K.S. Puttaswamy (Privacy-9J.) v. Union of India, (2017) 10 SCC 1

1. Case Title: K.S. Puttaswamy (Privacy-9J.) v. Union of India, (2017) 10 SCC 1

2. Citation: (2017) 10 SCC 1; AIR 2017 SC 4161

3. Court: Supreme Court of India

4. Bench: Khehar C.J., J. Chelameswar, S.A. Bobde, R.K. Agrawal, Rohinton F. Nariman, A.M. Sapre, D.Y. Chandrachud, Sanjay Kishan Kaul, and S. Abdul Nazeer, JJ.

5. Date of Judgment: August 24, 2017

6. Relevant Statutes

• Article 14 – Equality Before Law:

  Ensures that all individuals are treated equally by the State without arbitrary discrimination.

• Article 19 – Fundamental Freedoms:

  Protects key freedoms like speech, movement, and association, subject to reasonable limits.

• Article 21 – Life and Personal Liberty:

  Guarantees the right to life, which includes dignity, privacy, and individual autonomy.

• Aadhaar Act, 2016:

  Provides a legal basis for issuing Aadhaar numbers and collecting biometric data to streamline access to government subsidies and services.

7. Brief Facts of the Case

The Aadhaar programme, introduced in 2009, aimed to assign a distinct identification number to every resident in India, based on personal data such as biometrics (including fingerprints and iris scans) and demographic details. Although it began as an executive Initiative, the absence of legislative safeguards triggered significant concerns about potential breaches of privacy and misuse of sensitive data.

In 2012, Justice K.S. Puttaswamy (Retired), a former judge of the Karnataka High Court, filed a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) challenging the Aadhaar framework. He contended that the collection and use of personal data without clear legal protections amounted to a violation of the right to privacy.

The Government of India refuted this claim, relying on past Supreme Court rulings, particularly M.P. Sharma v. Satish Chandra and Kharak Singh v. State of U.P., which had held that privacy was not recognized as a fundamental right under the Constitution. Given that these decisions were made by benches larger than five judges, the matter was referred to a nine-judge Constitutional Bench to conclusively determine whether the right to privacy holds the status of a fundamental right in Indian constitutional law.

8. Issues Involved

1. Is the right to privacy recognized as a fundamental right under the Indian Constitution?
2. If yes, under which Articles is it protected?
3. Can earlier decisions like M.P. Sharma and Kharak Singh be overruled?

9. Arguments

Petitioners’ Arguments:

• It was affirmed that the right to privacy forms an essential component of Article 21, which upholds an individual’s liberty and dignity.
• Claimed that Articles 14 and 19 also imply protections that are inseparable from an individual’s right to maintain privacy.
• Highlighted concerns about informational privacy, especially in the context of Aadhaar’s collection of biometric and personal data.
• Argued that the centralised storage system used for Aadhaar data increases the risk of surveillance and potential misuse by the State.
• Emphasized that privacy is essential in the digital age, where data breaches and profiling can severely affect individual freedoms.

Respondent’s (Union of India) Arguments:

• Contended that privacy is an unclear and evolving concept, making it unsuitable to be treated as a fundamental right.
• The decisions in P. Sharma v. Satish Chandra and Kharak Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh were cited to support the claim that the Constitution does not expressly recognize privacy as a fundamental right.
• It was further contended that the Constituent Assembly consciously chose not to include the right to privacy within the ambit of fundamental rights in Part III of the Constitution.
• Warned that elevating privacy to fundamental status could complicate essential government functions, such as law enforcement, taxation, and welfare delivery.
• Maintained that any right to privacy, if recognized, must be subject to limitations in the interest of public order and state responsibilities.

10. Judgment

In a historic and unanimous decision, all nine judges on the Constitutional Bench affirmed that the right to privacy is a fundamental right protected by the Indian Constitution. This recognition is not derived from a single provision but flows from the interrelationship between Articles 14, 19, and 21, which collectively safeguard human dignity, personal liberty, and individual autonomy.

The bench also explicitly overruled the earlier rulings in M.P. Sharma v. Satish Chandra and Kharak Singh v. State of U.P., declaring that those judgments had failed to reflect the modern understanding of constitutional liberties and no longer held binding legal authority.

Justice D.Y. Chandrachud, authoring the main opinion for a plurality of the bench, described privacy as being at the very heart of human dignity. He observed that privacy is not an isolated right but one that permeates all fundamental freedoms and is crucial for the free and full expression of personal liberty.

Justice J. Chelameswar underscored the functional nature of privacy, especially the individual’s right to be left alone, which he explained is distinct from mere secrecy or data protection concerns.

