Published On: September 04th 2025
Authored By: Shreyas Rastogi
ICFAI University Dehradun
Abstract
“Justice K.S.Puttaswamy (retd) v. Union of India, 2017” is one of the lengthiest and longest cases in the history of India. A campaign was started for the national identification of citizens of India called ‘Aadhaar’.
“It is better to be unique than the best. Because, being the best makes you the number one, but being unique makes you the only one” – Unique makes you the only one’ is the central message of aadhaar, which is on the altar facing constitutional challenge in these petitions. ‘Aadhaar’ which means, in english, ‘foundation’ or ‘base’, has become the most talked about expression in recent years, not only in India but in many other countries and international bodies. A word from a Hindi dictionary has gained less importance. In the present day, the term ‘Aadhaar’ would not prompt a listener to consult a dictionary for its definition.
Keywords: Right to privacy, Aadhaar Scheme, Right to Life and Personal Liberty, Welfare Scheme, Demographic Date, MNREGA
Justice K.S.Puttaswamy (Retd) v. Union of India, 2017
Decided on: 24th August, 2017
Decided by: Supreme Court of India
Citation: 2017 10 SCC 1
Author: D.Y.Chandrachud.J
Bench: 9 Judge Bench
Prominent Judges: Chief Justice J.S. Khehar, Justice D.Y. Chandrachud, Justice J.
Chelameswar, Justice S.A. Bobde, Justice R.F. Nariman, Justice A.M. Sapre, Justice Abhay Manohar Sapre, Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul, Justice S. Abdul Nazeer
Relevant Statutes:
Article 14 – Right to Equality
Article 19 – Freedom of Speech and Expression
Article 21 – Right to Life and Personal Liberty
Article 110 – Definition and scope of Money Bill
Fundamental Rights under Part III of the Constitution of India
International Human Rights Provisions:
- Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR), 1948
- International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), 1966
Aadhaar (Targeted Delivery of Financial and Other Subsidies, Benefits and Services) Act, 2016
Facts of the Case
The Government of India launched the Aadhaar Scheme in 2009, managed by the Unique Identification Authority of India (UIDAI), to provide a 12-digit unique identification number linked to individuals’ biometric data (fingerprints, iris scans, facial photographs) and demographic information (name, age, gender, address). The objective was to enhance welfare delivery by curbing fraud and duplication.
Although initially voluntary, Aadhaar soon became mandatory for accessing essential services, including PDS, MNREGA, Mid-Day Meals, Pensions, LPG subsidies, Bank Accounts, Sim Cards, and Income Tax Filings. This led to growing concerns over privacy, data protection, consent, and surveillance, as citizens questioned whether the government could force them to share sensitive personal information to avail fundamental services.
In 2012, Justice K.S. Puttaswamy (Retd.), former judge of the Karnataka High Court, filed a PIL before the Supreme Court, challenging the Aadhaar scheme on the grounds that it violated the right to privacy, an essential part of Article 21, and connected to Article 14 and 19.
The case was complicated by earlier rulings — M.P. Sharma (1954) and Kharak Singh (1962) — both of whom had held that privacy was not a fundamental right. This legal inconsistency led the supreme court to refer the issue to a nine-judge constitutional bench to decide whether the right to privacy is a fundamental right under the Indian Constitution. The decision would have far-reaching consequences, not only for aadhaar but also for the overall safeguarding of civil liberties, individual autonomy, and data privacy in India.
Issues Involved
- Whether the Right to Privacy is a fundamental right under the Indian Constitution.
- Whether privacy is an inherent part of the rights guaranteed under Articles 14, 19, and 21 of Part III of the Constitution.
- Whether the earlier rulings in P. Sharma (1954) and Kharak Singh (1962), which denied privacy as a fundamental right, were rightly decided or need to be overruled.
- Whether the collection, storage, and use of biometric and demographic data under Aadhaar violates the Right to Privacy and personal autonomy.
- Whether the mandatory nature of Aadhaar, especially for availing welfare and essential services, amounts to an unconstitutional infringement of privacy.
- What are the limits on the State’s power in interfering with an individual’s privacy, and what constitutional safeguards are required.
- Whether privacy restrictions imposed by law must satisfy the test of Legality, Legitimate Aim, and Proportionality to be constitutionally valid.
Contentions by the Petitioner
The petitioners, led by Justice K.S. Puttaswamy (Retd.), challenged the constitutional validity of the aadhaar scheme, arguing that the right to privacy is an inherent, inalienable, and fundamental right, protected under Article 14, 19, and 21 of the Indian Constitution. They argued that privacy is crucial for protecting human dignity, bodily autonomy, informational privacy, and personal freedom.
