Author: Shantanu Gupta, 1^st Year, B.A.LLB of NMIMS Navi Mumbai

Petitioner- Justice K.S. Puttaswamy (Retd.) and Anr.

Respondent- Union of India and Ors.

Bench- Justice J.S. Khehar (CJl), J.Chelameswar, D.Y.Chandrachud, Rohinton Fali Nariman, R.K. Agarwal, Sanjay Kishan Kaul, S.A.Nazeer, S.A. Bobde, A.M. Sapre

FACT OF THE CASE

The Justice K.S. Puttaswamy (Retd.) V. Union of India (2017) case was a landmark Supreme Court judgment that recognized the right to privacy as a constitutional right under the Indian Constitution. It was prompted by the Government of India’s Aadhaar scheme, which was launched by the Unique Identification Authority of India (UIDAI) in 2009, which involved biometric identification to receive government subsidies, bank accounts, mobile connections, and tax refunds.

Criticism was that compulsory biometric data collection intruded into privacy rights and risked mass surveillance, data leakage, and misuse by private entities. In 2012, justice K.S. Puttaswamy (Retd.) and others challenged the constitutionality of Aadhaar, and whether the right to privacy is a fundamental right. Because of the constitutional importance, in 2017, a 9-judge Constitution Bench , was constituted to rule on this aspect.

ISSUES PRESENTED

1. Whether the Right to Privacy is a Fundamental Right?
2. “Whether the decisions in M.P. Sharma v. Satish Chandra (1954) and Kharak Singh v. State of U.P. (1962), which held that the right to privacy is not a fundamental right, correctly interpret the constitutional position?”

ARGUMENTS FROM THE SIDE OF PETITIONER

• The petitioners argued that privacy is a fundamental element of basic rights and should be established as such.
• They argued that Articles 14 (Right to Equality), 19 (Freedom of Speech and Expression), and 21 (Right to Life and Personal Liberty) of the Constitution itself ensure the right to privacy.
• The earlier rulings in M.P. Sharma (1954) and Kharak Singh (1962), that privacy was not a fundamental right, were erroneously decided.
• The petitioners reaffirmed that privacy was deeply enshrined in the concept of human dignity and freedom to make choices over one’s own life.
• The right to privacy is guaranteed in international human rights instruments, such as:

Universal Declaration of Human Rights (Article 12)

International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR, Article 17)

India, being a signatory to the treaties, must ensure that privacy remains a fundamental right.

• In the era of the internet, mass surveillance, data leakage, and abuse of personal information are the biggest fears.
  The state should provide protection of data and safeguard personal data against unauthorized access.

ARGUMENTS FROM THE SIDE OF DEFENDENT

The Indian government opposed the expansion of the right to privacy as a fundamental right, mainly to safeguard the Aadhaar scheme.

• The framers of the Constitution did not make privacy an inherent right explicitly.

Basic rights cannot be extended to include anything beyond the express provision.

• The government had made its decisions on the earlier judgments in M.P. Sharma (1954) and Kharak Singh (1962), wherein it had been held that privacy was not a fundamental right.
• The state contended that privacy couldn’t be a fundamental right since it has to be weighed against legitimate state interests, including national security, prevention of crime and effective implementation of welfare
• Aadhaar was created to ensure efficient disbursement of government subsidies and curtail leakages and fraud.

Making Aadhaar mandatory was in the cause of social and economic good.

• Declaring privacy as an absolute right would preclude the state from conducting surveillance aimed at national security and law enforcement.

Privacy must be subject to reasonable restriction, like other basic rights.

RELEVENT LEGAL PROVISIONS

1. Constitutional Provisions

Article 14 – Right to Equality

Article 19 – Freedom of Speech and Expression

Article 21 – Right to Life and Personal Liberty

• International Legal Instruments

Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) – Article 12

European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) – Article 8

COURT’S DECISION

The Supreme Court of India, in a 9-judge bench verdict which was unanimous, held that the right to privacy is a constitutional right under the Indian Constitution. The key conclusions of the judgment are as follows:

1. Privacy is a Fundamental Right

The Court particularly realized privacy as an integral part of fundamental rights, particularly under Article 21 (Right to Life and Personal Liberty) and Article 14 (Right to Equality) and Article 19 (Freedom of Expression and Movement).

Right to privacy covers personal dignity, autonomy, and freedom to make personal choice.

2. Overruling of M.P. Sharma (1954) and Kharak Singh (1962)

The Court overruled the earlier decisions in M.P. Sharma v. Satish Chandra (1954) and Kharak Singh v. State of U.P. (1962) which had held that privacy was not a fundamental right.

The Court found that the cases were decided in an earlier period and did not take into account the level of privacy.

