Case Summary: KS PUTTASWAMY (Retd.) AND ANOTHER VS. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS, (2017) 10 SCC 1

• Title: KS PUTTASWAMY (Retd.) AND ANOTHER VS. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS
• Citation: (2017) 10 SCC 1
• Court: Supreme Court of India
• Bench: Nine-Judge Bench: J.S. Khehar (CJI), J. Chelameswar, S.A. Bobde, R.K. Agrawal, Rohinton Fali Nariman, Abhay Manohar Sapre, Dr. D.Y. Chandrachud, Sanjay Kishan Kaul, and S. Abdul Nazeer, JJ.
• Date of Judgment: 24 August 2017
• Relevant Statutes/Key Provisions: Articles 14, 19, and 21 of the Constitution of India; Aadhaar Act, 2016; Previous precedents: M.P. Sharma v. Satish Chandra (1954), Kharak Singh v. State of U.P. (1962).

Brief Facts

Justice K.S. Puttaswamy (Retd.), a former judge of the Karnataka High Court, filed a writ petition challenging the Aadhaar scheme, contending that it violated the right to privacy. The Union government argued that privacy was not a fundamental right under the Constitution. The case was referred to a larger bench due to conflicting earlier judgments.

The origins of the dispute trace back to concerns over the constitutionality of the Aadhaar scheme, which was launched by the Government of India in 2009 to provide a unique identification number to residents based on biometric and demographic data. Justice K.S. Puttaswamy, a retired judge of the Karnataka High Court, filed a writ petition challenging the scheme, contending that it violated the fundamental right to privacy.

Several petitioners raised concerns that the government’s wide-scale collection of personal data, especially biometric information, could lead to intrusive state surveillance and misuse, especially in the absence of robust data protection laws. The challenge questioned whether the Indian Constitution recognized the right to privacy as a fundamental right, especially in light of two previous Supreme Court pronouncements—M.P. Sharma v. Satish Chandra (1954) and Kharak Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh (1964)—where the court had ruled that privacy is not a constitutionally protected right.

Given the significance of the issue and the existence of conflicting precedents, a three-judge bench referred the matter to a larger constitutional bench, and eventually, a nine-judge bench was constituted to settle the issue.

Issues Involved

Several important legal questions were placed before the Supreme Court:

• Whether the decisions in M.P. Sharma (1954) and Kharak Singh (1964), which held that privacy is not a fundamental right, are correct in law.
• Whether the right to privacy is an intrinsic part of the right to life and personal liberty under Article 21 and part of the freedoms guaranteed by Part III of the Constitution.
• What are the contours, limitations, and the scope of the right to privacy, if it is recognized as a fundamental right?
• How should conflicting interests between state objectives and individual privacy be balanced, particularly in the context of new technologies and data collection practices?

Arguments

Petitioner’s Arguments:

1. Privacy is inherent in Articles 14, 19, and 21.
2. Previous judgments (M.P. Sharma, Kharak Singh) denying privacy were outdated.
3. The petitioners, represented by distinguished lawyers such as Shyam Divan, Kapil Sibal, and Gopal Subramanium, argued that the Constitution’s provisions on personal freedoms necessarily encompassed the right to privacy, even if not expressly stated.
4. Privacy, they argued, is an essential facet of dignity, autonomy, and liberty protected by Article 21, and is interlinked with freedoms under Articles 14 and 19.
5. Without privacy, other rights, such as the right to freedom of expression, movement, and assembly, would be rendered illusory.
6. International precedents and evolving human rights standards demanded recognition of privacy as fundamental.

Respondent’s Arguments:

1. The government argued that the Constitution does not explicitly mention privacy and relied on earlier Supreme Court precedents (M.P. Sharma, Kharak Singh) that denied privacy’s status as a fundamental right.
2. The state asserted its right to collect and aggregate data for purposes like targeted welfare delivery, national security, and governance efficiency.
3. It contended that the Aadhaar scheme was a reasonable encroachment justified by legitimate state interest.
4. Recognizing privacy as a fundamental right could impede policymaking in crucial areas like security, law enforcement, and welfare administration.
5. Aadhaar ensures targeted delivery of subsidies and benefits, outweighing privacy concerns.

Judgment

The Supreme Court unanimously held that the right to privacy is a fundamental right under the Constitution. It is intrinsic to the right to life and personal liberty under Article 21 and is also a part of freedoms guaranteed under Part III of the Constitution. In doing so, the court expressly overruled M.P. Sharma (1954) and Kharak Singh (1964), stating those judgments were decided at a time when constitutional interpretation was too narrow and formalistic.

