Case Summary: Justice K. S. Puttaswamy (Retd.) and Anr. v. Union of India and Ors.

1. Case Title: Justice K. S. Puttaswamy (Retd.) and Anr. v. Union of India and Ors.
2. Citation: [2017] 10 SCR 569 (This is the Supreme Court Reports citation). It’s also widely known as (2017) 10 SCC 1 (Supreme Court Cases citation).
3. Court: Supreme Court of India 🇮🇳
4. Bench: A nine-judge constitution bench comprising:

•  Chief Justice J. S. Khehar
•  Justice R. K. Agrawal
•  Justice Rohinton Fali Nariman
•  Justice A. M. Sapre
•  Justice D. Y. Chandrachud
•  Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul
•  Justice S. Abdul Nazeer
•  Justice J. Chelameswar
•  Justice Uday Umesh Lalit

5. Date of Judgement:August 24, 2017
6. Relevant Statutes:

The case primarily revolves around the interpretation of Part III of the Constitution of India, specifically the Fundamental Rights. 

The key provisions debated were:

1. Article 14: Equality before the law.  
2. Article 19: Protection of certain rights regarding freedom of speech, etc., with a focus on Article 19(1)(d) (right to move freely throughout the territory of India) and Article 19(1)(g) (right to practice any profession, or to carry on any occupation, trade or business).  
3. Article 21: Protection of life and personal liberty. This was the central article under which the right to privacy was argued.  

In addition, the case involved the Aadhaar (Targeted Delivery of Financial and Other Subsidies, Benefits and Services) Act, 2016, and previous statutes related to the unique identification project.

Background 

The case began with a petition filed by Justice K.S. Puttaswamy (Retd.), a former judge of the Karnataka High Court, challenging the Aadhaar scheme initiated by the Government of India. Justice Puttaswamy argued that the Aadhaar program violated the right to privacy, particularly through the collection of biometric data (fingerprints and iris scans), which could lead to mass surveillance and potential misuse of personal information.

Brief Facts

Justice K S Puttaswamy, a retired judge of the Karnataka High Court, filed a petition challenging the Aadhaar Scheme on the grounds that it violated the fundamental right to privacy. The case evolved from the petition challenging the Aadhaar Act and the collection of biometric data under it, arguing that the use of biometric information violated the individual’s right to privacy.

The question arose whether the right to privacy is a fundamental right guaranteed by the Constitution of India and whether it was violated by the state’s actions, particularly the use of biometric data under Aadhaar, surveillance, and other state measures.

Issue Involved

1.Whether the Right to Privacy is a fundamental right under the Constitution of India.

2.Whether privacy can be limited or restricted by the state for legitimate purposes, such

Arguments of Both Parties

Petitioner’s Argument:

The petitioners argued that the Right to Privacy is an essential aspect of personal liberty under Article 21 and that the state’s actions, especially in the case of Aadhaar and surveillance, violated the right to privacy. 

The petitioners contended that biometric data collection could lead to mass surveillance and misuse of personal data.

Respondent’s Argument:

The Union of India contended that there is no express provision for a right to privacy in the Constitution. Furthermore, the government argued that the restriction of privacy for public welfare purposes (like Aadhaar) was legitimate.

Decision

The nine-judge bench unanimously held that the right to privacy is a fundamental right. It is an intrinsic part of the right to life and personal liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution. The court also held that privacy is a multi-faceted right that includes autonomy, dignity, and informational privacy. However, the court clarified that this right is not absolute and is subject to reasonable restrictions.

Ratio Decidendi

The ratio decidendi of the Puttaswamy judgment can be broken down into several key principles:

• Privacy as an Inherent and Fundamental Right: The Court held that the right to privacy is not a right given by the state but is an intrinsic part of human existence. It is inalienable and essential for a person’s dignity, autonomy, and the ability to make personal choices.  
• Article 21 as the Fountainhead: The Court reasoned that the right to privacy is a natural and essential concomitant of the right to life and personal liberty under Article 21. It held that the expression “personal liberty” is broad and dynamic, and must be interpreted to include all those rights that make life meaningful and dignified.  
• Constitutional Interpretation and Evolution: The judgment stressed the need for a progressive interpretation of the Constitution. It rejected the static and restrictive approach of the past, arguing that the Constitution must evolve to meet the challenges of the modern age, particularly in the context of technology and data.
• Overruling of Precedent: The Court expressly and unanimously overruled the judgments in M.P. Sharma and Kharak Singh to the extent that they held that there is no fundamental right to privacy under the Constitution.  
• A Limited Right, Not an Absolute One: While declaring privacy a fundamental right, the Court made it clear that it is not absolute. Any state action that infringes on privacy must meet a three-fold test:

1. Legality: The action must be backed by a law.
2. Legitimate State Aim: The state must have a legitimate aim for the action (e.g., national security, prevention of crime, public welfare).
3. Proportionality: The action must be proportionate to the aim, meaning it should be the least intrusive measure possible to achieve the objective.

This three-part test provides a framework for future challenges to state actions that impact privacy.

Obiter Dicta

While the ratio decidendi was focused on the existence of the fundamental right to privacy, the Court made several important obiter dicta (observations not central to the main issue but relevant for future jurisprudence).

• Aadhaar and the Three-Fold Test: While the bench did not pass a final judgment on the constitutional validity of the Aadhaar Act itself (which was later referred to a smaller bench), it noted that the Aadhaar project would have to be scrutinized against the three-fold test of proportionality. This was a clear signal that the mere existence of a law (the Aadhaar Act) was not sufficient to justify the collection of biometric data; the state would have to prove its necessity and proportionality.
• Privacy and Data Protection: The judgment highlighted the urgent need for a robust data protection law in India. The Court observed that the right to privacy in the digital age required specific legislative measures to protect personal data from both state and private actors. This observation was instrumental in the government’s subsequent efforts to draft a data protection bill.  
• Privacy and Non-State Actors: The Court also observed that the right to privacy must be protected from non-state actors, such as private corporations that collect and monetize personal data. This was a significant remark, extending the scope of the right beyond the state-individual relationship

Final Judgement

The Supreme Court delivered a unanimous decision affirming that the Right to Privacy is an intrinsic part of the Right to Life and Personal Liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. The Court held that privacy is an inherent fundamental right, integral to a person’s dignity and autonomy.

The majority judgment stated:

The Right to Privacy is not absolute and can be reasonably restricted by the state in the interest of national security, public order, and other legitimate concerns. However, such restrictions must pass the three-part test of necessity, proportionality, and procedural fairness.

The Court ruled that privacy rights extend beyond personal information to matters like bodily integrity, the right to make choices, and the right to keep one’s personal affairs private.

The Court also ruled that Aadhaar’s implementation could continue, but with safeguards for protecting individual privacy. The court held that Aadhaar cannot be made mandatory for services that do not involve the government, such as private companies or educational institutions.

Conclusion

The case was a significant milestone in India’s constitutional jurisprudence. It reinforced the Right to Privacy as a fundamental right, ensuring that individuals’ autonomy over personal data and bodily integrity is protected. However, it also emphasized that this right could be subject to state regulation under certain conditions, ensuring a balance between individual rights and public interests.