where the government has the means to keep track of everyone’s movements. He contended that the Aadhaar project raises privacy issues .

• Respondent

The government contended that Aadhaar is a welfare initiative directed at providing assistance to the needy and marginalized. They argued that Aadhaar enrolment offers real choice, as individuals can choose not to enroll in the Aadhaar scheme. Voluntary enrolment, they argued, does not deprive people of an Aadhaar number.

 They stated that there are data security systems in place to protect citizen’s data from misuse or unauthorized access. They contended that the Aadhaar Act, 2016 lays down the legal principles on which the Aadhaar scheme is conducted. They argued that the Aadhaar scheme is ‘proportional’ and necessary in the context of the purposes it seeks to achieve.

Government also stated that Aadhaar is necessary for national security, money laundering and terrorist activities. Also, that despite claims outside India, Aadhaar is not a tool for surveillance, but an identity system. They contended that by enrolling in the Aadhaar scheme, consent is implied.

Cases referred 

• Kharak Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh, 1964
• M.P. Sharma v. Satish Chandra, 1954
• Gobind v. State of Madhya Pradesh, 1975
• District registrar and collector v. Canara bank, 2005
• Selvi v. State of Karnataka, 2010
• Ram Jethmalani v. Union of India, 2011

These cases were taken into reference by the Supreme Court to support its judgement that the right to privacy is a fundamental right under the Indian constitution.

Judgment 

The judges gave decision in 4:1 majority. D.Y. Chandrachud gave a dissenting opinion and held that the Aadhar act is unconstitutional and thus not valid but he agreed with the majority on the recognition of Right to Privacy as a fundamental right. He held that the scheme was unconstitutional as it was enabled by a money bill and was invasive and violating the principle of proportionality.

The majority held the following:

• The Indian Supreme Court upheld the constitutional rightness of the Aadhaar Act, 2016 and made Aadhar valid but with conditions.
• They struck down some provisions of the Act such as:
  Section 33(2) – information for national security purposes.

 Section 47 – prohibition on individuals complaining about Aadhaar related violations.

Section 57 – private companies barred from using Aadhaar data.

• Gave orders to the government including to:

         – Employ strict measures on data protection.

         – Enact a law on data protection.

         – Limit its use for subsidies, benefits and services only.

A.K. Sikri, J. wrote the majority opinion ( for Chief Justice, himself and A.M. Khanwilkar) upholding the Aadhar aact. They clarified the legal status of Aadhaar’s use in certain circumstances with limitations and safeguards meant to protect one’s rights.

Analysis and Reasoning 

The analysis and reasoning in the 2018 case of K. S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India can be summarized as follows:

Majority Analysis and Reasoning: 

1. Constitutional Validity: The majority concluded that the Aadhaar Act, 2016 is constitutional as it meets the proportionality and the necessity test.
2. Right to Privacy: Most considered privacy as a constitutional right but five noted Aadhaar scheme does not infract the right; it is reasonable and proportionate.

3. Data Protection: The majority stressed the necessity of the stringent protection of the data and requested the government to enact a data protection bill.

4. Aadhaar Purpose: The majority of them opined that Aadhaar is constitutional for the subsidies, benefits and services.

5. Money Bill: These formed the basis for the majority decision supporting the Aadhaar Act as a money bill despite all the arts of its classification.

Justice Chandrachud’s Dissenting Analysis and Reasoning:

 1. Unconstitutional: The details of the judgement are that Justice Chandrachud said that Aadhaar Act is unconstitutional because of a violation of the right to privacy infringement and disproportionate.

2. Surveillance State: He said that a state is becoming a watchdog in which authorities could possibly monitor people’s actions.

3. Data Protection: He spoke volumes about data protection and its adequacy and stressing that more should be done to enhance security.

4. Aadhaar Purpose: Regarding the concerns of Aadhaar, he dissented with the majority on what he said was the stated goal of the policy, which of course was not restricted to subsidies and benefits alone.

5. Money Bill: On this point he did not support the manner in which the Aadhaar Act was passed as a money bill process.

The majority and dissenting opinions set out two possible approaches as to how the scope of protection of the liberty interest should be defined with the majority allowing Aadhaar scheme with certain conditions while Justice Chandrachud emphasized the need to strengthen the protection and prevention of rights infringement.