Author: Kunal Kumar, Soa National Institute of Law
Introduction
Justice K.S. Puttaswamy (Retd.) v. Union of India (2017) is a constitutional landmark in the history of Indian law whereby the Supreme Court of India held that the Right to Privacy as a fundamental right is under the Constitution. The case came against the backdrop of the Aadhaar scheme, a government program seeking to give citizens a unique identity number through the collection of sensitive biometric information like fingerprints and iris scans. Retired High Court judge Justice K.S. Puttaswamy challenged the constitutionality of collecting this data, contending that it infringed on the privacy rights of citizens.
The Issue was assigned to a nine-judge Constitution Bench to settle conflicting judgments by previous benches which had asserted that privacy was not a fundamental right. In a united judgment, the Court decided that the Right to Privacy is guaranteed under Article 21 (Right to Life and Personal Liberty), and also emanates from Articles 14 and 19 of the Constitution. The ruling overruled previous precedents such as M.P. Sharma and Kharak Singh, and enshrined privacy as a fundamental aspect of human dignity and autonomy.
This ruling has had extensive consequences in regard to data protection, personal liberty, and constitutional interpretation in today’s digital age.
Case Name-
Justice K.S. Puttaswamy (Retd.) and Anr. V. Union of India and Ors., (2017) 10 SCC 1
Court- Supreme court of India
Date of judgement – 24th August 2017
Parties____
Petitioner –
Justice K.S. Puttaswamy (Retd.)
Other individual petitioners (Including academics, activists, and concerned citizens)
Respondent –
Union of India (UOI)
Unique Identification Authority of India (UIDAI)
Other government departments
Bench of 9 Judges (Constitution Bench):
Chief Justice J.S. Khehar
Justice D.Y. Chandrachud
Justice R.K. Agrawal
Justice S.A. Bobde
Justice Rohinton F. Nariman
Justice A.M. Sapre
Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul
Fact of the case
The case of Justice K.S. Puttaswamy (Retd.) v. Union of India emerged from rising concerns about the Aadhaar project, an identity initiative introduced by the Government of India back in 2009. Aadhaar was designed to assign a unique 12-digit identification number to Indian residents, using their biometric data (like fingerprints and iris scans) along with demographic information. As time went on, having an Aadhaar number became essential for accessing a range of vital services and government benefits, including LPG connections, ration supplies, bank accounts, pensions, and even school admissions.
In 2012, Justice K.S. Puttaswamy, a retired judge from the Karnataka High Court, took a stand by filing a public interest litigation (PIL) in the Supreme Court, challenging the Aadhaar scheme. He argued that the compulsory collection and storage of personal data without proper safeguards infringed on the right to privacy. Other petitioners—comprising academics, activists, and lawyers—joined the fight, raising concerns that the scheme could pave the way for mass surveillance, misuse of data, and a loss of individual freedom.
The Union of India defended the Aadhaar initiative, asserting that privacy wasn’t a fundamental right. They leaned on previous Supreme Court rulings, like M.P. Sharma (1954) and Kharak Singh (1962), which had determined that privacy wasn’t constitutionally protected.
Given the significance of the matter and the conflicting legal precedents, a nine-judge Constitution Bench was formed to tackle a crucial legal question: Does the Indian Constitution recognize the right to privacy as a fundamental right under Part III? The ruling in this case would not only impact Aadhaar but also have far-reaching implications for data protection, personal liberty, and how we interpret the Constitution in our digital age.
Legal issue of this case ____
Does the Constitution of India guarantee the Right to Privacy as a fundamental right under Part III, particularly under Article 21, Right to Life and Personal Liberty
This issue came about due to earlier Supreme Court rulings in cases such as:
M.P. Sharma v. Satish Chandra (1954)
Kharak Singh v. State of U.P. (1962)
In these cases, the court determined that the Constitution didn’t explicitly recognize a fundamental right to privacy.
