K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India

Citation: (2017) 10 SCC 1, AIR 2017 SC 4161

Court: Supreme Court of India

Bench: J.S. Khehar, D.Y. Chandrachud, R.K. Agarwal, J. Chelameswar, S.A. Bobde, R.F. Nariman, A.M. Sapre, S.K. Kaul, Abdul Nazeer, JJ.

Date of Judgement: August 24, 2017

Relevant Statutes/Key Provisions: Article 14, 19, and 21 of the Constitution of India

Brief Facts

Justice K.S. Puttaswamy, a retired judge of the Karnataka high court, filed a writ petition challenging the Aadhaar project, which issued 12-digit biometric identification numbers to Indian residents. The scheme, operated by the Unique Identification Authority of India (UIDAI), was linked to welfare programs to improve efficiency and eliminate fake beneficiaries. Over time, questions arose about the constitutionality.

Issue involved

Whether the right to privacy is protected as a fundamental right under Part III of the Constitution of India?

Arguments

Respondents’ Position

The respondent relied heavily on the judgements in M.P. Sharma and Kharak Singh, asserting that these decisions conclusively denied the recognition of privacy as a fundamental right. Since these rulings were delivered by benches larger than those in subsequent cases that appeared to uphold privacy, they argued that the earlier decisions were binding.

They also contended that the constitution’s framers had not explicitly included privacy as a fundamental right, implying that any such right could only be created or recognized by legislative action, rather than through judicial interpretation.

Petitioners’ Submission

The petitioners contended that earlier decision in M.P. Sharma and Kharak Singh were based on outdated jurisprudential foundation, specifically the doctrine laid down in A.K. Gopalan v. State of Madras (1950), which treated each fundamental right as isolated and mutually exclusive. This approach was categorically rejected in Rustom Cavasji Cooper v. Union of India (1970), where the Supreme Court emphasized the integrated and interrelated nature of fundamental rights.

Furthermore, the petitioners pointed out that Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India (1978) had approved Justice Subba Rao’s dissenting opinion in Kharak Singh, thereby undermining the majority view in this case. They also stressed that privacy was a multi-dimensional right-encompassing bodily autonomy, informational control, and decisional freedom—and that it was deeply rooted in human dignity and individual autonomy.

In support of their arguments, they highlighted that privacy is recognized as a natural and inalienable right under international human rights law and should therefore be interpreted as implicit within the guarantees provided by the constitution, especially those enshrined in Article 14,19, and 21.

Judgement and Reasoning

In a landmark decision, the Supreme Court unanimously recognized the right to privacy as an intrinsic and independent fundamental right protected under Article 21 and other freedoms enshrined in Part III of the Constitution. The judgement was delivered through six concurring opinions, all affirming the same legal position while elaborating on various dimensions and implications of privacy.

Overruling Precedents

The Court unequivocally overruled the views in M.P. Sharma and Kharak Singh, in so far as they denied the existence of a constitutional right to privacy. It clarified that 

M.P. Sharma was primarily concerned with search and seizure and did not engage in an exhaustive examination of privacy. While the judgement in that case was correct in stating that India’s Constitution does not contain a provision akin to the U.S. Fourth Amendment, it could not be interpreted as a denial of the broader right to privacy.

Regarding Kharak Singh, the Court noted an internal inconsistency. Though the majority invalidated domiciliary visits by police officials, it did so without acknowledging privacy as a constitutional right—an illogical conclusion since the act of surveillance could only be invalidated on privacy grounds. The Court emphasized that the view adopted in Kharak Singh and M.P. Sharma had already been eroded by later decisions and did not align with modern constitutional philosophy.

Expansive Understanding of Privacy

The bench took an expansive view of privacy, affirming that it was not merely a negative right guarding against physical intrusions but a multifaceted concept covering bodily integrity, informational autonomy, and personal decision-making. Privacy, according to the judgement, formed the very essence of human dignity and was therefore not confined to Article 21 alone, but permeated the entire framework of fundamental rights.

The court rejected the notion of fundamental rights as watertight compartments, a legacy of A.K. Gopalan, and reaffirmed the holistic interpretation championed in Maneka Gandhi.

Informational Privacy and Data Protection

One of the critical components of the judgement was its recognition of “informational privacy” as an essential facet of the broader right. The Court acknowledged the growing concerns over digital data collection and surveillance in an increasingly digitized society. It emphasized the need for a robust data protection framework, though it left the task of enacting such legislation to parliament.

Standard for State Intrusion

The court also laid down a detailed standard for scrunity in cases involving potential privacy violations by the State. It specified a three-pronged test:

• Legality – Any encroachment on privacy must have a statutory basis.
• Legitimate Aim – The restriction must pursue a legitimate state interest.
• Proportionality – There must be a rational nexus between the means adopted and the objective sought.

Justice S.K. Kaul added a fourth requirement: adequate procedural safeguards to prevent abuse.

Justice J. Chelameswar introduced an additional layer to this framework, suggesting that a “compelling state interest” standard should be used in privacy claims involving strict scruntiny, while less stringent standards could apply to other contexts.

Positive and Negative Dimensions of Privacy

In addition to restraining the state from intruding upon personal liberty (negative aspect), the judgement also recognized the State’s affirmative duty to protect privacy through effective legislation and institutional frameworks (positive aspect).

Sexual Orientation and Human Dignity

The Court further recognized that sexual orientation is a core component of privacy and human dignity. This observation would later play a crucial role in the decriminalisation of homosexuality in Navtej Singh Johar v. Union of India (2018).

Ratio Decidendi

Privacy is a constitutionally protected fundamental right under Articles 14, 19, and 21 of the Indian Constitution. Any encroachment upon this right by the State must meet the three-fold test of legality, legitimate state aim, and proportionality.

This ratio is binding and forms the cornerstone of Indian Privacy jurisprudence.

Final decision

The K.S.Puttaswamy judgement marks a watershed moment in Indian constitutional jurisprudence. By declaring the right to privacy as an inalienable and multifaceted fundamental right, the Supreme Court affirmed the centrality of human dignity and personal autonomy the centrality of human dignity and personal autonomy within the constitutional framework. The decision not only rectified outdated jurisprudence but also laid down a progressive foundation for addressing future challenges in the digital age, including data protection, surveillance, and individual liberty.

The ruling underscored that privacy is not a luxury or an elitist concern but a universal human entitlement, foundational to the exercise of other fundamental rights and freedoms. While the judgement refrained from striking down the Aadhaar scheme directly, it ensured that any future encroachments on privacy would be rigorously tested against the principles of legality, necessity, and proportionality