Author- Kanak Sharma, Faculty of Law, Aligarh Muslim University
Abstract
Justice K. S. Puttaswamy is a former Karnataka High Court judge who was also the first petitioner challenging the Government of India’s decision to make Aadhaar obligatory. This case summary focuses on the underlying nature of the Right to Privacy and its ancillary legal implications. In this article, we shall understand how this case established the Right to Privacy as a part of fundamental rights along with regulating national security exceptions
Facts
A five-judge bench of the Supreme Court of India upheld the constitutionality of the Targeted Delivery of Financial and Other Subsidies, Benefits, and Services Act, 2016 (“Aadhaar Act”) despite overturning certain portions of the Act. Aadhaar, a 12-digit identifying number provided by the Unique identifying Authority of India (“UIDAI”) to Indian residents, allows for a more effective delivery of various benefit packages. The program was principally challenged on the grounds that it violated fundamental rights guaranteed by Articles 14, 19, and 21 of the Indian Constitution. The Court determined that the use of Aadhaar for welfare schemes was constitutional since the Aadhaar Act met the constitutional requirements of legitimate governmental objective, necessity, and proportionality.
In 2012, retired High Court Judge K.S. Puttaswamy filed a petition against the Union of India before a nine-judge bench of the Supreme Court challenging the constitutionality of Aadhaar because it violates the right to privacy, which had been established on reference from the Constitution Bench to determine whether or not the right to privacy was guaranteed as an independent fundamental right under the Indian constitution following previous Supreme Court decisions.
Issues
- Whether or not Right to privacy is under the scope of Article 21 of the Constitution of India?
- Whether the decision of the Court in M.P. Sharma & Ors. vs. Satish Chandra, DM, Delhi & Ors. and also, in Kharak Singh vs. The State of U.P, that the scope of fundamental rights is not inclusive of such rights which are said to have been violated by the Aadhar Scheme?
- What is the level of protection required for the collection, storage, and use of biometric data?
- Does the Aadhaar Act and Rules provide such protection, including data minimization, purpose limitation, data retention timeframe, and data protection and security?
Arguments of the petitioner
The petitioners’ core concerns were that rigorous application of the Aadhaar plan would pose a serious threat to the rights and liberties of Indian citizens, which are guaranteed by the Indian Constitution. It was also argued that Aadhar will undermine constitutional values and morality. It has the ability to transform an intrusive state into a surveillance state by collecting information about each individual through the building of a common electronic mesh.
According to the facts and circumstances of the case, the government’s limits on people’s right to privacy were arbitrary and unjustified because there was no legitimate categorization and no nexus between such classification and the Act’s goal. The information sought from the people breached their bodily and mental integrity while also having no link to the Act’s goal.
It was contended that the right to privacy was an intrinsic aspect of the right to life and personal liberty, and that any restrictions put on it should follow legal procedures, i.e., meet the standards of Articles 14 and 19. Furthermore, the laws imposing such restrictions must be equitable, fair, and reasonable.
Furthermore, religion-based classification was not only discriminatory, but it also violated Article 25 of the Indian Constitution of 1950 by requiring people to disclose their religion. Furthermore, making Aadhaar Cards mandatory for benefit and non-benefit schemes will deprive people of their freedom of choice while subjecting them to constant state surveillance. This would be a grave breach of the right to life since it would infringe on the dignity of the individual, which is a fundamental component of the Constitution.
Arguments of the State
The Attorney General of India argued that the existence of a fundamental right to privacy is in doubt in light of two decisions: the first, M P Sharma v Satish Chandra, District Magistrate, Delhi1 (“M P Sharma”), was rendered by an eight-judge bench, and the second, Kharak Singh v State of Uttar Pradesh2 (“Kharak Singh”), was rendered by a six-judge bench. Each of these rulings, according to the Attorney General’s statement, included notes that the Indian Constitution does not directly safeguard the right to privacy.
Furthermore, the respondents argued that only the most basic information was obtained from the user who enrolled in Aadhaar. The demographic information includes name, date of birth, address, gender, mobile number, and email address. The latter two are optional and are used to send necessary information to the AMH as well as to authenticate using One Time Password (OTP). This information was about an individual and is always public. Section 2(k) of the Aadhaar Act states that rules cannot include race, religion, caste, tribe, ethnicity, language, entitlement records, income, or medical history. As a result, sensitive information is cautiously excluded. This precise exclusion, in this situation, ensures that the possibility for providing additional demographic information is somewhat modest and limited.
