Abstract
This article produces insights and information about the new definition given to Privacy in the Justice K.S Puttaswamy (Retd) v, Union of India case. This case revolved around the concept of Aadhar and the validity of it. This landmark ruling unanimously declared the right to privacy as a fundamental right under the Indian Constitution, significantly reshaping the discourse around personal liberty and state surveillance. It has profound implications for the protection of individual privacy in the digital age, influencing subsequent legislation and judicial decisions. This article dwells into the historical context, legal arguments, and broader impact of the Puttaswamy judgment, highlighting its role in fortifying privacy rights against the backdrop of rapid technological advancements and expanding governmental powers.
INTRODUCTION
The Supreme Court in the case of Justice Puttaswamy v. Union of India declared privacy is a fundamental right protected under the Indian Constitution. The case was brought before the Supreme Court by retired Justice KS Puttaswamy along with several other petitioners challenging the constitutional validity of the Aadhar Scheme led by UIDAI i.e., the Unique Identification Authority of India. The main contention put forth by the mentioned petitioners was that the collection of biometric data such as fingerprints was violating the right to privacy of the citizens of India. According to the Government of India, the Right to Privacy was a common law right protected by statute and the earlier decisions of the court did not acknowledge the right to privacy as a Fundamental Right. Judge Puttaswamy filed a plea to question the constitutionality of the Aadhar card program.
Initially, the case was contested before a three-judge bench of the court on the grounds of violation of privacy. The then Attorney General of India Justice Mukul Rohatgi argued against the existence of the fundamental right to privacy. When the case moved up to the nine-judge bench, the petitioner contended that this right was a free-standing one that was protected by the right to a life of dignity under Article 21 of the Constitution, according to the Respondent, the Constitution only guarantees personal liberty, which may include a limited right to privacy. The structure of the privacy rights, as well as the nature of this right, were all extensively discussed by the court. Additionally, the sole issue in this case was Whether the Right to Privacy was guaranteed as a fundamental right under Part III of the Indian Constitution, 1950.
PETITIONER’S CONTENTIONS
The Petitioners claimed that by granting the State unrestricted authority inverts the balance of power between the citizens and the state. Therefore, any information needed must be provided to give national integrity paramount importance. Another contention was that Article 110 of the Constitution empowers Parliament to enact the Aadhaar Act as a Money bill. The main goal of the Act is to provide state benefits and subsidies whose funding is from the Consolidated Fund of India. For any Bill, it is referred as a money Bill when it contains only matters that affect the Consolidated Fund of India. This was clarified following Article 110(3).
RESPONDENT’S CONTENTIONS
The Respondent claims that it was unconstitutional to pass the Aadhar Act as a money measure. Only bills that are related to specific matters listed in Article 110(1)(a)-(g) of the Constitution can be passed as a money bill. Through this, it will be shown that the Aadhaar Act governs many other components of the Aadhaar scheme that do not fall under Article 110(1). In the case of Anirudh v. Union Territory of Chandigarh and others, while giving its judgment in this matter the court opined that Aadhar promoted dignity for the poor by enabling them to receive welfare payments more effectively and fulfill several socio-economic entitlements. A balance must be struck between the two notions of dignity founded in personal freedom and dignified life according to the bench.
JUDGEMENT
In August 2017, the Supreme Court delivered its judgment in the Puttaswamy case, affirming that privacy is indeed a fundamental right protected under Article 21 of the Constitution. The judgment was hailed as a significant victory for individual rights and freedoms in India. Impact on Aadhar: The ruling had implications for the Aadhar scheme, as it required the government to ensure that the collection and use of Aadhar data complied with the right to privacy. Subsequent judgment further clarified the limitations on the use of Aadhar for various purposes.