The petitioners contended that the compulsory acquisition of biometric information, including fingerprints, iris scans, and facial photographs, along with demographic data, infringes upon bodily integrity and autonomy. The storage of this sensitive data in a centralized location poses risks of surveillance, misuse, and data breaches.
A major concern was the violation of consent, as aadhaar, initially voluntary, became compulsory for essential services like PDS, MNREGA, Mid-Day Meals, Pensions, LPG subsidies, Bank Accounts, Sim Cards, and Income Tax Filings, effectively forcing citizens to surrender their private data.
Diwas, one of the pioneers in the petition, contended that making Aadhaar mandatory for welfare services violates the citizen’s right to choose, leading to perpetual surveillance and a breach of privacy.
Senior Advocate P. Chidambaram argued that the Aadhaar Act was wrongly passed as a money bill, violating Article 110, since the act also deals with matters unrelated to finances, such as data collection and involvement of private entities.
Kapil Sibal argued that Aadhaar infringes upon citizens’ freedom of choice by compelling them to disclose sensitive information, transforming the state-individual relationship into a perpetual state of surveillance, which contradicts Article 21 and individual autonomy.
The petitioners emphasized the lack of comprehensive data protection laws, asserting that the Aadhaar database lacks sufficient security measures, encryption, and independent monitoring, making it vulnerable to data breaches and identity theft.
They contended that the earlier decisions in M.P. Sharma (1954) and Kharak Singh (1962), which dismissed privacy as a fundamental right, were antiquated and incompatible with contemporary constitutional values and should be overturned.
One of the main worries was that Aadhaar’s structure allows for the establishment of a surveillance state, connecting biometric identity to almost every facet of life, posing a threat to personal freedom and democracy.
Ultimately, the petitioners contended that Aadhaar, by compromising privacy without adequate safeguards, violates constitutional morality and the basic structure doctrine, as the preservation of fundamental rights is a fundamental aspect of the constitution.
Contentions of the Respondent (Union of India)
The Union of India, in defense of the Aadhaar scheme, contended that the right to privacy is not explicitly enshrined as a fundamental right in the Indian Constitution. It was stated that unless a right is explicitly mentioned, it cannot be interpreted by the courts as part of the constitution. The government drew upon earlier court decisions in M.P. Sharma (1954) and Kharak Singh (1962), which did not recognize privacy as a fundamental right.
The government stressed that Aadhaar is crucial for the public interest, guaranteeing that subsidies, welfare benefits, and services are delivered to the rightful recipients, preventing fraud and misuse of funds. Aadhaar was portrayed as a crucial instrument in simplifying welfare programs such as MNREGA, PDS, LPG Subsidies, Mid-Day Meals, and Pensions, thereby improving efficiency and curbing corruption.
It claimed that Aadhaar involves minimal and non-intrusive data collection, focusing on basic demographic information and biometric data (fingerprints and iris scans). The government clarified that aadhaar does not gather sensitive information such as caste, religion, political beliefs, or financial history, refuting privacy concerns raised by some individuals.
To alleviate privacy concerns, the government assured that data under aadhaar is highly secure, safeguarded by robust encryption and firewall systems overseen by UIDAI. It dismissed concerns about surveillance as hypothetical, clarifying that aadhaar authentication verifies identity without capturing location, purpose, or transaction details, making it technically impossible to track citizens.
The government contended that individual rights, including privacy, are not absolute and must be weighed against the state’s legitimate interests, such as welfare distribution, tax compliance, and preventing fraud. It provided global examples such as the social security number (USA) and national insurance number (UK) to demonstrate the legality of Aadhaar.
It further asserted that Aadhaar is a voluntary system, designed to eliminate ghost beneficiaries and enhance the efficiency of welfare delivery. The decision to connect Aadhaar with pan cards was justified as a necessary measure to combat tax evasion, promote financial transparency, and prevent the abuse of multiple payment cards.
The respondents contended that the Aadhaar Act contains sufficient safeguards, with provisions like Section 8, 29, and 30 restricting data collection, storage, and sharing, and section 33 allowing disclosure only under national security concerns or court orders.
On the procedural challenge, the government argued that the Aadhaar Act was rightly passed as a money bill under article 110, as it pertains primarily to the delivery of subsidies and services funded by the consolidated fund of India, thus lawfully bypassing the rajya sabha.
Judgement/ Verdict
On August 24, 2017, the Supreme Court of India, in a unanimous decision of nine judges, declared that the right to privacy is a fundamental right enshrined in the constitution of India. The court concluded that privacy is an inherent component of article 21 (right to life and personal liberty) and also arises from articles 14 and 19. It stressed that privacy is essential for human dignity, personal autonomy, and liberty, which are the fundamental pillars of a democratic society.
