Right to Privacy Post-Puttaswamy: Evolving Jurisprudence in India

Published On: September 11th 2025

Authored By: Advocate Bhavika Bansal

ABSTRACT

This article looks at how the right to privacy has developed in India, tracing its journey from ancient traditions up to when it got recognised as a fundamental right. It examines early notions of privacy during colonial rule and debates in the Constituent Assembly. The article then sheds light on how courts have gradually interpreted privacy through significant case laws, culminating in the landmark Justice K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India 2017. This case made it clear that the right to privacy is a fundamental right under Article 21. Post-Puttaswamy, the article delves into key developments highlighting emerging legal ideas, government actions such as the Information Technology Act and the Digital Personal Data Protection (DPDP) Act to deal with emerging privacy issues like surveillance, data security, and individual autonomy. As the scope of privacy continues to evolve, the article finally concludes by addressing challenges and suggesting robust pathways for strengthening privacy protection in India.

INTRODUCTION

The right to privacy in India has experienced a remarkable metamorphosis from being overlooked in the Constitution’s early times to becoming a cornerstone of personal liberty after the Supreme Court’s decision in Puttaswamy Case, 2017. This historic judgment capsized decades of judicial disinclination and firmly established privacy as an essential fundamental right under Article 21 Part III of the Indian Constitution evolving privacy jurisprudence in India. However, Puttaswamy was not the beginning, it was the capstone of a long trajectory that saw privacy evolve from an implicit artistic and philosophical value in ancient India to a warring legal right in post-independence jurisprudence. To understand the importance of this transformation, it is essential to first explore what the right to privacy entails with its meaning, compass, and how it has been interpreted within the Indian legal framework.

The word privacy has been originated from a Latin term “Privatus” which translates as “separated from the rest” and the original word itself is borrowed from another terminology privo which translates as “to deprive”. There has not been exact definition of the word privacy. However, Gerety defines that the right to privacy means to control one’s personal information, maintain confidentiality, and make autonomous decisions without interference ^[1]. Whereas, Bostwicks definition of privacy has led to triple classification of privacy which is privacy of intimacy, leisure and sanctuary.^[2]

The Indian Constitution does not explicitly mention “privacy” as a fundamental right, still the Supreme Court has interpreted the right to life and personal liberty under Article 21 naturally extends to protecting personal space and autonomy.

EVOLUTION OF RIGHT TO PRIVACY IN INDIA

The development of individual rights and legal systems in India has undergone an imperative change from the British rule to post independence revealing how rights, privacy, and governance has grown overtime.

A. Ancient and Classical Roots

Even though privacy was not officially considered as a legal ‘right’ in early Indian civilization, it was part of social and ethical norms. People understood the importance of keeping things private in different ways like:

Hitopadesha & Mahabharata: These texts emphasized on keeping secrecy in matters like worship, family, and personal relationships. ^[4]
Naradsmriti & Arthashastra: These works punished people who entered private spaces without permission, protected communication, and set up secret meetings and coded messages.^[5]
Stridhan & Modesty Laws: These indicated early ideas about protecting a person’s body and giving women more freedom.^[5]

B. Before Independence (1947–1949)

When the Indian Constitution was being framed, an active debate sparked within the Constituent Assembly about adding the idea of Right to Privacy. Some members strongly supported it, while others raised objections. Ultimately, despite persuasive arguments, the Advisory Committee that was chaired by Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel, chose to exclude privacy from the final draft. However, the adoption of Articles 19 and 21 laid the groundwork for the court to later recognize privacy as an implicit fundamental right.

Key Supporters of Privacy ^[6]

B.R. Ambedkar- He was a central figure in making of the Constitution and championed protections against unfair searches and seizures. He was inspired by American and European constitutions and wanted clear rules like warrants based on good reasons to prevent the government from overstepping.
M. Munshi- He strongly advocated for keeping home and personal messages private for maintaining a person’s dignity and protecting their family life from undue government interference.
Sub-Committee on Fundamental Rights (Chaired by J.B. Kripalani)- This group brought together ideas from Ambedkar and Munshi to draft robust privacy protections and made sure that searches were fair and that personal letters stayed secret.

