Author: Sourya Veer Pratap Deo, Xavier Institute of Management
To the Point
In 2017, the Supreme Court delivered a landmark ruling in K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India, which is often referred to simply as the “Right to Privacy” case, fundamentally re-shaped constitutional law in India. The Court, in a unanimous 9-judge bench ruling, held that the right to privacy is a fundamental right under Part III of the Constitution.
This decision overruled previous precedents, harmonized conflicting case laws, and placed privacy at the core of India’s democratic framework. It emphasized that privacy is not merely a privilege enjoyed by the elite, but an inalienable right guaranteed to all individuals, intrinsic to the right to life and personal liberty under Article 21 and interlinked with the freedoms under Articles 14 and 19.
This judgment has had wide-reaching implications: from data protection and surveillance laws to personal autonomy, bodily integrity, and reproductive choices. It also laid the foundation for future legal frameworks governing digital privacy, Aadhaar authentication, and the intersection of individual rights with state policy.
Use of Legal Jargon
Fundamental Rights: These are the basic rights enshrined in Part III of the Indian Constitution. They act as limitations on state action and are enforceable by the courts. The case centered on whether the right to privacy could be read into these rights, especially Article 21 (Right to Life and Personal Liberty).
Article 21: This article guarantees protection of life and personal liberty except according to procedure established by law. Over the years, the Supreme Court has interpreted it broadly to include a variety of rights, including dignity, autonomy, and now, privacy.
Precedent: A legal decision that creates a standard for courts to follow in future cases involving similar circumstances.
Per Incuriam: A judgment decided without reference to relevant legal precedent or statutory provision. Ex—The Puttaswamy ruling overturned M.P. Sharma (1954) and Kharak Singh (1963), citing them as per incuriam regarding privacy rights.
Constitutional Bench: A bench of at least five judges of the Supreme Court that hears cases involving substantial questions of constitutional law. In Puttaswamy, a nine-judge bench was constituted—one of the rarest formations—reflecting the gravity of the constitutional question involved.
Ratio Decidendi: The legal principle or reasoning that forms the basis of a court’s decision in a case. In this case, the ratio decidendi was that privacy is an integral part of the right to life and personal liberty, making it a fundamental right under the Constitution.
Obiter Dicta: Judicial remarks in a ruling that are not essential to the decision but may carry persuasive weight.
The Proof
The case began with a simple yet profound question: “Is the right to privacy a fundamental right under the Indian Constitution?” The petitioner, Justice K.S. Puttaswamy (Retd.), a former judge of the Karnataka High Court, filed a writ petition in 2012 challenging the constitutional validity of the Aadhaar scheme, which involved collecting biometric and demographic data from Indian citizens.
However, before delving into Aadhaar’s legality, the Supreme Court had to address a threshold issue: Did Indian citizens even have a fundamental right to privacy under the Constitution? This question gained urgency because earlier Supreme Court judgments in M.P. Sharma v. Satish Chandra (1954) and Kharak Singh v. State of U.P. (1963) had held that privacy was not a fundamental right.
To resolve the dispute, a nine-judge Constitution Bench was formed in 2017, headed by Chief Justice J.S. Khehar and including Justices Chelameswar, Bobde, Nariman, Lalit, Kaul, Chandrachud, and two others.
The Arguments
Petitioner’s Side: The petitioners argued that privacy is essential to the exercise of rights under Articles 14, 19, and 21. They stressed that the concept of dignity—a key constitutional value—cannot be realized without privacy. They cited both Indian and foreign jurisprudence to support the evolving notion of privacy in modern democratic societies.
Respondent’s Side (Union of India): The government took a contrary view. It contended that privacy was too vague a concept to be granted fundamental status. Moreover, it argued that recognizing privacy as a fundamental right would obstruct welfare schemes like Aadhaar that involve large-scale data collection.
The Verdict
On 24 August 2017, the nine-judge bench unanimously held that the right to privacy is a fundamental right protected under Articles 14, 19, and 21 of the Constitution. In a remarkably well-reasoned and detailed judgment spanning multiple concurring opinions, the Court overruled M.P. Sharma and Kharak Singh, declaring them obsolete and inconsistent with the modern understanding of constitutional liberties.
Key points from the judgment:
Privacy is not an elitist concept; it is about the right to be left alone, autonomy of the individual, and freedom to make personal choices without state interference.
Former Chief Justice of India D.Y. Chandrachud:
“The Constitution is a living document and must be interpreted in a manner that preserves individual liberties against both state and non-state actors.”
The judgment provided guiding principles for limiting the right to privacy, suggesting a three-pronged test:
Legality – the restriction must be by law
Necessity – the restriction must align with a legitimate state interest to be justified.
Proportionality— the restriction must align with the necessity, ensuring it is balanced and not excessive.
Abstract
The Supreme Court’s decision in K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India (2017)serves as a pivotal moment in Indian constitutional law. It recognized the right to privacy as an intrinsic, inalienable, and enforceable fundamental right. The case arose in the context of the Aadhaar scheme and biometric data collection, but the judgment’s implications go far beyond. It reshaped the legal landscape on issues such as surveillance, digital data protection, autonomy over personal decisions, and the limits of state power in a democracy.
