Justice K.S. Puttaswamy (Retd.) and Another v. Union of India and Others

 

Case Name	“Justice K.S. Puttaswamy (Retd.) and Another v. Union of India and Others”
Citation	Writ Petition (Civil) No. 494 of 2012
Court	Supreme Court of India
Date of Judgment	26 September 2018
Bench	5-Judge Constitution Bench
Judges	Chief Justice Dipak Misra, Justice A.K. Sikri, Justice A.M. Khanwilkar, Justice D.Y. Chandrachud, Justice Ashok Bhushan
Equivalent Citations	AIR 2018 SC (SUPP) 1841, 2019 (1) SCC 1, (2018) 12 SCALE 1,  (2018) 255 DLT 1, 2018 (4) KCCR SN 331 (SC),

INTRODUCTION

In 2012, Justice K S Puttaswamy, a retired judge of the Karnataka High Court, filed a writ petition in the Supreme Court challenging the constitutional validity of the Aadhaar scheme introduced by the UPA Government.

On August 24, 2017, the Supreme Court unanimously recognized the right to privacy as a fundamental right under the Constitution. This landmark decision stemmed from a 2012 writ petition filed by Justice K.S. Puttaswamy challenging the constitutional validity of the Aadhaar scheme.

Initially reviewed by a Five Judge Bench, the case was referred to a Nine Judge Bench on July 18, 2017. After hearings from July 19 to August 2, the Bench, which included Chief Justice Khehar and several other justices, delivered its ruling.

The court’s decision overruled earlier judgments in “Kharak Singh vs The State Of U. P. & Others on 18 December, 1962”^[1] affirming the fundamental right to privacy primarily under Article 21. This ruling has since been cited in significant cases like “Navtej Singh Johar vs. Union of India (2018”^[2]) and “Joseph Shine vs. Union of India (2018”)^[3].

PARTIES INVOLVED

Name Petitioner: Justice K.S. Puttaswamy, Centre for Civil Society (CCS), S.G. Vombatkere, Mathew Thomas, Raghav Tankha, Kalyani Menon Sen, Ram Prasad Misal and Shantha Sinha.

Lawyers for Petitioners: Shyam Divan, Kapil Sibal, Gopal Subramanium, K.V. Vishwanathan, P. Chidambaram, Arvind Datar, Meenakshi Arora and Sajan Poovayya.

Respondents: Union of India, Planning Commission, Unique Identification Authority of India, Andhra Pradesh, Assam, Arunachal Pradesh, Bihar, Chattisgarh, Gujarat, Goa, Haryana, Himachal, Jharkhand, Jammu and Kashmir, Karnataka, Kerala, Madhya Pradesh, Maharashtra, Manipur, Meghalaya, Mizoram, Nagaland; Orissa, Punjab, Rajasthan, Sikkim, Tamil Nadu, Tripura, Uttarakhand, Uttar Pradesh, West Bengal, Daman and Diu, Dadra and Nagar Haveli, National Capital Territory of Delhi, Andaman Nicobar Islands, Lakshadweep, Chandigarh and  Puducherry.

Lawyers for Respondents: K. K. Venugopal, Rakesh Dwivedi, Tushar Mehta.

KEY FACTS

In 2012, Justice K.S. Puttaswamy, a retired judge of the Karnataka High Court, filed a writ petition challenging the constitutional validity of the Aadhaar scheme introduced by the government. Aadhaar is a 12-digit unique identification number issued by the Unique Identification Authority of India (UIDAI) to residents of India based on their biometric (fingerprints and iris scans) and demographic data (name, age, address, etc.), stored in a centralized database.

The Aadhaar scheme was initially launched in 2009 as an attached office under the Planning Commission, and was not under any legislative framework at the time the petition was filed. In 2016, “the Aadhaar (Targeted Delivery of Financial and Other Subsidies, Benefits and Services) Act, 2016”^[4] was passed, giving statutory backing to the scheme.

The government gradually made Aadhaar mandatory for availing various government welfare schemes, subsidies, and services including Public Distribution System (PDS), LPG subsidies, filing income tax returns, bank accounts, mobile connections, and school admissions.

Relevant Details: In 2015, a three-judge bench ordered that a bench of appropriate strength must examine whether there exists a fundamental right to privacy in the Indian Constitution, specifically questioning the correctness of earlier decisions in “M.P. Sharma v. Satish Chandra (1954)”^[5] and “Kharak Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh (1964”)^[6].

The matter was first placed before a five-judge bench headed by “Chief Justice J S Khehar”, and subsequently referred to a nine-judge bench on 18 July 2017. On 24 August 2017, the nine-judge bench unanimously held that the right to privacy is a fundamental right under Articles 14, 19, and 21 of the Indian Constitution.

On 17 January 2018, the hearing on the constitutional validity of The Aadhaar Act began before the five-judge Constitution Bench. The case involved 38 cumulative weeks of hearings, making it the second-longest hearing in Supreme Court history.