The judgment declared that privacy is inherent in the right to life and personal liberty under Article 21 and is also protected under Articles 14, 19 and other fundamental freedoms guaranteed by Part III of the Constitution. Privacy includes:

• Preservation of personal intimacies
• Autonomy over personal choices
• Sanctuary of family life, marriage, procreation, sexual orientation
• Control over one’s own information, including informational privacy in the age of big data and technology

The bench laid down the triple test for adjudging any restriction or encroachment on privacy:

1. Legality: There must be a law.
2. Necessity: The law must serve a legitimate state interest.
3. Proportionality: The extent of interference must be proportionate to the purpose.

Judicial interpretation must evolve in alignment with contemporary social values, globalization, and the complexities of the digital era. The judgment is notable for its doctrinal clarity, comparative analysis, and its progressive citation of international human rights standards

Ratio Decidendi

The ratio decidendi of the case is that the right to privacy is an inalienable, fundamental right enshrined in Article 21, forming part of the fundamental freedoms recognized by the Indian Constitution. Restrictions on the right to privacy are permissible only if they pass the tests of legality, necessity and proportionality, ensuring that any intrusion is just, fair, and reasonable. The right to privacy is a constitutionally protected right, integral to dignity, autonomy, and liberty. Any restriction must meet the tests of legality, necessity, and proportionality.

Obiter Dicta

Observations were made on how privacy extends to informational privacy, data protection, and the need for robust safeguards in a digital age.The judges provided extensive obiter dicta on the evolving nature of constitutional rights:

• Privacy is essential for dignity and autonomy, particularly in relation to gender and sexual orientation, which later formed the basis for subsequent landmark cases such as Navtej Singh Johar (decriminalizing homosexuality) and Joseph Shine (striking down adultery laws).
• The need for robust legislative frameworks on data protection, especially in context of modern technological advances, was stressed by the bench, setting the agenda for data protection reforms in India.
• The Court acknowledged the transformative character of the Constitution, encouraging dynamic and purposive interpretation to meet changing societal conditions.

Final Decision

The Supreme Court of India held that the right to privacy is a fundamental right, overruling earlier cases that had denied this status. The Court directed all state action affecting privacy to be judged against the triple test of legality, necessity, and proportionality. The verdict led to a pivotal transformation in Indian constitutional jurisprudence and set the stage for future legal and policy reforms around data protection and privacy.

The implications for the Aadhaar scheme and similar biometric/data collection measures would subsequently be addressed through further bench hearings.

The Court declared privacy as a fundamental right. Aadhaar’s constitutional validity was left to be determined in a subsequent case (Puttaswamy II, 2018).

Impact of the Case

This case transformed Indian constitutional jurisprudence by explicitly recognizing privacy as a fundamental right. It influenced subsequent judgments, policies on data protection, surveillance, and digital rights. It also shaped debates on balancing state interests with individual freedoms.

Justice K.S. Puttaswamy (Retd.) v. Union of India is widely hailed as a watershed moment in Indian jurisprudence, affirming progressive constitutional interpretation and deepening the democratic commitment to individual liberty. The judgment:

• Expands the scope of Article 21 rights, including not only bodily autonomy and personhood, but also the right to control personal information and digital privacy.
• Promotes the idea that constitutional rights must grow to protect citizens in the context of rapid technological change, globalization, and evolving social norms.
• Serves as foundational precedent for a series of rights-expanding Supreme Court cases on gender, sexuality, data protection, and civil liberties.
• Pressures the government to draft comprehensive personal data protection laws consistent with international human rights standards; the judgment was instrumental in the passage of the Digital Personal Data Protection Act.

Philosophical Foundation and Jurisprudential Impact

The Puttaswamy judgment stands as a profound assertion that privacy is a core aspect of human dignity and autonomy. The bench emphasized that the sanctity of the individual is the foundation of all rights preserved in the Constitution. This move signaled a clear departure from earlier, more formalistic readings of Part III rights, embedding privacy not only as a shield against unwarranted state intrusion but as a positive assertion empowering citizens to make autonomous choices.

Importantly, the Court critiqued the view that constitutional interpretation must be static. The judges underscored that the living Constitution must anticipate and address changing societal needs, particularly amidst rapid technological advancements that heighten the risk to personal autonomy and informational privacy.