Author: Shrut Jain, CCS University
To the Point
The Supreme Court’s landmark judgment in Justice K.S. Puttaswamy (Retd.) v. Union of India (2017) elevated the right to privacy to the status of a constitutionally protected fundamental right. This historic ruling addressed pressing questions about the intersection of privacy, dignity, and personal liberty within India’s constitutional framework, while also redefining the limits of state power in an increasingly digital society.
Use of Legal Jargon
Key legal concepts guided the Court’s reasoning in this case — including ratio decidendi (the binding legal principle), obiter dicta (observations made in passing), stare decisis (respect for legal precedent), per curiam opinions, where the Court issues its decision as a unified voice, and constitutional morality, which draws its principles from the Constitution itself rather than from prevailing public sentiments. The judges also applied the proportionality test to balance privacy with any legitimate state interest, upheld the inviolability of privacy, and reinforced individual autonomy and informational self-determination. They recognized that fundamental rights can have a horizontal application — affecting both state and private actors — and embraced the ongoing jurisprudential evolution of unenumerated rights like privacy Even though our Constitution doesn’t list them word for word, there are core principles that quietly uphold our personal freedom. These unspoken rights form the backbone of our individuality, ensuring that we can live our lives with dignity and autonomy even when they aren’t explicitly detailed on paper.
The Proof
The 547-page unanimous judgment delivered by a nine-judge Constitutional Bench of the Supreme Court on 24 August 2017 in Justice K.S.
Puttaswamy v. Union of India (2017) 10 SCC 1 is one of the most profound constitutional decisions in Indian history. It overturned earlier judgments that had refused to acknowledge privacy as a fundamental right, and clearly established it as an essential part of the right to life and personal liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution, while also linking it to the broader set of freedoms protected in Part III.
The Court emphasised that privacy is not an elitist concept but one that is indispensable for dignity, autonomy, and the free development of personality in a democratic society.
Abstract
The K.S. Puttaswamy case originated from a challenge to the constitutional validity of the Aadhaar biometric identity project, but soon expanded into a much broader deliberation on whether the Indian Constitution guaranteed a fundamental right to privacy. The Court unanimously ruled that privacy is a constitutionally protected right, stemming not only from the guarantees of life and personal liberty under Article 21 but also from the freedoms enshrined in Article 19. The ruling corrected a long-standing doctrinal gap left by previous judgments and realigned Indian constitutional jurisprudence with global human rights standards.
The judgment has since had a transformative effect on Indian law, shaping issues such as data protection, surveillance, sexual orientation rights, and bodily autonomy.
Case Laws
1. Background and Procedural History
In 2012, Justice K.S. Puttaswamy, a retired judge of the Karnataka High Court, filed a writ petition under Article 32 of the Constitution, arguing that the Aadhaar scheme infringed upon citizens’ right to privacy..
During the hearings, the Attorney General of India contended that privacy was not a fundamental right, referencing earlier rulings in M.P. Sharma v. Satish Chandra (1954) and Kharak Singh v. State of U.P. (1963) to support this argument.
Given the gravity of this claim, a nine-judge Constitutional Bench was constituted to definitively answer the question of whether the right to privacy is a fundamental right.
2. Key Precedents Considered
M.P. Sharma v. Satish Chandra (1954)
The Court held that the Constitution does not explicitly protect the right to privacy, particularly in the context of search and seizure.
Kharak Singh v. State of U.P. (1963)
The majority opinion denied that privacy was a guaranteed right, although a minority opinion by Justice Subba Rao recognised its importance.
Gobind v. State of M.P. (1975)
The Court cautiously accepted that privacy could be protected under Article 21 but left the matter open-ended.
Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India (1978)
Expanded the interpretation of Article 21 by linking it to other rights, such as those under Article 19 and 14.
Naz Foundation v. Government of NCT of Delhi (2009)
It acknowledged that privacy is a vital component of human dignity and essential to the expression of sexual autonomy.
Selvi v. State of Karnataka (2010)
Held that forcible narco-analysis and lie-detector tests violate the right to privacy.
3. The Bench and Its Reasoning
Composition of the Bench:
Chief Justice J.S. Khehar
Justice D.Y. Chandrachud
Justice R.K. Agrawal
Justice J. Chelameswar
Justice S.A. Bobde
Justice R.F. Nariman
Justice A.M. Sapre
Justice S.K. Kaul
Justice Abdul Nazeer
Majority Opinion:
Authored by Justice Chandrachud (on behalf of four judges), with separate concurring opinions by others.
