Case Summary: Justice K.S. Puttaswamy vs. Union of India

• Title: Justice K.S. Puttaswamy vs. Union of India 
• Citation: (2017) 10 SCC 1, AIR 2017 SC 4161, (2017) 10 SCR 569, 2017 INSC 801
• Court: Supreme Court of India
• Bench: A nine-judge constitutional bench including Judges J.S. Khehar, Justice Jasti Chelameswar, S.A. Bobde, R.K. Agrawal. Rohinton Fali Nariman, A.M. Sapre, Dr. D.Y. Chandrachud, Sanjay Kishan Kaul and S. Abdul Nazeer.
• Date of Judgement: 24 August, 2017
• Case type: Civil writ petition

Facts of the Case:

The Government of India implemented the Aadhaar scheme in 2012. A unique biometric identification system to streamline access to welfare services and identify false beneficiaries. The collection of this sensitive personal data without proper legal framework violates the Fundamental Right to Privacy. 

Therefore, a petition was filed by Justice K.S. Puttaswamy, a former judge of Karnataka High Court challenging the constitutional validity of mandatory Aadhaar Scheme, which required all the citizens of India to provide their biometric data. 

It was challenged on the ground that it violates fundamental rights of citizens of India i.e., Right to Privacy under Article 21 of the Indian constitution. Due to conflicting precedents on whether the Right to Privacy was a fundamental right, the case extended into a larger constitutional bench with a nine-judge bench, formed to determine if Right to Privacy was protected under Indian Constitution.

Issues Involved:

• Whether the Earlier Judgements in M.P. Sharma Vs. Satish Chandra and Kharak Singh Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh, were correct in Law?
• Whether Right to Privacy is a part of Right to Life and Personal Liberty under Article 21 of the Indian Constitution?

Arguments:

Issue -1 – Whether the Earlier Judgements in M.P. Sharma Vs. Satish Chandra and Kharak Singh Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh, were correct in Law?

Respondent’s Argument: 

• The respondent mainly relied upon the judgments in the case of M.P. Sharma Vs. Satish Chandra and Kharak Singh Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh, which had observed that the Indian Constitution does not explicitly grant a Right to Privacy.
• The respondent argued that M.P. Sharma Vs. Satish Chandra was decided by an Eight-judge bench and Kharak Singh Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh by a Six-judge bench, where both the judgments concluded that Right to Privacy was not a Fundamental Right. Therefore, the binding effect of larger bench over the judgements of smaller bench must be considered.

Petitioner’s Argument: 

• The petitioner argued that M.P. Sharma and Kharak Singh were based on the doctrine established in A.K. Gopalan Vs. State of Madras, 1950. The doctrine itself threated each fundamental right as a separate independent right.
• The petitioner also argued that the approach in A.K. Gopalan was explicitly rejected by the larger bench in ‘R.C. Cooper vs. UOI, 1970’ and abandoned in ‘Maneka Gandhi vs. UOI, 1978’ which established that the Fundamental rights are inter-linked. Therefore, the legal principle upon which M.P. Sharma and Kharak Singh were established was no longer a good law.

Issue -2 – Whether right to privacy is a part of Right to Life and Personal Liberty under Article 21 of the Indian Constitution?

Respondent’s Argument: 

• The Respondent argued that the makers of the Indian constitution did not intend to include Right to Privacy as a Fundamental Right. 
• The Respondent stated that the right to privacy is not explicitly protected by the constitution. The earlier landmark judgements like M.P. Sharma and Kharak Singh did not include Right to Privacy under Article 21 of the constitution.
• The Respondent also argued that Privacy could only be treated as a statutory or common law right and cannot be elevated to the status of a Fundamental Right under the Indian Constitution.

Petitioner’s Argument: 

• The Petitioner argued that the Right to Life under Article 21 does not merely means a Right to Life and Liberty; It means the Right to Live with Dignity and Privacy is the foundation of Dignity
• The Petitioner also argued that the Privacy is a Natural and Inalienable right. The constitution merely recognises this right; it doesn’t grant it. Denying such a precious right is an attack on human dignity which is protected under Article 21 of the Constitution.
• The Petitioner stated that the observations in the judgements M.P. Sharma and Kharak Singh that Right to Privacy is not a Fundamental Right were Flawed and must be overruled.

Judgement:

The nine-judge bench unanimously delivered a landmark judgement deciding the constitutional validity of Right to privacy. The court held that the Right to Privacy is a Fundamental Right under Article 21 Right to Life and Personal liberty under the Constitution of India. The court also declared that the right to Privacy is an intrinsic part of the Right to Life and Personal Liberty protected under Article 21 of the Constitution. The court overruled the earlier supreme court judgements in M.P. Sharma Vs. Satish Chandra and Kharak Singh Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh to the extent that they held that Right to Privacy is not Protected under the Fundamental Rights of the Indian Constitution.

Ratio Decidendi:

The legal principles on which the judgement is based is:

• Right to privacy is a fundamental, inalienable and implicit Right protected by the Indian constitution under the scope of Right to Life and Personal Liberty which is guaranteed under Article 21 of the constitution.
• Right to privacy is a fundamental right, any restriction upon it by the state must be tested against a strict legal standard. The state must satisfy the three-fold requirement (The Puttaswamy Test): 

1. Legality: Action must be backed by law.
2. Need: There must be a necessity.
3. Proportionality: The extent of infringement must be proportionate to the aim.

Conclusion:

The supreme court unanimously decided that the Right to Privacy is an intrinsic and fundamental right guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution. Privacy is essential for an individual’s dignity, autonomy and identity. Therefore, Right to Privacy was included in the ambit of the Right to Life and Personal Liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution.

References:

1. Justice K.S. Puttaswamy (Retd.) & Anr. vs. Union of India & Ors. (2017) 10 SCC 1
2. M.P. Sharma Vs. Satish Chandra (1954) SCR 1077
3. Kharak Singh Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh (1964) 1 SCR 332
4. Maneka Gandhi vs. UOI (1978) 1 SCC 248
5. The Constitution of India, 1950
6. B.N. Srikrishna Committee Report
7. https://www.manupatracademy.com/legalpost/manu-sc-1044-2017
8. https://scr.sci.gov.in//scrsearch/tmp/2feca9ff9221738bb853aacd37859cbc4f259f2b8cbd130e48609a37a512d6e91759162986.pdf