ISSUES

Legal Issues Questions at Hand: The key constitutional and legal issues before the Court were:

• Whether the Aadhaar Project violates the right to privacy of citizens and is unconstitutional on this ground?
• Whether the Aadhaar Project has a propensity to create a surveillance state and is thus unconstitutional?
• Whether making Aadhaar mandatory for getting subsidies and benefits under Section 7 violates the rights to equality and dignity?
• Whether the Aadhaar Act can be treated as a ‘Money Bill’ within the meaning of “Article 110 of the Indian Constitution”^[7]?
• Whether various sections and regulations of the Aadhaar Act are unconstitutional?
• Whether “Section 139AA of the Income Tax Act, 1961”^[8] (requiring Aadhaar-PAN linking) violates the right to privacy?
• Whether “Rule 9(a) of The Prevention of Money Laundering Rules, 2005”^[9], which mandated linking of Aadhaar with bank accounts, is constitutional?

ARGUMENTS PRESENTED

Plaintiff’s Arguments: The Aadhaar scheme violates fundamental rights of citizens, particularly the right to privacy falling under Article 21 of the Constitution.

• Wide collection of biometrics and demographic data would lead to profiling of individuals and create a surveillance state.
• When Aadhaar is seeded into every database, it becomes a bridge across discrete data silos, enabling anyone with access to reconstruct an individual’s life.
• The government has not put in place adequate privacy safeguards, and there are no checks on the government’s power to use the biometric data collected.
• The Aadhaar Act could not have been passed as a Money Bill as its provisions go beyond financial matters.
• The right to privacy must not be forsaken in the interest of welfare entitlements.

Respondents’ Arguments: The intention behind introducing the Act was to ensure that all citizens eligible for benefits and subsidies receive them without deprivation.

• The Aadhaar Act does not ask for information that can violate a person’s right to privacy.
• The demographic information sought is minimal (name, date of birth, gender, address, mobile number, email address).
• The Act does not enable State surveillance on citizens.
• The architecture of the Aadhaar Act does not contemplate the creation of a surveillance state.
• Aadhaar primarily deals with financial matters and was properly passed as a Money Bill.

DECISION AND RATIONALE

Court’s Decision: On 24th August, 2017 a 9 Judge Bench of the Supreme Court delivered a unanimous verdict in Justice K.S. Puttaswamy vs. Union of India and other connected matters, affirming that the Constitution of India guarantees to each individual a fundamental right to privacy. Although unanimous, the verdict saw 6 separate concurring decisions. Justice Chandrachud authored the decision speaking for himself, Justices Khehar and Justice R.K. Agarwal and Justice Abdul Nazeer. The remaining 5 judges each wrote individual concurring judgments.

Legal Reasoning: Majority Opinion (4:1) – Justice A.K. Sikri

On behalf of Chief Justice Dipak Misra and Justice A.M. Khanwilkar, Justice A.K. Sikri authored the majority opinion that upheld the constitutional validity of the Aadhaar Act while striking down certain provisions.

On Privacy and Dignity: The majority held that there is a need for balance between two conceptions of dignity – one based on the right to personal autonomy and the other based on the right to live a dignified life (community approach to dignity accounting for “common good” and “public good”).

The majority judgment stated that “enrollment in Aadhaar of the unprivileged and marginalized sections of society, in order to avail the fruits of welfare schemes of the Government, actually amounts to empowering these persons,” giving them not only a unique identity but also a life of dignity.

On Surveillance Concerns: The Court observed that there are enough safeguards in place to prevent Aadhaar from facilitating mass state surveillance.

On Proportionality: The Court held that the Aadhaar Act was backed by legislation, its aim was to empower the marginalized (a ‘legitimate state aim’), and it made minimal inroads into privacy, thus satisfying the proportionality test.

Concurring Opinion – Justice Ashok Bhushan:

Justice Ashok Bhushan concurred with Justice Sikri’s majority opinion in upholding the constitutionality of the Act but differed on the constitutional validity of specific provisions within the Act.

Dissenting Opinion – Justice D.Y. Chandrachud:

Justice D.Y. Chandrachud held the dissenting opinion and found the entire Act unconstitutional because of procedural irregularities in the passage of the law. He argued that the Aadhaar Act could not have been passed as a Money Bill and pointed out that the provisions of the Act go beyond finance and relate to governance and regulation.

Three-fold Test for Privacy Restriction:

The right to privacy may be restricted where such invasion meets three requirements:

• (A) Legality – postulates the existence of law.
• (B) Need – defined in terms of a legitimate state aim.
• (C) Proportionality – ensures a rational nexus between the objects and the means adopted.

KEY HOLDINGS

• Right to Privacy: The Court reiterated that the right to privacy is a fundamental right under Articles 14, 19, and 21.
• Aadhaar for Welfare Schemes: Section 7 (making Aadhaar mandatory for state subsidies) was upheld.
• Not a Surveillance State: The Court held that the Aadhaar Act does not create a surveillance state.
• Aadhaar-PAN Linking: Held valid as it satisfies the three-fold Puttaswamy test.
• Bank and SIM Linking: Struck down as it does not meet the proportionality test.
• Child Enrollment: Parent’s consent is essential, and children can opt-out upon attaining adulthood.