Justice R.F. Nariman categorized privacy into three broad dimensions:

• Physical privacy – control over one’s own body;
• Informational privacy – control over one’s data;
• Privacy of choice – autonomy in personal decision-making.

Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul brought attention to emerging digital threats, warning that the rise of big data, profiling, and algorithmic governance could gravely compromise individual freedoms. He emphasized the urgent need for a robust constitutional shield against such intrusions.

To ensure that the right to privacy is not absolute and remains balanced with societal needs, the Court laid down a three-pronged test that any law infringing upon this right must satisfy:

• Legality – There must be a valid law in place to justify the interference.
• Legitimate Aim – The law must pursue an objective that is in the interest of the State and society.
• Proportionality – The restriction imposed must be reasonable and not excessive about the intended purpose.

This framework ensures that privacy can be regulated only under circumstances where legal safeguards are in place, the State’s interest is genuine, and individual rights are not disproportionately compromised.

11. Ratio Decidendi

The Constitution of India, though not stating it explicitly, upholds the right to privacy as an essential element of an individual’s liberty. This right finds its strongest foundation in Article 21, which protects every individual’s life and liberty. Additionally, Articles 14 and 19 lend support by upholding the principles of equality and personal freedoms. However, like other fundamental rights, privacy is not absolute. The State retains the authority to limit this right, but only when such interference is backed by law and meets the tests of necessity, legitimacy, and proportionality under constitutional standards.

Any such limitation must satisfy a three-part test:

1. There must be a valid law authorizing the interference (legality),
2. The objective behind the law must serve a legitimate purpose in a democratic society (necessity), and
3. The means adopted must be proportionate to the intended aim, ensuring that the intrusion is not excessive (proportionality). .12. Obiter Dicta:

• The bench drew heavily from comparative constitutional jurisprudence, citing decisions from jurisdictions like the United States, the United Kingdom, South Africa, and Canada to support the evolving interpretation of privacy rights.
• Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul highlighted the increasing relevance of informational privacy, warning that both governmental surveillance and private data collection raise serious concerns in today’s digital landscape.
• Justice D.Y. Chandrachud emphasized that the Constitution is a living document and must be interpreted in light of contemporary realities, rather than being confined to its historical context.
• Justice Kaul also remarked that in an age where personal data holds immense value, safeguarding privacy becomes crucial, especially as such data is now viewed as a powerful resource.
• Multiple judges stressed the urgent need for a detailed legal framework to regulate data protection and ensure that individuals have control over their personal information.

12. Final Decision

The Court held that:

• The Supreme Court, in a unanimous ruling, affirmed that the right to privacy is protected under the Constitution as a fundamental right.
• While arriving at its verdict, the Court expressly overturned the earlier rulings inP. Sharma and Kharak Singh, which had previously denied the recognition of privacy as a constitutionally protected fundamental right.
• Although the judgment did not specifically rule on the validity of the Aadhaar scheme, it laid down a robust constitutional framework for evaluating its implications.
• A key takeaway from the ruling was that any collection or use of personal data by the State must be backed by a clear legal basis and proper safeguards to protect individual rights.

Impact of the Case

The verdict in Justice K.S. Puttaswamy (Retd.) v. Union of India marked a turning point in Indian constitutional jurisprudence, significantly reshaping how the law views the individual’s relationship with the State, especially in matters involving personal data and technology. The ruling’s ripple effects can be seen across multiple areas of legal and policy reform:

1. Evolving Constitutional Interpretation: The judgment strengthened the idea of a dynamic Constitution, affirming that fundamental rights must adapt to societal changes, including those driven by technology and digital life.

2. Aadhaar Programme Review (2018): Drawing from the principles laid down in Puttaswamy, the Supreme Court later upheld the core features of the Aadhaar scheme but struck down provisions that permitted private entities to access citizens’ Aadhaar information, citing privacy concerns.

3. Advancement of LGBTQ+ Rights: In Navtej Singh Johar v. Union of India, (2018) 10 SCC 1, the Supreme Court drew upon the privacy principles established in Puttaswamy to strike down Section 377 of the Indian Penal Code, recognizing that an individual’s sexual orientation is a Deeply personal matter and deserves protection under the Constitution as part of one’s dignity and identity.

4. Expansion of Abortion Rights: The ruling in X v. Health and Family Welfare Dept., 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1321, extended the right to abortion to unmarried women, building upon Puttaswamy’s recognition of bodily autonomy and decisional privacy.

5. Legislative Reform in Data Protection: The decision catalyzed the development of a formal data privacy regime, ultimately leading to the enactment of the Digital Personal Data Protection Act, 2023. This legislation incorporates many of the principles established in the Puttaswamy ruling, particularly around consent, purpose limitation, and informational autonomy.