Author: Dewanshi Bhatt, Bennett University
To the Point
By confirming that the right to privacy is a fundamental right protected by Part III of the Constitution, the Supreme Court of India’s decision in Justice K.S. Puttaswamy (Retd.) and Anr. v. Union of India and Ors. represented a significant shift in Indian constitutional law. The Constitution Bench, which consists of nine judges, unanimously decided that privacy is essential to the freedoms and rights protected by the Constitution, especially under Article 21 the right to life and personal liberty. The ruling overturned the outdated and restrictive precedents established by earlier rulings like Kharak Singh v. State of U.P. (1962) and M.P. Sharma v. Satish Chandra (1954), which both rejected the fundamental right to privacy. The Puttaswamy Bench, on the other hand, acknowledged privacy as an essential element of liberty, autonomy, and dignity rather than only as a derived right.
The judicial challenges to the Aadhaar project and the escalating worries about data gathering, digital governance, and governmental monitoring served as the impetus for this decision. The Court acknowledged that in the twenty-first century, Indian citizens are at risk from both overt state coercion and covert electronic intrusions into their personal information, routines, and conduct. Three fundamental aspects of privacy were covered in the ruling: informational privacy (control over one’s personal data), decisional privacy (autonomy over intimate decisions like marriage, sexuality, and procreation), and physical privacy (control over one’s body).
Importantly, the Court did not consider privacy to be an absolute right. Rather, it established a three-pronged test to assess whether any state action that restricts privacy is constitutional: proportionality (the extent of invasion must not be disproportionate in relation to the purpose pursued), necessity (a reasonable State aim), and legality (presence of a valid statute). This framework guarantees that only under stringent constitutional protections may the State control or infringe upon private rights.
Particularly with regard to data protection legislation, LGBTQ+ rights, reproductive rights, and freedom from monitoring, the ruling established a strong precedent for future legal developments. Judicial review of presidential decisions that impact civil freedoms was also reinforced. The Supreme Court strengthened individual rights against growing digitalization and centralized governance by situating privacy within the larger framework of constitutional morality, so changing the relationship between the state and its citizens in contemporary India.
Use of Legal Jargon
Several legal theories and terminology essential to constitutional law were used in this case:
1. Substantive Due Process: The Court construed Article 21 to encompass substantive rights like privacy in addition to procedural fairness.
2. Proportionality Test: Only when a measure is appropriate, necessary, and lawful may the state impose privacy restrictions.
3. Legitimate State Interest: Any privacy violation must be supported by a justifiable state goal.
4. Informational Self-Determination: An individual is entitled to manage how their personal information is shared.
5. Decisional Autonomy: Privacy safeguards the freedom to make personal decisions pertaining to one’s body and mind.
6. Morality under the Constitution: The Court prioritized principles like liberty and dignity over majoritarian rules.
The Proof
In Justice K.S. Puttaswamy (Retd.) v. Union of India, the Court created a strong legal and philosophical foundation for the basic right to privacy. The foundation of the decision is summed up in the following points:
1. Bench Unanimous: Every one of the nine judges categorically ruled that privacy is a basic right.
2. Overruling of Precedents: Previous rulings that privacy was not a basic right were expressly overturned in M.P. Sharma (1954) and Kharak Singh (1962).
3. Multifaceted Right: It was acknowledged that privacy encompasses a range of rights, such as decisional autonomy, informational privacy, and bodily privacy, rather than being a single right.
4. Reading for Part III: According to the ruling, privacy is directly related to equality, freedom, and life and liberty and is derived from Articles 14, 19, and 21.
5. Global View: The Court sought advice from international treaties and foreign jurisdictions, including the European Convention on Human Rights and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
Abstract
An important turning point from administrative conceptions of liberty to a more comprehensive and substantive approach was signalled by the Puttaswamy case, which is an important milestone in Indian constitutional law. The Supreme Court ruled that the right to privacy is a fundamental right that is inexorably connected to the right to life and personal liberty. In order to bring Indian law into compliance with international democratic norms, the ruling indicated the necessity for legislation governing data, monitoring, and individual liberty. This article explores the case’s constitutional development, the judgment’s main arguments, and how it has affected Indian jurisprudence.