Argument of the parties ____
# Petitioner Argument –
Privacy is Inherent to Fundamental Rights
The petitioners claimed that the right of privacy is integral to the rights under Article 14 (Right to Equality), Article 19 (Freedom of Speech and Expression), and Article 21 (Right of Life and Personal Liberty).
Aadhaar Violates Personal Liberty
Widespread collection of biometric information by Aadhaar in the absence of sufficient protection constituted trespass into bodily and informational privacy.
Autonomy and Dignity
The privacy right is vital in ensuring individual freedom, autonomy, and dignity in a democratic order.
Relevance Today
In the era of the digital age, privacy and data protection are paramount, particularly against possible state surveillance and abuse of data.
Overruling Past Judgments
They urged the court to overrule M.P. Sharma (1954) and Kharak Singh (1962), which denied privacy as a fundamental right
# Responded Argument –
No Clear Right to Privacy
The government contended that privacy is not specifically provided in the Constitution and thus cannot be regarded as a fundamental right.
Earlier Supreme Court Decisions Hold Good
They based their arguments on M.P. Sharma and Kharak Singh judgments, which held privacy is not a Constitutional right.
Greater Public Interest
The Aadhaar programme has significant public interests, including efficient delivery of welfare, curbing fraud, and bringing transparency.
Reasonable Restrictions Apply
Even if privacy were widely accepted as a right, reasonable restrictions have to be placed on it in the issues of national security, public interest, and the provision of welfare.
Judgement ____
In a unanimous judgment handed down on 24th August 2017, a nine-judge Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court of India ruled that, the Right to Privacy is a Fundamental Right, guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution, and also under Articles 14 and 19.
The Court overruled the earlier judgments in M.P. Sharma (1954) and Kharak Singh (1962) to the extent that they held privacy to be not a fundamental right. The judgment reaffirmed that privacy is a necessary ingredient to the liberty and protection of individuals in a democratic polity.
Reasoning of the judgement____
Privacy is Inherent in Fundamental Rights:
The Court ruled that privacy is inherent in the right to life and personal liberty under Article 21, and also in the freedoms enshrined under Articles 14 and 19.
Constitution is a Living Document:
The Constitution has to be read with an evolving mind. The idea of privacy has to be interpreted in the light of contemporary realities, particularly the age of the internet.
Overruling Past Judgments:
The Court overruled the decisions in M.P. Sharma (1954) and Kharak Singh (1962) on the grounds that they rested upon a limited and outmoded conception of fundamental rights.
Privacy Preserves Human Dignity:
Without privacy, one cannot be autonomous, dignified, or have freedom of thought and expression. It is, therefore, a sine qua non of liberty.
Not an Absolute Right:
Privacy, as with other fundamental rights, is open to reasonable restrictions, but only by virtue of a law that is:
Just and equitable,
Has a lawfully founded purpose, and
Meets the test of proportionality.
Legal Principles Established
Right to Privacy is a Fundamental Right under Articles 14, 19, and 21 of the Constitution.
Overruling of M.P. Sharma (1954) and Kharak Singh (1962) – which denied privacy as a fundamental right.
Privacy includes multiple dimensions – bodily privacy, informational privacy, decisional autonomy, etc.
Doctrine of Proportionality – any restriction on privacy must be:
Based on valid law
For a legitimate aim
Necessary and proportionate
Constitutional interpretation must evolve with time and uphold constitutional morality.
Foundation for data protection laws, recognized the need for a legal framework to protect personal data.
Right to Privacy is not absolute, but it can be reasonably restricted by law under certain conditions.
Impact:
This judgment laid the constitutional foundation for future rulings on:
Data protection laws
Aadhaar’s validity
LGBTQ+ rights (e.g., Navtej Singh Johar case)
Reproductive and sexual autonomy
Surveillance laws
Justice K.S. Puttaswamy (Retd.) v. Union of India (2017) is a constitutional landmark in the history of Indian law whereby the Supreme Court of India held that the Right to Privacy as a fundamental right is under the Constitution. The case came against the backdrop of the Aadhaar scheme, a government program seeking to give citizens a unique identity number through the collection of sensitive biometric information like fingerprints and iris scans. Retired High Court judge Justice K.S. Puttaswamy challenged the constitutionality of collecting this data, contending that it infringed on the privacy rights of citizens.
