Author: Vardha Verma, Student at Jindal Global University
The landmark judgment of K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India in 2017 redrafted the Indian vision for individual liberties and constitutional rights. Delivered by a nine-judge bench of the Supreme Court, the judgment definitively declared privacy to be a fundamental right of the Constitution of India, opening up new dimensions for profound legal, social, and political change in the country.
The case originated in the Indian government’s Aadhaar initiative-a biometric identification system that it introduced to rationalize the distribution of welfare schemes and improve governance. Critics have raised alarms regarding the misuse of data, state surveillance, and threat to individual privacy. Justice K.S. Puttaswamy, a retired judge, moved a petition challenging the Aadhaar program and claimed that this infringed the right to privacy. Until this case, privacy had not been explicitly recognized as a fundamental right in India, with earlier rulings in M.P. Sharma v. Satish Chandra (1954) and Kharak Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh (1963) denying such a constitutional guarantee. Recognizing the gravity of the issue, the Supreme Court constituted a nine-judge bench to decide whether privacy was protected under the Constitution.
The judgment was delivered by the Court on August 24, 2017, with a unanimous pronouncement that privacy is an inherent facet of the right to life and personal liberty conferred by Article 21 of the Constitution. In this judgment, the earlier precedents in M.P. Sharma and Kharak Singh were set aside, and privacy was decisively established as a right that the Constitution protects. Privacy was considered the constituent element of human dignity, autonomy, and the liberties secured under Part III of the Constitution.
The Court expatiated on the multi-dimensional aspect of privacy: its relation with bodily integrity, personal choices, informational privacy, and freedom of thought and expression. Linking it to Articles 14, 19, and 21, the Court has clearly underscored that it plays an important role for the attainment of equality, liberty, and dignity. Yet, right to privacy is not absolute as are other rights. Restrictions on privacy must pass the tests of legality, necessity, and proportionality, ensuring any intrusion is justified, minimal, and for a legitimate purpose.
One critical aspect of this judgment was the recognition by the Court of informational privacy in the digital world. With data becoming increasingly susceptible to abuse, the Court demanded a sound data protection structure. This recognition has had far-reaching implications, influencing subsequent legislative and judicial developments. For instance, the judgment set the stage for the Aadhaar verdict, where the Court upheld the program’s constitutional validity but imposed strict safeguards to protect privacy. Additionally, it spurred the drafting of comprehensive data protection laws, such as the Digital Personal Data Protection Act, 2023, aimed at regulating data use and ensuring accountability.
The judgment goes beyond just data protection. Individual rights have been strengthened in matters of reproductive autonomy, the rights of LGBTQ+ persons, and freedom of expression. Some examples are cases like Navtej Singh Johar v. Union of India, 2018 which decriminalized homosexuality, and Joseph Shine v. Union of India, 2018 where the colonial adultery law was held to be constitutionally invalid. These cases demonstrate the strength of recognizing privacy as complementing the rest of the constitutional rights regime.
While no doubt groundbreaking, this judgment has had its critics. Notably, it was said that since privacy is an amorphous concept without an express and definite definition, there are ambiguous applications. Balance between privacy with competing state interests, such as national security or public welfare, is still very challenging. The delay in establishing an effective data protection framework has also not gone without critique, especially considering how data breaches and surveillance technologies have become more frequent. Artificial intelligence and surveillance technology are also now evolving rapidly to add to the complexity of issues related to the right to privacy.
The K.S. Puttaswamy judgment is a seminal moment in the jurisprudence of India for it cements the judiciary’s role as the watchdog of fundamental rights in a changing world. It then stands to reason that protection of personal freedoms is of primary importance while not undermining the legitimate interest of the state. The judgment places privacy at the core of constitutional values, and so it has presented a solid basis on which future challenges to individual autonomy and dignity may be addressed, giving these rights hardy resistance to technological and societal changes.