Justice K.S. Puttaswamy (Retd.) & Anr. v. Union of India & Ors. (2017) 10 SCC 1

COURT: Supreme Court of India.

WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO.: 494 of 2012

DATE OF JUDGEMENT: August 24, 2017.

BENCH: 9-Judge Constitution Bench presided by Chief Justice J.S. Khehar (CJI), Justice Dr. D.Y. Chandrachud, Justice R.K. Agrawal, Justice S.A. Bobde, Justice A.K. Sikri, Justice N.V. Ramana, Justice Dr. A.M. Sapre, Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul, Justice Abdul Nazeer.

PARTIES:

• Petitioner: Justice K.S. Puttaswamy (Retd.)
• Respondents: Union of India

RELEVANT PROVISIONS:

• Article 14, 19(1)(a), 21 of the Indian Constitution.
• Aadhaar (Targeted Delivery of Financial and Other Subsidies, Benefits and Services) Act, 2016 (contextual).
• Judgments given in M.P. Sharma v. Satish Chandra (1954) and Kharak Singh v. State of U.P. (1962).

FACTS:

1. The debate over privacy as a fundamental right surfaced in 2015 before a three-judge bench of the Supreme Court during deliberations on the constitutionality of the Aadhaar program which involved the collection of biometric and demographic data of Indian residents.
2. Therein, the Attorney General for India acknowledged that the right to privacy had been recognized in multiple Supreme Court decisions, but argued that it was not protected under Part III of the Constitution.
3. He based this claim on two earlier decisions given in M.P. Sharma v. Satish Chandra (1954) – 8-judge bench and Kharak Singh v. State of U.P. (1962) – 6-judge bench which held that privacy was not a fundamental right.
4. Due to these conflicting judicial opinions, the Supreme Court, in an order dated 11 August 2015, observed that the practice of collecting biometric data raises questions about the right to privacy as it enables mass surveillance and profiling by the state.
5. To ensure institutional integrity and judicial discipline, the Court referred the matter to a five-judge Constitution Bench.
6. Subsequently, on 18 July 2017, the five-judge bench, led by the then Chief Justice J.S. Khehar, deemed the matter of such importance that it must be decided by a nine-judge Constitution Bench, which resulted in present judgement.
7. This led to the formation of the nine-judge bench that delivered the historic judgment on 24 August 2017, unanimously declaring that the right to privacy is a fundamental right under the Indian Constitution.

ISSUES RAISED:

1. Is the right to privacy protected as a fundamental right under the Indian Constitution,
2. Should the earlier Supreme Court rulings in M.P. Sharma (1954) and Kharak Singh (1962), which denied privacy as a fundamental right, be overruled?
3. Does the collection of personal and biometric data by the state violate an individual’s right to privacy?
4. How should the right to privacy be balanced against legitimate state interests such as national security, public order, and welfare programs?
5. What is the nature and scope of the right to privacy, does it include bodily autonomy, informational privacy, and decisional autonomy?

CONTENTIONS:

Petitioner

1. The right to privacy is an essential and inalienable part of the right to life and personal liberty under Article 21 and is deeply embedded within the framework of Part III of the Constitution, which outlines the fundamental rights guaranteed to every citizen.
2. It is important to re-evaluate earlier judgments, particularly M.P. Sharma v. Satish Chandra (1954) and Kharak Singh v. State of U.P. (1962), both of which had denied the existence of privacy as a fundamental right.
3. They pointed out that these rulings were based on the outdated precedent set in A.K. Gopalan v. State of Madras (1950), which viewed each fundamental right in isolation.
4. However, in Rustom Cavasjee Cooper v. Union of India (1970), an eleven-judge bench held that this compartmentalized interpretation of rights was unsound, thereby invalidating the legal foundation of M.P. Sharma and Kharak Singh.
5. Furthermore, the Preamble of the Constitution, which promises liberty and dignity, supports the recognition of privacy as a fundamental right.
6. Also emphasized that privacy is a natural right, inherent to human dignity, and is recognized as a universal human right under various international legal frameworks.

Respondent:

1. The right to privacy is not explicitly mentioned in the Constitution and therefore does not qualify as a fundamental right under constitutional law.
2. The judgments in M.P. Sharma and Kharak Singh remain valid, as they did not interpret or rely upon Article 21, which safeguards the right to life and personal liberty.
3. Urging the Court to adopt a narrow and textualist interpretation, emphasizing that the Constitution, and not judicial interpretation, is the true source of fundamental rights, and that Parliament alone has the authority to create or amend such rights.
4. Also stated that the concept of privacy is too vague and amorphous to be elevated to the status of a fundamental right. Instead, any protection of privacy should come from duly enacted statutes or common law principles, not from judicial pronouncements that stretch the Constitution beyond its intended scope.

