Justice K.S. Puttaswamy (Retd.) v. Union of India (2017): Case Summary

Case Details

• Case Name: Justice K.S. Puttaswamy (Retd.) and Others v. Union of India and Others
• Citation: (2017) 10 SCC 1, AIR 2017 SC 4161
• Court: Supreme Court of India
• Bench: 9-judge Constitution Bench (Chief Justice J.S. Khehar, Justices J. Chelameswar, S.A. Bobde, R.K. Agrawal, R.F. Nariman, A.M. Sapre, D.Y. Chandrachud, S.K. Kaul, and S. Abdul Nazeer)
• Date of Judgment: August 24, 2017
• Vote: Unanimous (9:0)

Background

The Justice K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India case is a landmark in Indian constitutional law, recognizing the right to privacy as a fundamental right under the Indian Constitution. The case arose in the context of challenges to the Aadhaar scheme, a biometric-based unique identification system introduced by the Government of India. The case addressed whether privacy is a fundamental right and, if so, its scope and limitations, particularly in relation to state policies like Aadhaar.

The case was rooted in earlier judicial developments:

• Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India (1978): Expanded the scope of Article 21 (right to life and personal liberty) to include just, fair, and reasonable procedures, laying the groundwork for recognizing unenumerated rights.
• M.P. Sharma v. Satish Chandra (1954) and Kharak Singh v. State of U.P. (1962): Early cases that denied privacy as a fundamental right, treating it as a common law right subordinate to state interests.
• Govind v. State of Madhya Pradesh (1975): Suggested that privacy could be a right under Article 21, subject to reasonable restrictions.
• Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala (1973): Established the Basic Structure Doctrine, which became relevant in determining whether privacy is integral to the Constitution’s core.

The Aadhaar scheme, implemented through the Aadhaar (Targeted Delivery of Financial and Other Subsidies, Benefits and Services) Act, 2016, required citizens to provide biometric data (fingerprints, iris scans) for a unique ID linked to government services. Concerns about mass surveillance, data security, and mandatory enrollment led to challenges questioning its compatibility with fundamental rights.

Facts

• Petitioner: Justice K.S. Puttaswamy (Retd.), a former Karnataka High Court judge, along with other petitioners.
• Respondent: Union of India and others, including the Unique Identification Authority of India (UIDAI).
• Context: The petitioners challenged the Aadhaar scheme, arguing that its mandatory biometric data collection violated the right to privacy. The case was referred to a larger bench to resolve conflicting precedents on whether privacy is a fundamental right. The core issue was whether privacy is protected under Articles 14 (equality), 19 (freedoms), and 21 (life and personal liberty), and whether the Aadhaar Act’s provisions were constitutionally valid.
• A 5-judge bench hearing the Aadhaar challenge in 2015 referred the privacy question to a 9-judge bench to clarify its status as a fundamental right, given earlier conflicting rulings.

Issues

1. Is the right to privacy a fundamental right under the Indian Constitution?
2. If privacy is a fundamental right, what is its scope and how can it be restricted?
3. Do the Aadhaar scheme and the Aadhaar Act, 2016, violate the right to privacy?
4. Are earlier decisions in M.P. Sharma and Kharak Singh, denying privacy as a fundamental right, valid?

Arguments

Petitioners

• The right to privacy is inherent in Article 21 (right to life and personal liberty) and flows from the “golden triangle” of Articles 14, 19, and 21, as established in Maneka Gandhi.
• Privacy is essential to human dignity, autonomy, and liberty, forming part of the Constitution’s basic structure.
• The Aadhaar scheme’s mandatory biometric data collection, lack of informed consent, and potential for surveillance violate privacy.
• Earlier decisions in M.P. Sharma and Kharak Singh are outdated and inconsistent with post-Maneka Gandhi jurisprudence, which expanded Article 21.
• The Aadhaar Act lacks procedural safeguards, is disproportionate, and infringes on equality (Article 14) and freedom of expression (Article 19).

Respondents (Government)

• Privacy is not an absolute fundamental right and is subject to state interests, such as public welfare and security.
• M.P. Sharma and Kharak Singh correctly held that privacy is not a fundamental right under the Constitution.
• The Aadhaar scheme is a legitimate state action to ensure efficient delivery of welfare benefits, prevent fraud, and promote inclusive governance.
• Any privacy concerns are addressed by the Aadhaar Act’s data protection measures, and the scheme’s benefits outweigh individual privacy intrusions.
• Fundamental rights can be reasonably restricted in the public interest, and Aadhaar satisfies the test of proportionality.