The court reversed its previous rulings in M.P. Sharma (1954) and Kharak singh (1962), which had dismissed privacy as a fundamental right. It was mentioned that those decisions were no longer relevant and did not align with the current understanding of constitutional principles.
The judgment emphasized that privacy encompasses more than just physical boundaries, encompassing bodily autonomy, the ability to make decisions, and safeguarding personal information, including matters related to family, marriage, sexual orientation, and data security. It also acknowledged that privacy is essential for the protection of other fundamental rights, such as freedom of speech and the preservation of dignity.
While recognizing privacy as a fundamental right, the court acknowledged that it is not an absolute concept. Any limitation must meet a ‘triple test’—it must be legal (a valid law), serve a legitimate state purpose, and the infringement must be proportional to the objective being pursued.
This ruling did not address the issue of aadhaar’s validity, but rather focused on whether privacy is considered a fundamental right. The aadhaar case was finally resolved in 2018, with the court’s decision heavily influenced by this previous ruling.
Analysis
The judgment in Justice K.S. Puttaswamy (Retd.) v. Union of India (2017) is a significant ruling that acknowledged the right to privacy as a fundamental right, bolstering individual freedom in the digital age. The court rightly recognized the importance of privacy, extending its scope to encompass bodily autonomy, control over personal information, and the freedom to make decisions, thereby safeguarding individuals from state surveillance and corporate exploitation.
The ‘triple test’—ensuring legality, legitimate aim, and proportionality—plays a vital role in striking a balance between privacy and state interests. Unfortunately, the delay in passing a data protection law until 2023 reveals a discrepancy between the intentions of the judiciary and the progress made by the legislative body.
This ruling established the groundwork for subsequent progressive decisions, such as Navtej Singh Johar (2018) and Joseph Shine (2018), which demonstrate how privacy safeguards broader freedoms. In line with international human rights principles, it emphasizes that privacy is crucial for upholding dignity, autonomy, and freedom in the modern era of technology. The primary focus now needs to be on implementing and protecting civil rights in the face of rapid technological advancements.
Ratio Decidendi
The main legal principle established in this case is that the right to privacy is a fundamental right protected by the constitution of India. This right is inherent in the fundamental rights protected under Article 14 (right to equality), 19 (right to freedom), and 21 (right to life and personal liberty). The court explicitly stated that privacy is crucial for personal freedom, self-worth, and independence, and it serves as the basis for the exercise of other fundamental rights.
The court established a ‘triple test’ to assess whether any violation of privacy by the government is legally permissible. The state can only restrict the right to privacy if it meets all three conditions:
- Legality – there must be a legal provision allowing the
- Legitimate aim – the action must serve a legitimate purpose in a democratic
- Proportionality – the intrusion must be proportional to the necessity, and the least intrusive measure must be
As a result, the established ratio indicates that privacy is not an absolute right but is highly protected by the constitution and can only be limited under strict constitutional safeguards.
Obiter Dicta
The judgment includes several significant obiter dicta (persuasive but not binding observations) that play a crucial role in shaping Indian constitutional jurisprudence.
- Privacy is not just about avoiding unwanted intrusion, but also about actively safeguarding individuals from privacy breaches by both the government and private
- The court recognized that privacy encompasses various elements, such as sexual orientation, reproductive decisions, bodily autonomy, freedom of thought, and safeguarding personal This observation later had an impact on cases such as navtej singh johar (legalizing homosexuality) and joseph shine (rejecting adultery laws).
- The judgment stressed that in the digital age, it is crucial to establish comprehensive data protection laws to ensure the safeguarding of citizens’ personal information from unauthorized access and misuse by both the government and private
Final Decision
In a unanimous decision, the supreme court of India, comprising nine judges, concluded that the right to privacy is a fundamental right enshrined in the Indian Constitution. The court completely rejected its previous rulings in M.P. Sharma (1954) and Kharak Singh (1962), as they failed to recognize privacy as a fundamental right.
The verdict did not address the constitutional validity of the aadhaar scheme directly. Instead, it addressed the initial but crucial matter of whether privacy is a fundamental right, which subsequently served as the basis for the subsequent aadhaar judgment in 2018.
The court determined that any law or government action that violates privacy must comply with the principles of legality, serve a valid purpose, and meet the test of proportionality. As a result, the right to privacy is now firmly established in the Indian Constitution as a protective measure against both state and private intrusion, thereby upholding the dignity, autonomy, and liberty of individuals.