The growing digitalization of society, where people continuously engage with technology and frequently leave digital traces behind, made this option more urgent and pertinent. The Court recognized that both public and private actors could abuse personal data, particularly in the lack of strong data protection regulations. It underlined the need to protect privacy despite government programs and technical advancements like targeted monitoring, biometric data collection and Aadhaar. In order to ensure that any invasion of privacy it must be supported by the law and consistent with constitutional norms. The Court established a three-tiered test: legality, necessity, and proportionality.
Case Laws
1. M.P. Sharma v. Satish Chandra
In light of alleged corporate fraud, the Supreme Court in this decision examined the legality of search and seizures according to the Code of Criminal Procedure. The Court, which had an eight-judge panel, ruled that the Indian Constitution failed to recognize a right to privacy because there was no comparable clause to the U.S. Constitution’s Fourth Amendment. The Court dismissed privacy arguments, ruling that search and seizures did not breach any basic rights. However, this ruling adopted a limited interpretation of constitutional rights and continued to be a significant barrier to privacy interpretation until the Puttaswamy ruling specifically overturned it.
2. Kharak Singh v. State of U.P.
In this case, the constitutionality of specific surveillance practices specifically, nighttime domiciliary visits under the Uttar Pradesh Police Regulations were at issue. The majority of the Supreme Court bench maintained the surveillance practices, ruling that the right to privacy was not expressly guaranteed by the Constitution. Nonetheless, Justice Subba Rao’s minority judgment vehemently supported privacy as a component of individual liberty under Article 21. For decades, this disagreement caused misunderstandings about interpretation. Ultimately, the Court formally reversed the majority decision in Puttaswamy and acknowledged the merits of the minority argument.
3. Govind v. State of Madhya Pradesh
A more progressive approach was adopted by the Supreme Court in the Govind case, which acknowledged that a right to privacy might be granted under Article 21 but pointed out that it was bound by reasonable limitations. The petitioner contested the Madhya Pradesh Police Regulations’ monitoring provisions, and although the court maintained the regulation, it recognized that under some circumstances, privacy might be safeguarded under Article 21. Despite its cautious tone, this case set the foundation for future acknowledgment of privacy rights. Later, the Puttaswamy ruling built on Govind and affirmed privacy as a legitimate right.
4. Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India
Maneka Gandhi established the idea of substantive due process, which was a constitutional turning point that expanded the application of Article 21. When the Court ruled that “procedure established by law” beneath Article 21 had to be “just, equitable, and reasonable,” it effectively expanded the meaning of human liberty. Despite not being a case about privacy specifically, it did set the foundation for future safeguards for privacy under the constitution. Maneka Gandhi was cited extensively in the Puttaswamy ruling to support the requirement for a fair and equitable legal framework to support any invasion of privacy.
Conclusion
The ruling by Justice K.S. Puttaswamy is regarded as a pivotal and revolutionary point in the development of Indian constitutional law. The Supreme Court established the right to privacy as a fundamental right, upholding the constitutional values that include individual liberty and dignity. In addition to overturning antiquated court rulings such as M.P. Sharma and Kharak Singh, it established a moral basis for privacy rights in the digital era. Crucially, the Court provided a multi-layered interpretation of privacy that encompasses informational, decisional, and bodily privacy rather than treating it as a single, absolute concept.
As a constitutional safeguard, the proportionality test established in the ruling guarantees that privacy can only be restricted when it satisfies the stringent requirements of need, legality, and proportionality. This reinterpretation of privacy marks a shift in India towards more substantive due process, where the justice and impact of state actions on individual liberties are evaluated in addition to procedure.
The impact of the ruling goes well beyond its local setting. It has served as a constitutional springboard for later progressive rulings, including Navtej Singh Johar v. Union of India, Joseph Shine v. Union of India , as well as challenges to the Aadhaar scheme, online monitoring and electronic profiling. It also had a significant influence on the development of India’s data protection laws, which led to the passage of the Digital Personal Data Protection Act of 2023.