The Issue was assigned to a nine-judge Constitution Bench to settle conflicting judgments by previous benches which had asserted that privacy was not a fundamental right. In a united judgment, the Court decided that the Right to Privacy is guaranteed under Article 21 (Right to Life and Personal Liberty), and also emanates from Articles 14 and 19 of the Constitution. The ruling overruled previous precedents such as M.P. Sharma and Kharak Singh, and enshrined privacy as a fundamental aspect of human dignity and autonomy.
This ruling has had extensive consequences in regard to data protection, personal liberty, and constitutional interpretation in today’s digital age.
Case Name-
Justice K.S. Puttaswamy (Retd.) and Anr. V. Union of India and Ors., (2017) 10 SCC 1
Court- Supreme court of India
Date of judgement – 24th August 2017
Parties____
Petitioner –
# Justice K.S. Puttaswamy (Retd.)
# Other individual petitioners (Including academics, activists, and concerned citizens)
Respondent –
Union of India (UOI)
Unique Identification Authority of India (UIDAI)
Other government departments
Bench of 9 Judges (Constitution Bench):
Chief Justice J.S. Khehar
Justice D.Y. Chandrachud
Justice R.K. Agrawal
Justice S.A. Bobde
Justice Rohinton F. Nariman
Justice A.M. Sapre
Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul
Fact of the case
The case of Justice K.S. Puttaswamy (Retd.) v. Union of India emerged from rising concerns about the Aadhaar project, an identity initiative introduced by the Government of India back in 2009. Aadhaar was designed to assign a unique 12-digit identification number to Indian residents, using their biometric data (like fingerprints and iris scans) along with demographic information. As time went on, having an Aadhaar number became essential for accessing a range of vital services and government benefits, including LPG connections, ration supplies, bank accounts, pensions, and even school admissions.
In 2012, Justice K.S. Puttaswamy, a retired judge from the Karnataka High Court, took a stand by filing a public interest litigation (PIL) in the Supreme Court, challenging the Aadhaar scheme. He argued that the compulsory collection and storage of personal data without proper safeguards infringed on the right to privacy. Other petitioners—comprising academics, activists, and lawyers—joined the fight, raising concerns that the scheme could pave the way for mass surveillance, misuse of data, and a loss of individual freedom.
The Union of India defended the Aadhaar initiative, asserting that privacy wasn’t a fundamental right. They leaned on previous Supreme Court rulings, like M.P. Sharma (1954) and Kharak Singh (1962), which had determined that privacy wasn’t constitutionally protected.
Given the significance of the matter and the conflicting legal precedents, a nine-judge Constitution Bench was formed to tackle a crucial legal question: Does the Indian Constitution recognize the right to privacy as a fundamental right under Part III? The ruling in this case would not only impact Aadhaar but also have far-reaching implications for data protection, personal liberty, and how we interpret the Constitution in our digital age.
Legal issue of this case ____
Does the Constitution of India guarantee the Right to Privacy as a fundamental right under Part III, particularly under Article 21, Right to Life and Personal Liberty
This issue came about due to earlier Supreme Court rulings in cases such as:
M.P. Sharma v. Satish Chandra (1954)
Kharak Singh v. State of U.P. (1962)
In these cases, the court determined that the Constitution didn’t explicitly recognize a fundamental right to privacy.
Argument of the parties ____
# Petitioner Argument –
Privacy is Inherent to Fundamental Rights
The petitioners claimed that the right of privacy is integral to the rights under Article 14 (Right to Equality), Article 19 (Freedom of Speech and Expression), and Article 21 (Right of Life and Personal Liberty).
Aadhaar Violates Personal Liberty
Widespread collection of biometric information by Aadhaar in the absence of sufficient protection constituted trespass into bodily and informational privacy.
Autonomy and Dignity
The privacy right is vital in ensuring individual freedom, autonomy, and dignity in a democratic order.