Key Opponents of Privacy ^[7]

N. Rau (The Assembly Advisor)- He agreed with the idea of privacy but opposed its inclusion as a basic right. He argued that it would obfuscate the police from doing their job and will hamper effective criminal investigations.
K. Ayyar- He was worried that privacy could make private communications as important as government documents, potentially complicating legal proceedings.
K. Panikkar- He feared that strong privacy laws could protect people from criminal activities conducted within private homes, thereby making it difficult for the police to catch them.

C. After Independence (1954–2017)

Several important court decisions collectively traced how the idea of privacy moved from being completely ignored to being officially recognized in the Constitution, finally culminating in the Justice K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India case in 2017.

P. Sharma v. Satish Chandra, AIR 300, 1954 SCR 1077

Overview: This was the first big case to talk about the issue of privacy in India. It was about a challenge for searching and seizing belongings under Article 20(3) that states protection against self-incrimination.

Key Points:

The Supreme Court held that the Constitution does not recognize right to privacy as a basic right.
It ruled that searches and seizures do not violate Article 20(3), as they do not amount to compelled testimony.
This decision set a rule that denied privacy protections.

Kharak Singh v. State of UP, AIR 1295, 1964 SCR (1) 332

Overview: This case challenged police surveillance practices like night visits at homes and tracking people’s movement under Article 21.

Key Points:

The majority rejected the existence of a fundamental right to privacy under the Constitution. But held that “domiciliary visits” (visiting someone’s home without permission) is a violation of personal liberty.
Justice Subba Rao’s dissent suggested that privacy might be linked to Article 21, laying early constitutional groundwork for future recognition.

Gobind v. State of MP AIR 1975 SC 1378; 2 SCC 148

Overview: This case was about government surveillance of individuals and questioned how it impacts their personal freedom.

Key Points:

For the first time, the Supreme Court explicitly recognized the right to privacy as a part of Article 21.
It held that privacy is not completely free from government control and can be limited for important state interests like public safety or national security.
It introduced the idea of a balanced approach between individual privacy and state powers.

Rajagopal v. State of TN 1994, 6 SCC 632

Overview: This case was about a journalist trying to publish an autobiography of a prisoner. It raised questions about the privacy rights of public figures.

Key Points:

The Court ruled that the right to privacy is included in Article 21 and protects personal aspects of life like reputation and private information.
People, including public figures have the right to prevent others from sharing unauthorized personal details.

Justice K.S. Puttaswamy (Retd.) v. Union of India, (2017) 10 SCC 1- The Turning Point
Bench: 9-judge Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court
Date: August 24, 2017

Overview: The Supreme Court, in a unanimous decision, ruled that the Right to Privacy is a Fundamental Right embedded within Article 21.The court further said that this right is supported by Articles 14, 19, and the Preamble of the Constitution.

Key Points:

The Court held that privacy is a fundamental right under Article 21.
This right applies not just to Indian citizens, but to all people living in India.
The court overruled earlier court decisions from 1954 and 1962, which had denied or limited privacy as a constitutional right.
Privacy was described as a multi-dimensional right, encompassing:

Control over one’s body
Ability to make decisions about personal information
Protection of personal data
Right to be free in sexual orientation

The judgment made it clear that privacy includes control over physical, informational, and decision-making aspects of a person’s life.
This decision set the stage for laying a robust future law on data protection, digital rights, and how government can monitor people.

EVOVLING PRIVACY JURISPRUDENCE IN INDIA

After the Puttaswamy case, privacy law in India has been changing to deal with new challenges in the digital world. Today, personal information includes things like Aadhaar numbers, web browsing history, and activity on social media, each of which brings up different privacy issues. Informational privacy is now a key part of the right to privacy in the Indian Constitution and means how one has the power to control their own data. It says that consent must be clear and given willingly to make sure one’s freedom and dignity are respected. The ruling also raises questions about too much government surveillance calls for changes in the law. It also supports the idea of the “Right to Be Forgotten,” which lets people remove personal data that is no longer relevant or too personal.