FAQ’s
Q1. What was the Puttaswamy case’s primary legal concern?
if the Indian Constitution guarantees the right to privacy as a fundamental right.
Q2. What was the number of judges on the bench?
The ruling was unanimously rendered by the Supreme Court’s extraordinary nine-judge panel.
Q3. What caused Kharak Singh and M.P. Sharma to be overruled?
They neglected to acknowledge the dynamic character of fundamental rights and instead took a limited view of Part III.
Q4. What effect did this case have on Indian data protection laws?
The lawsuit resulted in cybersecurity and information handling policy improvements and served as the foundation for the creation of the Digital Personal Data Protection Act, 2023.
Q5. Is the right to privacy unalienable?
No, privacy can be restricted if the state can demonstrate that its actions are appropriate, necessary, and lawful.
Q6. What global influences did the ruling reflect?
The Court cited European human rights doctrine on privacy as well as US precedents such as Griswold v. Connecticut.
Q7: What is meant by informational privacy?
people’s right to decide how their personal information is gathered, utilized, and shared.
Q8. In the era of monitoring and artificial intelligence, is this ruling still applicable?
Of course. The ruling established the framework for regulating new technologies to make sure they don’t infringe upon people’s rights to liberty or dignity.
Q9. Has this case affected Indian LGBTQ+ rights?
Indeed. The Navtej Singh Johar v. Union of India ruling, which decriminalized homosexuality, was directly supported by Puttaswamy’s emphasis on liberty and dignity.
Q10. Is it possible to hold private firms responsible for privacy violations?
Courts are more likely to regard privacy infractions whether they are committed by the government or private parties as constitutional violations in the wake of Putttaswamy.
References
1 Justice K.S. Puttaswamy (Retd.) and Anr. v. Union of India and Ors. (2017) 10 SCC 1.
2 Kharak Singh v. State of U.P. (1962) 1963 AIR 1295, 1964 SCR (1) 332, AIR 1963 SUPREME COURT 1295, 1963 ALL. L. J. 711, 1963 (2) CRI. L. J. 329, 1964 (1) SCR 332 1964 2 SCJ 107, 1964 2 SCJ 107
3 M.P. Sharma v. Satish Chandra (1954) 1954 AIR 300, 1954 SCR 1077, AIR 1954 SUPREME COURT 300, 56 PUN LR 366
4 M.P. Sharma v. Satish Chandra (1954) SCR 1077
5 Kharak Singh v. State of U.P. (1964) 1 SCR 332
6 Govind v. State of Madhya Pradesh (1975) 2 SCC 148
7 Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India (1978) 1 SCC 248
8 Navtej Singh Johar v. Union of India (2018) 10 SCC 1.
9 Joseph Shine v. Union of India AIR 2018 SUPREME COURT 4898, 2019 (3) SCC 39, 2019 CRI LJ 1, 2018 ALLMR(CRI) 4065, (2018) 11 SCALE 556, (2018) 252 DLT 388, (2018) 3 ALLCRIR 2955, (2018) 3 DMC 383, (2018) 3 HINDULR 537, (2018) 4 ALLCRILR 894, (2018) 4 CRILR(RAJ) 1043, (2018) 4 CRIMES 1, (2018) 4 CURCRIR 199, 2018 (4) KCCR SN 364 (SC), (2018) 4 MAD LJ(CRI) 369, (2018) 4 RECCRIR 480, (2018) 6 KANT LJ 465, (2018) 72 OCR 662, 2018 CRILR(SC MAH GUJ) 1043, 2018 CRILR(SC&MP) 1043, 2019 (106) ACC (SOC) 26 (SC), 2019 (1) ABR(CRI) 99, (2019) 2 BOMCR(CRI) 503, 2019 (2) SCC (CRI) 84, 2019 CALCRILR 1 481, AIR 2019 SC(CRI) 102, AIRONLINE 2018 SC 241