Judgment

The Supreme Court delivered a unanimous judgment on August 24, 2017, with six separate but concurring opinions. Key findings were:

1. Right to Privacy as a Fundamental Right:
   • The right to privacy is a fundamental right under Article 21 and is inherent in other fundamental rights under Articles 14, 19, and 20(3) (protection against self-incrimination).
   • Privacy is an intrinsic part of human dignity, autonomy, and liberty, protected as part of the right to life and personal liberty.
   • The Court identified privacy as encompassing informational privacy (control over personal data), bodily privacy (control over one’s body), and spatial privacy (control over private spaces).
2. Overruling Earlier Precedents:
   • The decisions in M.P. Sharma (8-judge bench) and Kharak Singh (6-judge bench), which denied privacy as a fundamental right, were overruled. The Court held that these cases were decided in a narrower context and did not reflect the evolved understanding of Article 21 post-Maneka Gandhi.
3. Scope and Limitations of Privacy:
   • The right to privacy is not absolute and can be restricted by the state, provided the restrictions meet a three-fold test:
     • Legality: The restriction must be based on a valid law.
     • Legitimate Aim: The restriction must pursue a legitimate state interest (e.g., national security, public welfare).
     • Proportionality: The restriction must be proportionate to the objective, with minimal intrusion and procedural safeguards.
   • The Court emphasized that privacy must be balanced with state interests, such as welfare delivery and prevention of fraud.
4. Aadhaar Scheme:
   • The 2017 judgment did not rule on the constitutional validity of the Aadhaar scheme or the Aadhaar Act, as this issue was referred back to a smaller bench for adjudication (later decided in Puttaswamy II, 2018).
   • However, the Court noted that any law or scheme infringing privacy, like Aadhaar, must satisfy the proportionality test and ensure robust data protection.
5. Basic Structure Doctrine:
   • The Court linked the right to privacy to the Constitution’s basic structure, noting that dignity and autonomy are core constitutional values protected under Kesavananda Bharati.
6. Key Observations:
   • Justice Chandrachud (writing for four judges): Emphasized privacy as a natural right, inherent in human existence, and protected under Article 21. Highlighted risks of unchecked data collection in the digital age.
   • Justice Chelameswar: Stressed informational privacy and the need for data protection laws.
   • Justice Nariman: Linked privacy to liberty and equality, noting its role in protecting marginalized groups.
   • Justice Bobde: Viewed privacy as a prerequisite for exercising other fundamental rights.
   • Justice Sapre and Justice Kaul: Reinforced privacy’s role in safeguarding personal autonomy and dignity.

Significance

• Recognition of Privacy as a Fundamental Right:
  • The judgment marked a paradigm shift, overturning restrictive precedents and embedding privacy in the constitutional framework.
  • It expanded Article 21 to include unenumerated rights, reinforcing its dynamic interpretation from Maneka Gandhi.
• Impact on Aadhaar:
  • The ruling set the stage for Puttaswamy II (2018), where the Supreme Court upheld the Aadhaar Act with restrictions, requiring it to meet the proportionality test and ensuring data protection.
• Data Protection and Digital Governance:
  • The judgment highlighted the need for a robust data protection framework, influencing the drafting of the Personal Data Protection Bill (later evolved into the Digital Personal Data Protection Act, 2023).
  • It addressed modern challenges of surveillance, data breaches, and digital privacy.
• Protection of Marginalized Groups:
  • The Court recognized privacy as critical for protecting vulnerable communities, including sexual minorities, paving the way for Navtej Singh Johar v. Union of India (2018), which decriminalized homosexuality under Section 377.
• Global Influence:
  • The judgment aligned Indian jurisprudence with global privacy standards, drawing on international frameworks like the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the European Convention on Human Rights.
• Judicial Activism:
  • The case reaffirmed the judiciary’s role in protecting fundamental rights against state overreach, especially in the digital era.

Analysis

• Strengths:
  • The unanimous recognition of privacy as a fundamental right strengthened constitutional protections in the digital age.
  • The three-fold test for restrictions (legality, legitimate aim, proportionality) provided a clear framework for balancing individual rights and state interests.
  • The judgment’s emphasis on dignity and autonomy reinforced the Constitution’s human-centric values.
• Criticisms:
  • The undefined scope of privacy risks judicial subjectivity in future cases.
  • The decision deferred the Aadhaar question, leaving uncertainty about its immediate application.
  • Some argued that the Court’s expansive interpretation of Article 21 could lead to judicial overreach.
• Legacy:
  • Puttaswamy is a cornerstone of modern Indian constitutional law, shaping privacy-related jurisprudence in areas like data protection, surveillance, and personal autonomy.
  • It influenced subsequent rulings, such as Navtej Johar (2018), Joseph Shine v. Union of India (2018)(decriminalizing adultery), and Anuradha Bhasin v. Union of India (2020) (internet access as part of Article 21).

Conclusion

Justice K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India (2017) is a transformative judgment that recognized the right to privacy as a fundamental right under Article 21, fundamentally reshaping Indian constitutional law. By overruling outdated precedents and establishing a framework for privacy protections, the Court addressed contemporary challenges posed by technology and state policies like Aadhaar. The judgment’s emphasis on dignity, autonomy, and proportionality ensures that privacy remains a bedrock of individual liberty, influencing India’s legal and policy landscape in the digital age.