GOVERNMENT INITIATIVES & LEGAL FRAMEWORKS

India’s system for monitoring people uses both old laws from the colonial period and new laws made recently like as follows: –
1. Indian Telegraph Act, 1885 – This law lets the government listen to communications if they think it’s important for public safety or protecting the country.
2. Information Technology Act, 2000 – This law covers digital monitoring. Section 69A allows the government to intercept data, but Section 66A was removed because it was against free speech.
3. Digital Personal Data Protection (DPDP) Act, 2023 – This law comes from the B. N. Srikrishna Committee’s suggestions from 2018. It focuses on protecting personal data online & requires consent before data is used, sets rules for companies that handle data, creates a Data Protection Board, and controls how data is shared with other countries.

JUDICIAL EXPANSION OF PRIVACY RIGHTS

After the important Puttaswamy decision, Indian courts have significantly deepened how they understand privacy under Part III of the Constitution. Now, when the government takes action, it is checked to make sure it is legal, necessary, and not more than needed.

Justice K S Puttaswamy (Retd.) and Another v Union of India and Others (2018) 10 SCC 1 (SC)

Overview: The Supreme Court said that Aadhaar is allowed for government welfare programs but put limits on how it can be used.

Key Points:

Aadhaar cannot be required for private services such as telecom or banking.
The court introduced the proportionality test, which means that government actions must be legal, necessary, and use the least possible interference.
This strengthened the rules about personal information and how data is protected.

Joseph Shine v Union of India (2018) 2 SCC 189 (SC)

Overview: The Supreme Court removed Section 497 of the Indian Penal Code, which made adultery a crime.

Key Points:

The court said that making adultery a crime breaks personal freedom and treats people with less respect.
It emphasized that privacy includes the freedom to make personal and private choices, which is covered under Article 21.
This was a big step for equality and the rights of people in relationships.

Navtej Singh Johar v Union of India (2018) 10 SCC 1 (SC) ^[3]

Overview: The court removed Section 377 of the Indian Penal Code, which criminalized same-sex relationships.

Key Points:

The court said that sexual orientation is a key part of privacy and dignity.
It recognized that LGBTQ+ people have basic rights under Articles 14, 15, and 21.
It also said that privacy means the right to live openly and safely without fear or unfair treatment.

CHALLENGES

Even though the right to privacy is recognized in the constitution, there are still big challenges in the working of legal system and the attitudes of society to actually make it work in real life in India.

Incomplete Data Protection Framework- India has tried to create a data protection law several times, first in 2019, then again in 2022 and 2023, but it hasn’t been fully put into action. This delay makes it harder to protect personal data and ensure people give proper consent.
Expanding State Surveillance– Government-led projects like Aadhaar, NATGRID, facial recognition, and CCTV systems pose risks of mass surveillance. These initiatives often operate without clear legal limits.
Gaps in Judicial Enforcement– While courts have made important decisions about privacy, these rulings aren’t always followed through quickly or properly. The government
and other officials sometimes ignore or delay enforcing these decisions.
Low Public Awareness and Access– Many citizens remain unaware of their privacy rights, especially in rural or digitally excluded areas. This lack of knowledge makes it hard for them to protect themselves or fight for their rights when needed.

SUGGESTIONS

To deal with the increasing privacy issues in India, major changes in the law, institutions, and public education are needed. Here are some steps that can help create a stronger system that protects privacy:

Enact a Comprehensive Data Protection Law– Pass and enforce a clear law that includes rules about getting consent, not collecting more data than needed, and giving people the right to correct or delete their information. Also, set up an independent body to enforce these rules.
Improve Government Surveillance- Make sure government monitoring is done with court approval and that it is checked by lawmakers. Also, ensure that intelligence operations are open and transparent.
Promote Privacy by Design in Tech– Encourage tech companies to include privacy as a basic part of their products. Use strong tools like encryption, anonymization, and secure settings to protect data by default.
Raise Public Awareness and Digital Literacy- Launch targeted digital literacy campaigns to educate citizens about their privacy rights. Empowering users, especially in rural areas, is key to making privacy protections effective on the ground.

CONCLUSION

Post-Puttaswamy, India has laid the groundwork for stronger privacy protections through evolving jurisprudence and key government actions. Now, when the government takes action, it is checked to make sure it is legal, necessary, and not more than needed. While the ball is rolling with new laws and reforms, sustained efforts are needed to turn legal promises into reality, ensuring privacy isn’t just on paper but truly lived.