Core Holdings:
Privacy as a Fundamental Right:
The right to privacy forms an essential part of the protections offered by Article 21 concerning life and personal liberty, and it also connects closely with the freedoms guaranteed under Article 19.
Horizontal Application:
The right to privacy also applies horizontally, affecting relationships between private parties.
Constitutional Morality:
The Court emphasised that constitutional morality, rather than majoritarian morality, must guide interpretations of individual rights.
Proportionality Test:
State action infringing privacy must be sanctioned by law, necessary in a democratic society, and proportionate to the legitimate aim pursued.
Overruling Previous Cases:
The Court unequivocally overruled M.P. Sharma and Kharak Singh to the extent that they denied the existence of a fundamental right to privacy.
4. Conceptual Dimensions of Privacy
The Court adopted a multidimensional understanding of privacy, identifying three broad aspects:
Bodily Privacy:
Protects against physical intrusions, such as forcible medical procedures or surveillance.
Informational Privacy:
Grants individuals control over personal information, including data collected and processed by the State or corporations.
Decisional Autonomy:
Safeguards the freedom to make intimate and personal life choices — encompassing sexual orientation, reproductive rights, and lifestyle.
5. Comparative Jurisprudence
The Court drew on foreign jurisprudence, particularly:
United States:
Griswold v. Connecticut (1965), Roe v. Wade (1973), Carpenter v. United States (2018).
United Kingdom:
R v. Director of Serious Fraud Office (2008).
South Africa:
NM v. Smith (2007).
European Court of Human Rights:
Von Hannover v. Germany (2004), S. and Marper v. United Kingdom (2008).
6. Impact and Subsequent Developments
The Puttaswamy judgment has had profound ripple effects across Indian legal and policy landscapes:
Aadhaar Verdict (2018):
In Puttaswamy (II), the Supreme Court upheld the validity of Aadhaar but imposed restrictions on its use, citing privacy concerns.
Decriminalisation of Section 377 IPC:
In its 2018 judgment of Navtej Singh Johar v. Union of India, the Supreme Court drew on the principles from Puttaswamy to highlight that sexual autonomy is a basic human right. This means that every individual has the inherent freedom to shape and express their own sexuality, affirming that personal choices surrounding intimacy are a vital part of human dignity.
Right to be Forgotten:
Indian courts increasingly recognise this as a facet of informational privacy.
Data Protection Law:
Inspired by Puttaswamy, the Data Protection Bill has been debated to establish comprehensive personal data protection norms.
Surveillance:
The judgment provides a constitutional framework to evaluate surveillance practices by the State.
Conclusion
The judgment in Justice K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India (2017) marks a turning point in Indian constitutional jurisprudence. It affirms that the Constitution protects not only explicit textual rights but also unenumerated ones essential to liberty and dignity. In doing so, it breathes new life into the fundamental rights discourse and offers robust protections against the challenges of the digital age.
Privacy is no longer a privilege reserved for the elite; it is a democratic right indispensable to all individuals in the Indian polity. The Puttaswamy doctrine will continue to guide future debates on State surveillance, data governance, and personal freedoms in the 21st century.
FAQS
What is the significance of the K.S. Puttaswamy judgment?
It explicitly recognises privacy as a constitutionally protected fundamental right under Article 21, overruling earlier contradictory decisions.
Does privacy apply against private entities?
Yes, the Court acknowledged that privacy rights have a horizontal application, though the extent will depend on future judicial elaboration.
How does the proportionality test protect privacy?
State action restricting privacy must be lawful, necessary, proportionate, and aimed at achieving a legitimate objective.
What is informational privacy?
This concept means that individuals have the authority to manage their own personal information—including how it’s gathered, stored, utilized, and shared with others..
What are the global influences on the Puttaswamy ruling?
The judgment draws on privacy jurisprudence from the United States, United Kingdom, South Africa, and the European Court of Human Rights.
What is the impact on Aadhaar?
While Aadhaar was upheld as constitutionally valid, its use is now circumscribed to prevent violations of privacy.
Has the judgment influenced LGBTQ+ rights?
Yes, Puttaswamy was a foundation for recognising sexual autonomy and dignity in Navtej Singh Johar v. Union of India (2018).
What is the “Right to be Forgotten”?
Emerging within the realm of informational privacy, this right empowers individuals to ask for their personal data to be deleted when specific conditions are met.
Has a comprehensive data protection law been enacted?
As of now, India is progressing towards enacting a personal data protection law inspired by the principles in Puttaswamy.
Why is this judgment globally relevant?
It aligns Indian privacy jurisprudence with international human rights norms and provides a comprehensive legal framework adaptable to future challenges.
