Case Title: Justice K.S. Puttaswamy (Retd.) v.
Union of India
Citation: (2017) 10 SCC 1
Bench: The case was heard by a 9-judge Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court of India,
comprising Chief Justice J.S. Khehar, Justice D.Y. Chandrachud, Justice R.K. Agrawal,
Justice S.A. Bobde, Justice Dr. A.K. Sikri, Justice N.V. Ramana, Justice R.F. Nariman,
Justice A.M. Sapre, and Justice S.K. Kaul. The judgment was delivered unanimously, with
multiple concurring opinions explaining the contours of the right to privacy and its place
within the Indian constitutional framework.
Case Details [Summary of the Case]:
Justice K.S. Puttaswamy (Retd.) v. Union of India is one of the most significant constitutional
cases in Indian legal history, as it established the right to privacy as a fundamental right under
the Indian Constitution. The case arose as a challenge to the constitutional validity of
Aadhaar, a biometric-based identification system introduced by the Government of India. The
petitioners contended that the collection of biometric and demographic data under the
Aadhaar scheme violated the right to privacy, which, according to earlier judicial
pronouncements in M.P. Sharma v. Satish Chandra (1954) and Kharak Singh v. State of U.P.
(1962), was not recognized as a fundamental right under the Indian Constitution. This
prompted a larger constitutional debate over whether the right to privacy could be inferred
from the existing fundamental rights guaranteed under Part III of the Constitution. The
Supreme Court, through this judgment, not only settled the controversy but also laid down a
comprehensive legal framework for privacy in India, recognizing it as an intrinsic aspect of
individual autonomy, dignity, and liberty. The case marked a significant departure from
earlier jurisprudence and aligned Indian constitutional law with international human rights
standards on privacy.
Facts of the Case:
The genesis of the case lay in a petition filed by Justice K.S. Puttaswamy, a retired judge of
the Karnataka High Court, challenging the mandatory requirement of Aadhaar for access to
welfare schemes and services. The petitioners argued that the collection and storage of
personal data, including biometric details such as fingerprints and iris scans, posed a grave
threat to individual privacy and could lead to mass surveillance by the state. The petitioners
contended that privacy is an essential facet of personal liberty and dignity, both of which are
protected under Article 21 of the Constitution. The government, on the other hand, defended
Aadhaar on the grounds that it was a means to prevent identity fraud, ensure efficient
distribution of subsidies, and curb corruption. It further argued that privacy was not a
fundamental right in itself and that the Constitution only granted limited protections under
specific statutory provisions. The matter was initially placed before a three-judge bench,
which then referred it to a five-judge bench. Given the far-reaching implications of the issue,
the five-judge bench further referred it to a nine-judge Constitution Bench to determine
whether privacy is a fundamental right under the Indian Constitution. The central question
before the Court was whether the right to privacy could be derived from the existing
provisions of Part III of the Constitution, particularly Articles 14, 19, and 21.
Court's Reasoning [Detailed Analysis of Law]:
The Supreme Court unanimously recognized the right to privacy as a fundamental right,
overruling earlier decisions in M.P. Sharma and Kharak Singh, which had held that privacy
was not a constitutionally guaranteed right. The Court reasoned that the Indian Constitution is
a living document that must evolve to meet contemporary challenges. The judgment drew
upon various constitutional provisions and international legal principles to establish privacy
as an intrinsic part of fundamental rights. The Court held that privacy is inextricably linked to
individual autonomy, personal liberty, and human dignity. It emphasized that privacy extends
to various aspects of life, including bodily integrity, informational self-determination,
personal choices, and freedom from state surveillance. The judgment extensively discussed
the concept of privacy in relation to constitutional morality, emphasizing that privacy
safeguards the rights of individuals against arbitrary state action.
One of the significant contributions of the judgment was the introduction of the
proportionality test to assess the validity of state-imposed restrictions on privacy. The Court
laid down that any restriction on the right to privacy must satisfy four essential criteria: (1) it
must be backed by a legitimate state aim; (2) there must be a rational connection between the
restriction and the objective sought; (3) the measure adopted must be the least restrictive
means to achieve the intended goal; and (4) the restriction must be proportionate to the
objective being pursued. The proportionality doctrine ensures that privacy is not subjected to
arbitrary state interference and serves as a benchmark for assessing the constitutionality of
laws affecting personal liberties. The judgment also underscored the importance of data
protection and informational privacy, noting that individuals have a right to control their
personal information and must be safeguarded against unauthorized data collection,
surveillance, and misuse. It called for the enactment of comprehensive data protection laws to
regulate the collection, storage, and processing of personal data.
Held by the Court:
The Supreme Court unanimously held that privacy is a fundamental right under the Indian
Constitution. It ruled that privacy is inherent in the rights to life, liberty, and dignity, and is
protected under Article 21 and other provisions of Part III of the Constitution. The Court
clarified that the right to privacy is not absolute and may be subject to reasonable restrictions,
provided such restrictions meet the test of proportionality and serve a legitimate state interest.
The ruling overruled the earlier precedents of M.P. Sharma v. Satish Chandra and Kharak
Singh v. State of U.P., which had denied the existence of a constitutional right to privacy.
The Court emphasized that privacy is an essential aspect of personal autonomy and individual
freedom and cannot be curtailed without a compelling state interest that satisfies
constitutional safeguards. While the judgment did not strike down Aadhaar directly, it laid
the foundation for future challenges regarding its mandatory implementation. The verdict also
had significant implications for surveillance laws, data protection, and the legal framework
governing personal information in India.
The case marked a watershed moment in Indian constitutional jurisprudence, shaping the
discourse on digital privacy, surveillance, and individual rights. The ruling paved the way for
the development of data protection laws in India, influencing subsequent legislation such as
the Personal Data Protection Bill and the Digital Personal Data Protection Act, 2023. The
judgment also reinforced India's commitment to international human rights standards on
privacy, bringing Indian law in line with global norms such as the European Union’s General
Data Protection Regulation (GDPR). The recognition of privacy as a fundamental right has
had far-reaching implications on various aspects of governance, including law enforcement
practices, digital identity programs, and the regulation of big data. The judgment has been
widely hailed as a progressive and transformative decision that reaffirms the constitutional
promise of dignity, liberty, and autonomy for all citizens. It remains a landmark precedent in
Indian legal history and continues to guide judicial interpretations on issues concerning
privacy and individual rights in the digital age.