Judgement
J. Chandrachud (representing himself, C.J. Kehar, J. Agrawal, and J. Nazeer): According to this opinion, while an individual is in the public arena, their privacy is not entirely lost. Moreover, it determined that the right to privacy includes both a negative right against State intrusion, such as the prosecution of homosexuality, and a positive right to be protected by the state. The Judges concluded that there was a need to establish a data protection regime in India.
J. Chelameswar: In his ruling, the Judge stated that the right to privacy entailed a right to refuse medical care, a right against forced feeding, the freedom to consume beef, and the right to display religious symbols in one’s personal appearance etc.
J. Nariman: In this concurring opinion, the Judge described the components of privacy as non-interference with the individual body, protection of personal information, and autonomy over personal decisions.
J. Sapre: The Judge stated that, in addition to its existence as an independent right, the right to privacy encompassed an individual’s rights to freedom of expression and movement, and was necessary to meet the constitutional purposes of liberty and fraternity, which safeguarded the individual’s dignity.
J. Kaul: The Judge discussed the right to privacy, specifically the protection of informational privacy and the right to maintain personal reputation. He stated that the bill must include data privacy standards along with national security exceptions that allow the state to intercept data.
Significance of the Case
The right to privacy was a crucial component of the argument. On September 26, 2018, a five-judge bench of the Honorable Supreme Court ruled in favor of the respondents. The Court affirmed the validity of Aadhaar after knocking down certain articles and sections of the Act that were unconstitutional and violated citizens’ rights. Justice A K Sikri, who wrote for the majority of the court, deemed the Aadhaar Act legitimate after striking down Sections 33(2) and 57. The petitioners expressed a number of concerns, including the right to privacy, the prospect of state surveillance, and the possibility of a breach of information acquired by the government for citizens’ Aadhaar cards. The petitioners’ questions have called into question UIDAI’s assertion that their system is one of the best in the world and secure enough to protect citizens’ information. The Court ruled that the Aadhaar Act was constitutionally legitimate because it followed the Constitution’s reasonable limits.
The majority of the honorable Bench further ruled that sustaining the Aadhaar Act will not protect citizens’ right to choose whether to obtain an Aadhaar card. Citizens will not have a choice because Aadhaar will be required for accessing government subsidies and benefits, and if a citizen is denied access due to a lack of Aadhaar or an authentication issue, the citizen’s dignity will be violated. The Bench also stated that linking Aadhaar to PAN cards is unnecessary since it lacks a constitutional basis.
Even if Sections 33(2) and 57 of the Act are struck down, upholding Aadhaar may result in a violation of the right to privacy. To protect people’ right to privacy, the Court explicitly prohibited private companies from using the authentication mechanism or requesting citizens for Aadhaar details. The Court took the action to preserve people’ right to privacy, demonstrating that the right to privacy is really a fundamental right.
Conclusion
The Court also acknowledged that the right was not absolute, but allowed for restriction when it was given by law, matched to the State’s legitimate interest, and was reasonable to the goal it wanted to achieve.
The Supreme Court’s recognition of privacy as intrinsic to personal liberty and human dignity has far-reaching implications for safeguarding individual freedoms in the digital age. By emphasizing that privacy can only be curtailed under a legally justified, legitimate, and proportionate state interest, the judgment reinforces democratic values and provides a robust framework to protect citizens from arbitrary state actions. This case has set a precedent for future legal challenges involving privacy, personal autonomy, and data protection in India.
Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs)
1. What was the main issue in the Puttaswamy case?
The primary issue was whether the right to privacy is a fundamental right under the Indian Constitution. The case also questioned whether the Aadhaar system’s extensive data collection violated individuals’ privacy rights.
2. What is the “three-part test” introduced by the Court in this case?
The Supreme Court introduced a three-part test to determine when the right to privacy can be restricted:
- Legality: There must be a valid law in place justifying the intrusion into privacy.
- Legitimate Aim: The law must serve a legitimate state interest, such as national security or public welfare.
- Proportionality: The infringement must be proportionate, meaning the least intrusive method should be used.
3. How did this case impact the Aadhaar scheme?
While the K.S. Puttaswamy judgment affirmed privacy as a fundamental right, it did not directly rule on Aadhaar’s constitutionality. However, it laid the foundation for future cases, including the Aadhaar Judgment of 2018, where the Supreme Court upheld the scheme but imposed significant restrictions to ensure privacy protection.