In six distinct judgments, the Supreme Court announced that under Article 21 of the Constitution, privacy is a discrete and separate fundamental right. Answering the question of what privacy is or what it covers. The court overturned the decisions in M.P. Sharma and Kharak Singh that found no right to privacy existed as a basic right because it was held by every single opinion as a fundamental law confirmed by the Constitution’s III Article and enforceable. Additionally, as declared in all the different opinions, the scope of this right was specifically set out. According to the Court, M.P. Sharma’s verdict was valid because it maintained that the Indian Constitution did not contain any restrictions on rules governing search and seizure that were comparable to the Fourth Amendment in the US Constitution. The Court’s decision in M.P. Sharma was reversed because it held that the Fourth Amendment did not encompass the whole notion of privacy and that the non-existence of a similar clause in the Constitution could not lead to a conclusion that there was no basic right to privacy in India. The Court rejected Kharak Singh’s narrow interpretation of personal freedom (also known as ‘ordered liberty’), which Judge D.Y. Chandrachud referred to as the ‘silos’ approach adapted from A.K. Gopalan. The Court noted that this method of seeing fundamental rights as sealed containers was abandoned in the wake of Maneka Gandhi. In the Kharak Singh case majority’s opinion was also washed off by the Court because it talked of avoiding police surveillance and home visits based on anything other than privacy- which the Court had always honored as a concept yet found no trace of it in our Constitution., the reinterpretation of the concept of privacy such that justified nullifying police surveillance and home visits,), even though the federal charter was not designed to protect such right (that respects privacy). The Court additionally decided that the precedents established to uphold private life after Kharak Singh should be interpreted in the context of principles articulated by the judges in the case. Moreover, the Court held that privacy might be restricted if the interference meets the three requirements of legality, necessity, and proportionality. Legality is the presumption of the existence of law, while need is defined in terms of a legitimate state goal, and proportionality ensures a rational connection between the goals and the methods used to achieve them. This test was expanded by Judge S.K. Kaul to include a fourth factor that required “procedural safeguards against exploitation of such intervention.” Judge J. Chelameswar also said specific just fair and reasonable thresholds outlined in Article 21 would work for other privacy concerns. He held any privacy concerns that warrant ‘strict scrutiny’ must invoke ‘compelling state interest.’ He noted that in context of this case would determine the application of the test of “compelling state interest.” The Supreme Court contended that the right to privacy inculcates privacy of personal information as well.
CASE ANALYSIS
This case judgment formed a pivotal moment in Indian Legal History, solidifying the right to privacy as an essential aspect of individual liberty. The case set a precedent for future privacy-related issues and underscored the importance of protecting personal data in the digital age. The judgment was a 4:1 decision by the judges. The judges mentioned that even though the Act was constitutional and did not violate the fundamental rights of the citizens but a few provisions were held unconstitutional and were struck down. If you are a taxpayer, it is important to have an Aadhaar card following approval of ITR as one can make all necessary transactions in time due to its non-duplication ability. The reason why some make an Aadhaar card mandatory for PAN is because if one would like to get this ID, he/she must link it with another one previously obtained from the UID system only then they will issue me with another personal number which also has an independent life cycle. Therefore, there is no way Jio or Airtel, or other private sectors should force clients to apply for a SIM card using their Aadhaar card or number. Before being obligated to provide an Aadhaar card number in order to complete KYC and operate the wallet in Phone Pay, Paytm, or any other online payment app, this was a necessity. This is because section 57 which allowed private companies to force their clients into giving out their Aadhaar number was removed after being found unconstitutional. This was done to protect the personal information of each individual through the Aadhaar card’s number, as it contains everything about them. The court stated that the Aadhaar card was supposed to be used while one was seeking assistance from the administration or its agencies but no private company or entity could require having an Aadhaar card and any company or entity doing so could be taken to court for violating section 57’s unconstitutionality. Therefore, in essence, a government agency can’t stop a child from receiving government benefits for lack of an Aadhaar card. Consequently, the Aadhaar Act is not completely unconstitutional and this ruling has made it easy for people to locate where they should take their Aadhaar card or its number and where they should not.
Frequently Asked Questions
- What restrictions were imposed on Aadhaar usage?
- Aadhaar could only be used for government welfare programs.
- Private entities, such as telecom companies and digital wallet providers, could not mandate Aadhaar for their services.
- Section 57 of the Aadhaar Act, which allowed private companies to use Aadhaar data, was struck down as unconstitutional.
- What were the petitioners’ main arguments?
- Aadhaar violated citizens’ privacy by collecting biometric data without adequate safeguards.
- Passing the Aadhaar Act as a Money Bill was unconstitutional.
- The scheme inverted the balance of power between citizens and the state, undermining individual freedoms.
- What were the government’s counterarguments?
- The right to privacy was not a fundamental right.
- The Aadhaar Act ensured efficient delivery of welfare benefits, especially to marginalized communities.
- Passing the Act as a Money Bill was valid as it directly impacted the Consolidated Fund of India.
- What are some areas where this ruling could be significant?
- Implementation of data protection laws like the Digital Personal Data Protection Act, 2023.
- Regulating facial recognition and AI technologies.
- Balancing national security with individual freedoms.
- What tests did the Court establish for restricting privacy?
The Court laid out three primary tests:
- Legality: There must be a law justifying the restriction.
- Necessity: The restriction should serve a legitimate state aim.
- Proportionality: There should be a rational connection between the aim and the restriction, ensuring minimal infringement.
Justice S.K. Kaul added a fourth test, requiring procedural safeguards against misuse.