In a unanimous 9-judge bench ruling, struck down earlier decisions rejecting privacy as a fundamental right and upheld it as essential to human dignity and freedom. The judges outlined the scope of privacy—including bodily integrity, personal autonomy, informational self-determination, and decisional privacy—making it clear that privacy touches upon every aspect of individual freedom under the Constitution.
In doing so, the judgment aligned Indian jurisprudence with international human rights standards and paved the way for a more robust legal framework to protect citizens in an increasingly digital and data-driven world.
Case Laws
The Puttaswamy judgment did not exist in a vacuum. It both overturned and built upon several earlier cases, creating a new trajectory for constitutional interpretation:
Overruled Cases
M.P. Sharma v. Satish Chandra (1954)
An 8-judge bench held that there is no fundamental right to privacy under Article 20(3).
The Puttaswamy bench overruled this as outdated and inconsistent with later constitutional evolution.
Kharak Singh v. State of U.P. (1963)
A 6-judge bench held that privacy is not protected under the Constitution, though there was a notable disagreement by Justice Subba Rao.
The majority opinion was explicitly overruled in Puttaswamy, while Justice Subba Rao’s dissent was vindicated and adopted.
Relied-On and Affirmed Cases
Gobind v. State of M.P. (1975)
The Court recognized privacy in a limited sense and suggested it could be fundamental depending on the case. This was cited with approval in Puttaswamy.
Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India (1978)
The Court expanded the interpretation of “personal liberty” under Article 21. Puttaswamy relied heavily on this expansive interpretation.
Naz Foundation v. Govt. of NCT of Delhi (2009), Navtej Singh Johar v. Union of India (2018):
These cases built on the privacy reasoning in Puttaswamy to decriminalize homosexuality, affirming that intimate personal choices fall within the realm of privacy.
Justice K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India (Aadhaar Final Judgment, 2018)
After the 2017 verdict, a separate five-judge bench independently evaluated Aadhaar on its merits. While Aadhaar was upheld with conditions, the privacy safeguards articulated in the 2017 judgment heavily influenced the outcome.
International Influence
The judgment drew from global jurisprudence:
Griswold v. Connecticut (U.S.) – Recognized marital privacy.
Roe v. Wade (U.S.) – Recognized reproductive autonomy.
European Convention on Human Rights (Article 8) – Protects the right to respect for private and family life.
These references helped the Indian Supreme Court harmonize domestic privacy law with international human rights norms.
Conclusion
The Puttaswamy judgment is more than just a judicial ruling—it is a constitutional moment. By affirming privacy as a fundamental right, the Supreme Court anchored Indian democracy more firmly in the values of dignity, autonomy, and liberty.
This decision acts as a safeguard against unchecked state power, ensuring individuals maintain autonomy over their personal lives, thoughts, data, and bodies. It has been foundational in subsequent debates and rulings concerning Aadhaar, surveillance mechanisms, internet shutdowns, LGBTQ+ rights, and data protection.
However, despite this strong jurisprudential foundation, much remains to be done. India has yet to implement a fully developed data protection law.. Mass surveillance programs operate without sufficient checks. Awareness about the right to privacy remains low, especially among marginalized communities.
As technology advances, new threats to privacy emerge. Facial recognition, algorithmic decision-making, data mining, and AI pose complex challenges. The real test of the Puttaswamy verdict lies in how effectively it is implemented and expanded upon by legislators, administrators, and future courts.
In essence, Puttaswamy does not mark the end of a legal battle—it marks the beginning of a new chapter in the constitutional conversation about rights, governance, and digital democracy in India.
FAQS
Q1: Does the Indian Constitution explicitly mention the right to privacy?
A: No. The term “privacy” is not explicitly mentioned in the Indian Constitution. However, the Supreme Court in Puttaswamy held that it is implicit in the fundamental rights under Articles 14, 19, and 21.
Q2: What does the right to privacy include?
A: It addresses various aspects like:
Bodily autonomy
Informational privacy (control over personal data)
Decisional privacy (personal choices regarding family, relationships, religion, etc.)
Right against surveillance
Freedom of thought and expression
Q3: How did this case impact the Aadhaar scheme?
A: While the 2017 ruling established privacy as a fundamental right, a subsequent judgment in 2018 examined the Aadhaar scheme on its merits. It upheld Aadhaar but struck down parts of it, especially those related to mandatory linking for services like bank accounts and mobile numbers.
Q4: Can the government still collect personal data after Puttaswamy?
A: Yes, but only if it fulfills the three-fold test: legality, necessity, and proportionality. Data collection must be backed by law, must serve a legitimate state aim, and must be the least intrusive option available.
Q6: Has this ruling been used in later cases?
A: Absolutely. Courts have cited Puttaswamy in cases dealing with surveillance, digital privacy, freedom of expression, and bodily autonomy. It remains a cornerstone judgment for constitutional interpretation in the digital era.
Q7: Does the right to privacy apply against private companies too?
A: Primarily, fundamental rights apply to state actions. However, the Court acknowledged that non-state actors can also infringe privacy, especially in the digital economy. This opens the door for future regulation of tech companies under privacy laws.