3. Privacy Is Not an Absolute Right

While privacy was proclaimed a basic right, the Court ruled that it is not absolute and may be subjected to reasonable restrictions.

Any restriction of privacy has to withstand a three-fold test:

Legality – There must be a law that permits the restriction.

Legitimate Purpose – The limitation should be for a lawful public purpose, for example, national security, public order, or crime prevention.

Proportionality – The restriction needs to be proportionate, that is, neither excessive nor arbitrary.

4. Aadhaar and Data Protection Consequences

The Court did not rule on the validity of the Aadhaar scheme in this judgment but explained that individuals cannot be compelled to share their biometric information without proper protective measures.

The verdict paved the way for subsequent verdicts on Aadhaar and the need for a robust data protection law in India.

Final Decision

Privacy is a fundamental right under the Indian Constitution. Any intrusion into privacy must satisfy the conditions of “legality, necessity, and proportionality.”. The earlier judgments in M.P. Sharma and Kharak Singh were unjust and overruled.

INTRODUCTION OF THE “THREE-FOLD TEST FOR PRIVACY RESTRICTIONS 

The Supreme Court in K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India (2017) affirmed that privacy is not an absolute fundamental right and can be reasonably restricted. Any violation upon the right to privacy, however, must satisfy a rigorous three-fold test to be constitutional and legitimate.

The Three-Fold Test
For any limitation on privacy to be constitutional, it has to fulfill the following conditions:

Legality – There has to be a law enabling the limitation.

Privacy must not be curtailed at whim; any measure curtailing privacy must be backed by law.

Legitimate Aim – The limitation must be for some genuine and legal purpose in the public interest.
The invasion of privacy must be justified by the government as being in the interest of a legitimate state purpose, including:

• National security
• Crime prevention
• Protection of public health or order
• Effective implementation of welfare schemes

Proportionality – The restriction must be necessary, proportionate, and minimum restriction should be there to achieve the desired purpose.

The level of invasion of privacy must be reasonable and not excessive.
If there is an equally successful but less invasive method, the government should opt for it.

IMPACT AND SIGNIFICANCE

The Supreme Court’s decision in K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India (2017) was a landmark ruling that had far-reaching implications for constitutional law, digital privacy, surveillance, data protection, and individual rights in India. Below are its key impacts and significance:

1. Recognition of Privacy as a Fundamental Right- Before this ruling, privacy was not explicitly recognized as a fundamental right and this judgment established that privacy is a fundamental right under Article 21, along with Articles 14 and 19. This means that any law or government action violating privacy must meet constitutional standards, ensuring stronger legal protection for personal freedoms.
2. Strengthening Digital and Data Privacy- In the era of digitalization, big data, and artificial intelligence, this judgment became the foundation for data protection laws and privacy regulations in India. It recognized informational privacy, meaning that individuals have the right to control how their personal data is collected, stored, and used.
3. Impact on Government Surveillance and National Security Laws- The ruling limited the government’s ability to conduct mass surveillance without legal justification. It reinforced that state surveillance programs must pass the three-fold test. This decision was cited in challenges to Pegasus spyware surveillance and raised concerns about the lack of oversight over intelligence agencies.
4. Need for a Strong Data Protection and Privacy Law- The ruling called for comprehensive data protection legislation to safeguard against:
5. Unauthorized data collection by corporation.
6. Government misuse of personal data.
7. Mass surveillance programs without oversight.

Critical Analysis

The judgment overruled outdated precedents (M.P. Sharma, Kharak Singh) and reaffirmed the progressive interpretation of fundamental rights. By recognizing privacy as an intrinsic part of Articles 14, 19, and 21, the ruling expanded the scope of individual freedoms. The judgment provided a clear legal framework (Legality, Legitimate Aim, Proportionality) for evaluating privacy vi-+olations. This test ensures that any restriction on privacy must be justifiable and prevents arbitrary state actions.

While the judgment establishes privacy as a fundamental right, it does not provide clear guidelines on state surveillance. The three-fold test is a broad framework, but it does not specify how judicial oversight or review mechanisms should be implemented. Despite the strong push for data privacy, the Personal Data Protection Bill (2019) faced several delays and modifications. The Digital Personal Data Protection Act (2023) has been criticized for giving the government broad exemptions, which could undermine citizen privacy. The lack of an independent data protection authority further weakens the impact of the judgment.

Conclusion

While the Puttaswamy judgment is a landmark step in Indian jurisprudence, its true impact depends on how privacy laws and policies evolve. A stronger data protection law, judicial oversight on surveillance, and better enforcement mechanisms are needed to fully realize the vision of privacy as a fundamental right.