Relevance Today
In the era of the digital age, privacy and data protection are paramount, particularly against possible state surveillance and abuse of data.
Overruling Past Judgments
They urged the court to overrule M.P. Sharma (1954) and Kharak Singh (1962), which denied privacy as a fundamental right
# Responded Argument –
No Clear Right to Privacy
The government contended that privacy is not specifically provided in the Constitution and thus cannot be regarded as a fundamental right.
Earlier Supreme Court Decisions Hold Good
They based their arguments on M.P. Sharma and Kharak Singh judgments, which held privacy is not a Constitutional right.
Greater Public Interest
The Aadhaar programme has significant public interests, including efficient delivery of welfare, curbing fraud, and bringing transparency.
Reasonable Restrictions Apply
Even if privacy were widely accepted as a right, reasonable restrictions have to be placed on it in the issues of national security, public interest, and the provision of welfare.
Judgement ____
In a unanimous judgment handed down on 24th August 2017, a nine-judge Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court of India ruled that, the Right to Privacy is a Fundamental Right, guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution, and also under Articles 14 and 19.
The Court overruled the earlier judgments in M.P. Sharma (1954) and Kharak Singh (1962) to the extent that they held privacy to be not a fundamental right. The judgment reaffirmed that privacy is a necessary ingredient to the liberty and protection of individuals in a democratic polity.
Reasoning of the judgement____
Privacy is Inherent in Fundamental Rights:
The Court ruled that privacy is inherent in the right to life and personal liberty under Article 21, and also in the freedoms enshrined under Articles 14 and 19.
Constitution is a Living Document:
The Constitution has to be read with an evolving mind. The idea of privacy has to be interpreted in the light of contemporary realities, particularly the age of the internet.
Overruling Past Judgments:
The Court overruled the decisions in M.P. Sharma (1954) and Kharak Singh (1962) on the grounds that they rested upon a limited and outmoded conception of fundamental rights.
Privacy Preserves Human Dignity:
Without privacy, one cannot be autonomous, dignified, or have freedom of thought and expression. It is, therefore, a sine qua non of liberty.
Not an Absolute Right:
Privacy, as with other fundamental rights, is open to reasonable restrictions, but only by virtue of a law that is:
Just and equitable,
Has a lawfully founded purpose, and
Meets the test of proportionality.
Legal Principles Established
Right to Privacy is a Fundamental Right under Articles 14, 19, and 21 of the Constitution.
Overruling of M.P. Sharma (1954) and Kharak Singh (1962) – which denied privacy as a fundamental right.
Privacy includes multiple dimensions – bodily privacy, informational privacy, decisional autonomy, etc.
Doctrine of Proportionality – any restriction on privacy must be:
Based on valid law
For a legitimate aim
Necessary and proportionate
Constitutional interpretation must evolve with time and uphold constitutional morality.
Foundation for data protection laws, recognized the need for a legal framework to protect personal data.
Right to Privacy is not absolute, but it can be reasonably restricted by law under certain conditions.
Impact:
This judgment laid the constitutional foundation for future rulings on:
Data protection laws
Aadhaar’s validity
LGBTQ+ rights (e.g., Navtej Singh Johar case)
Reproductive and sexual autonomy
Surveillance laws
Conclusion
The Supreme Court held that the right to privacy is a constitutional right under Articles 14, 19, and 21 of the Constitution. It reversed earlier decisions and stressed that privacy is vital for the dignity, autonomy, and freedom of individuals. The Court also held that any limitation on this right has to meet the tests of legality, necessity, and proportionality. This ruling formed the basis of data protection legislation and represented an important move in establishing citizens’ rights in the information age.
FAQS
What is the Puttaswamy case about?
It held the Right to Privacy as a fundamental right.
Which Articles were involved?
Articles 14, 19, and 21 of the Constitution.
How many judges heard the case?
A 9-judge Constitution Bench.
Was privacy a fundamental right before this case?
No, this case overruled earlier judgments.
Is the Right to Privacy absolute?
No, it can be reasonably restricted by law.