PROVISIONS STRUCK DOWN/READ DOWN

Provisions Declared Unconstitutional:

• Section 2(d) – Definition of “Authentication Records” (too broad, includes metadata).
• Section 33(1) & 33(2) – Disclosure of Information (mandatory disclosure without chance to challenge).
• Section 47 – Complaints and Grievances (bars legal remedy for affected individuals).
• Section 57 – Use by Private Entities (partially struck down for private corporations).
• Regulation 27 – Data Storage reduced from 7 years to 6 months.
• Rule 9(a) of PMLA Rules – Mandatory Aadhaar-bank linking struck down.
• School Admissions – Mandatory Aadhaar linking struck down.

RULES/LEGAL FRAMEWORK

Constitutional Provisions:

• Article 14 – Right to Equality.
• Article 19 – Freedom of Speech and Expression and other freedoms.
• Article 21 – Right to Life and Personal Liberty (including Right to Privacy).
• Article 110 – Definition of Money Bill.

Statutory Provisions:

• Aadhaar Act, 2016 – Sections 7, 33, 47, 57, 59.
• Section 139AA of Income Tax Act, 1961 – Aadhaar-PAN linking.
• Prevention of Money Laundering Rules, 2005.

SIGNIFICANCE AND IMPACT

Legal Significance:

• Right to Privacy Reaffirmed: Privacy is an attribute of human dignity protecting personal autonomy.
• Balancing Dignity and Welfare: Framework established for balancing individual and community dignity.
• Data Protection Principles: Court upheld data minimization by reducing storage time.
• Limited Scope for Private Entities: Protection from corporate overreach.
• Proportionality Test: Clarified application of three-fold test for fundamental rights restrictions.

Practical Impact:

• Welfare Schemes: Aadhaar remained mandatory for government subsidies under Section 7.
• Financial Services: Banks cannot mandate Aadhaar; alternatives must be accepted.
• Telecommunications: Mobile operators cannot require Aadhaar for SIM cards.
• Education: Schools cannot deny admission for lack of Aadhaar.
• Taxation: Aadhaar-PAN linking upheld as constitutional.
• Children’s Rights: Enhanced protection with opt-out provisions.

Subsequent Developments:

Following the judgment, the Central Government promulgated “The Aadhaar and Other Laws (Amendment) Ordinance, 2019” in March, which later became “The Aadhaar and Other Laws (Amendment) Act, 2019” in July 2019. The amendment identified banking and telecom services as cases where Aadhaar may be voluntarily used for verification of individual identity.

In 2021, a five-judge bench dismissed review petitions challenging the 2018 Aadhaar judgment by a 4:1 majority, with Justice Chandrachud dissenting.

KEY OBSERVATIONS

On Privacy: The Court noted that personal intimacies (marriage, procreation, and family), including sexual orientation, are at the core of an individual’s dignity, and described discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation as “deeply offensive to dignity and self-worth”.

The Bench established that privacy was “not an elitist construct” and rejected the argument that the right to privacy must be forsaken in the interest of welfare entitlements provided by the state.

On Aadhaar’s Purpose: The Court stated that Aadhaar helps the disadvantaged sections lead a dignified life by assuring better targeting of subsidies and state benefits and helps in effective realization of a range of socio-economic rights.

Length and Complexity: The judgment runs into approximately 1,500 pages and is the culmination of 38 cumulative weeks of hearings, making it the second-longest hearing in Supreme Court history.

CONCLUSION

The Justice K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India (2018) judgment represents a landmark balancing act between individual privacy rights and the state’s interest in delivering welfare benefits efficiently. While upholding the core of the Aadhaar scheme for government welfare delivery, the Court placed significant restrictions on its use by private entities and strengthened data protection safeguards. The judgment has far-reaching implications for India’s evolving data protection and privacy jurisprudence, establishing that while privacy is a fundamental right, it is not absolute and can be restricted when it meets the tests of legality, legitimate state interest, and proportionality.

REFERENCES USED & LIST OF SOURCES:

• https://www.scobserver.in/cases/puttaswamy-v-union-of-india-fundamental-right-to-privacy-case-background/
• https://indiankanoon.org/doc/127517806/
• https://api.sci.gov.in/supremecourt/2012/35071/35071_2012_Judgement_26-Sep-2018.pdf

^[1] 1963 AIR 1295.

^[2] AIR 2018 SUPREME COURT 4321.

^[3] AIR 2018 SUPREME COURT 4898.

^[4] Act No. 18 of 2016.

^[5] 1954 AIR 300, 1954 SCR 1077.

^[6] 1963 AIR 1295.

^[7] The Constitution of India 1950, Art. 110.

^[8] Act No. 43 of 1961, ss 139AA.

^[9] G.S.R. 444(E), dated July 1, 2005, rule 9(a).