Justice K.S. Puttaswamy (Retd.) and Ors. v. Union of India (2017) 10 SSC AIR 2017 SC 4161

COURT: SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

BENCH: Chief Justice J.S. Khehar (CJI), Justice D.Y. Chandrachud, Justice Abdul Nazer,  Justice R.K. Agarwal, Justice J. Chelameshwar, Justice S.A. Bobde, Justice R.F. Nariman, Justice  S.K. Kaul, Justice A.M. Sapre.

Date of Judgement: August 24, 2017.

Relevant Provisions/ Statutes: The right to privacy is protected under articles 14, 19 and 21 of  the Indian constitution.

Citation:- Writ petition (Civil) No. 494 of 2012; (2017)10 SSC 3; AIR 2017 SCC 4161.

Brief Facts :-

• The case of Justice K.S. Puttaswamy (Retd.) Vs. Union of India is a landmark Judgement that laid down the foundation for the recognizing the Right to Privacy as a Fundamental Right under the Indian Constitution. It started as a challenge to the  Aadhra Project, which was launched by the government of India.
• The Indian government introduced the Aadhar as a Unique Identification Card for Indians residents. Each Aadhar card contained a unique 12 Digit Unique Number that was linked to a person’s Biometric data (like fingerprints and Iris Scan) and  demographic details (like name, age and address etc.). this idea was to ensure that every  person had only one identity and that it would helps in preventing frauds, fake Identities  and duplications. 
• To manage the project, the Indian government created an authority known as Unique Identification Authority of India (UIDAI) in the year 2009. UIDAI was responsible for collecting the data, issuing Aadhar numbers and managing the Aadhar data base.  Overtime, UIDAI managed to enroll more than 1.1 billion (110 Crore) people under the  Aadhar, making it one of the largest biometric ID systems in the world.
• Although Aadhar was meant to simplify Identification and helps in providing government benefits, it raised serious concerns about people’s privacy and misuse of the personal data. Citizens and legal experts were worried that the government was collecting the  sensitive personal information without any proper law or proper legal framework to  protect it. There was no clear guarantee that this information would not be leaked,  misused or accessed by unauthorized parties.
• In 2012, Justice K.S. Puttaswamy, a retied Judge of the Karnataka High Court, along with Mr. Purvesh Khanna, filed a writ petition under Article 32 of Indian Constitution in the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India.
• They argued that the Aadhar project was being carried out without any proper law passed by the parliament. They claimed that forcing peoples to give their biometric data to get access on basic services violated their “Right to Privacy”, which falls under Article 21  (Right to personal liberty and life) of the Indian constitution.
• In response to criticism, the government passed the Aadhar (Targeted Delivery of Financial and other Subsidies, Benefits and Services) Act in 2016. This act gave statuary backing to the Aadhar scheme. Moreover, even after the law was passed, many  people and organizations continued to challenge the Aadhar Scheme in Court.
• After 2016, many more writ petitions were filled in the Supreme Court of India. These petitions claimed that:

o Aadhar violated the right to privacy.

o The government could misuse the data.

o Peoples were being forced to get Aadhar to access all the essential services, which  was totally unfair.

Since all these cases had similar objectives and raised common legal issues, The supreme court  decide to club all the petition together and hear them as One.

• A major question came up during the hearings “Is the right to privacy is a Fundamental right under the constitution of India?’

The question had never been clearly answered by the Hon’ble Supreme court of India before, and  earlier judgements had given conflicting the views. So, in order to settle this important issue, the  matter was referred to the constitutional bench of 9 Judges.

ISSUES

1. Whether the Aadhar Act violated the Right to Privacy under Article 21 and is unconstitutional on this ground.
2. Is the decision in H.P. Sharma Vs. Satish Chandra, District Magistrate, Delhi is correct in Law.
3. In the decision in Kharak Singh Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh is correct in law. 4. Whether Aadhar Violates the principle of proportionality?

JUDGEMENT

The SUPREME COURT OF INDIA, delivered a historic and unanimous judgement on 24  august, 2017 declaring that : –

“THE RIGHT TO PRIVACY IS A FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT PROTECTED UNDER PART III  OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA”

This overruling, overruled the earlier judgements in H.P. Sharma (1954) and Kharak Singh  (1963) to the extent that they divide the existence of a constitutional Right to Privacy.

The court held that Right to Privacy is not an isolated or standalone right but that arises of the  guarantees of life and personal liberty under the article 21 and also finds expression in Article 14  (Right to equality) and Article 19 (Freedom of Speech and expression, Movement, etc.). it is  intrinsic to dignity, liberty and autonomy.

Overruling of H.P. Sharma and Kharak Singh: Both judgements, which denied the existence of  privacy as a fundamental right, were declared to be incorrect in law and hence overruled. These  decisions were said to be based on a literal and realistic reading of the constitution.

• The court described privacy as having multiple dimensions:
• Bodily Privacy: (Right to Bodily integrity and autonomy)
• Informational privacy: (Control over Dissemination of personal data)
• Decisional Privacy: (freedom to make personal choices like whom to marry, reproductive rights, food habits, sexual orientations, etc.)

Privacy is not an Absolute Right: While recognizing privacy as fundamental right, the court  clarified that it is subject to reasonable restrictions, similar to other rights. Any instructions by  the state must:-

• Be sanctioned by law.
• Be necessary in democratic society.
• Serve a legitimate aim.
• Be proportionate to the need.

This established the “Three-fold test” or proportionate test for any restriction privacy.

Link between Privacy and Human Dignity: – The court emphasized that privacy is essential  for the preservation of human dignity. It safeguards autonomy, individuality and self determination, which are all necessary for meaningful human existence.

Privacy in the digital age: – The court acknowledged the new challenges posted by the digital  world, including data mining, surveillance and profiling. It recognized the need for a robust data  protection. Framework to regulate the use of personal information by both state and the private  actors.

Impact on future legislation: – This court held that laws interfering with privacy would now be  tested on the touchstone of constitutional validity i.e, whether they violate the fundamental right  to privacy. This ruling had direct implication for :

• Aadhar Act.
• Surveillance Laws
• DNA Profiling
• Data Protection and Internet Governance.
• LGBTQ+ rights (Which later supported the Navtej Singh Johar

Judgement

• Sexual Orientation and Privacy

This case has had far-reaching implications on Indian constitutional law. The Court emphasized  that a person’s sexual orientation is a private matter and part of the right to privacy. This later  helped in striking down Section 377 IPC in the Navtej Singh Johar case (2018). Joseph Shine  v. Union of India (2018), which struck down the adultery law; and Common Cause v. Union of  India (2018), which legalised passive euthanasia. It also played a crucial role in the demand for a  robust data protection law in India, as it recognised informational privacy in the digital age.

In conclusion, the Puttaswamy judgment reaffirmed the role of the Indian Constitution as a living  document that evolves with time and circumstances. It elevated the right to privacy to the status  of a fundamental right, deeply connected to personal liberty, dignity, and freedom. It was a  powerful step in safeguarding individual autonomy against both State and private intrusions.

Reference

1. https://indiankanoon.org
2. https:/en.wikipedia.org
3. https:/www.scobserver.in
4. https:/www.manupatracademy.com
5. https://drishtijudiciary.com
6. Justice K.S. Puttaswamy (Retd.) and Ors. Vs. Union of India (2017)10 SSC, AIR 2017 SC 4161.
7. M P Sharma v. Satish Chandra, District Magistrate, Delhi (1954).
8. Kharak Singh v. State of U.P. & Ors (1963)