JUDGEMENT:

1. In a historic and unanimous verdict delivered by a nine-judge bench of the Supreme Court of India on August 24, 2017 ruled that privacy is intrinsic to the right to life and personal liberty under Article 21 and is also an essential aspect of the other freedoms guaranteed by Part III of the Constitution. It is not a standalone or isolated right, but one that supports and strengthens all other fundamental rights.
2. The judgments in M.P. Sharma (1954) and the majority opinion in Kharak Singh (1962) were overruled stating that they were based on outdated constitutional interpretations and failed to recognize the expanded scope of liberty under modern constitutional jurisprudence.
3. The Court acknowledged that informational privacy is a part of the fundamental right to privacy. However, any interference by the state (or any entity falling under the definition in Article 12) in collecting personal or biometric data must pass the constitutional tests legality, necessity, and proportionality. If these standards are not met, such collection would violate privacy rights.
4. The Court clarified that the right to privacy is not absolute. Any infringement by the state must be backed by law, serve a legitimate state aim (like national security or welfare) and be necessary and proportionate to the goal sought to be achieved. This ensures a balanced approach between individual liberty and public interest.
5. The judgment laid down that the right to privacy includes multiple dimensions as these aspects form the core of individual dignity and freedom protected under the Constitution.

• Bodily autonomy (control over one’s body, including reproductive rights),
• Informational privacy (control over personal data and communications),
• Decisional autonomy (freedom to make intimate personal choices, including sexual orientation, identity, and lifestyle).

The Court observed that privacy is inextricably linked to the exercise of human liberty, both in specific rights (like speech, movement, and association) and in the broader protections under Article 21 and is not confined to a single article, but is distributed across the various provisions of Part III. It takes the form and limits of whichever specific right is being affected, for example, privacy in communication (Article 19), bodily privacy (Article 21), etc.

IMPACT OF THE JUDGEMENT:

1. This decision laid the constitutional foundation for future rulings on data protection laws like surveillance, Aadhaar, LGBTQ+ rights (Navtej Johar case), and reproductive autonomy thereby reshaping India’s privacy jurisprudence.
2. It marked a shift from a narrow, textual approach to a liberal, purposive interpretation of the Constitution, reaffirming the dignity and autonomy of the individual in a digital age.

RATIO DECIDENDI:

The Supreme Court unanimously held that the right to privacy is a fundamental right, inherently protected under Article 21 (Right to Life and Personal Liberty) and across other rights in Part III of the Constitution. This right is essential to the enjoyment of personal freedom, dignity, and autonomy.

OBITER DICTA:

The Court emphasized that privacy is central to the idea of individual dignity and must be preserved in all forms , including bodily integrity, personal choices, and informational control, especially in the context of modern technological advancements. It observed that the Constitution is a living document that must be interpreted in light of changing societal values and global human rights norms.

FINAL DECISION:

The nine-judge bench of the Supreme Court declared that the right to privacy is a constitutionally guaranteed fundamental right. It overruled the decisions in M.P. Sharma (1954) and Kharak Singh (1962) to the extent that they denied the existence of such a right, setting a transformative precedent for future jurisprudence.

IMPORTANT PRECEDENTS:

(i) M.P. Sharma and Ors. vs. Satish Chandra, District Magistrate, Delhi and Ors. MANU/SC/0018/1954

(ii) Kharak Singh vs. The State of U.P. and Ors. MANU/SC/0085/1962 

(iii) A.K. Gopalan vs. The State of Madras MANU/SC/0012/1950 

(iv) R. Rajagopal v. State of Tamil Nadu, MANU/SC/0056/1995 

(v) PUCL v. Union of India, MANU/SC/0149/1997

(vi) Mrs. Maneka Gandhi vs. Union of India (UOI) and Anr. MANU/SC/0133/1978

(vii) Gobind vs. State of Madhya Pradesh and Anr. MANU/SC/0119/1975

(viii) R. Rajagopal alias R.R. Gopal and Another vs. State of Tamil Nadu and Others MANU/SC/0056/1995

(ix)People’s Union of Civil Liberties (PUCL) vs. Union of India

(x) Smt. Selvi and Ors. vs. State of Karnataka MANU/SC/0325/2010