CASE ANALYSIS – K.S. PUTTASWAMY V. UNION OF INDIA

Citation	(2017) 10 SCC 1AIR 2017 SC 4161Writ Petition (Civil) No. 494 of 2012
Date	24th August 2017
Court Name	Supreme Court of India
plaintiff/appellant/petitioner	Justice K.S. Puttaswamy (Retd.) and Another
defendant/respondent.	Union of India and Others
Judges	Chief Justice J.S. Khehar Justice D.Y. Chandrachud Justice R.K. Agrawal Justice Rohinton Fali Nariman Justice A.M. Sapre Justice Dr. A.K. Sikri Justice N.V. Ramana Justice S.A. Bobde Justice S. Abdul Nazeer

K.S. PUTTASWAMY V. UNION OF INDIA

FACTS OF THE CASE

1. The case arose from a challenge to the Aadhaar scheme’s constitutional validity, a scheme the Government of India introduced to furnish a unique identification number based on demographic along with biometric data.
2. The Aadhaar project, inaugurated via executive decree during 2009, was without parliamentary authorization initially. A unique Aadhaar number was planned to connect services and state support for each citizen through biometric plus demographic information such as iris scans and fingerprints.
3. Justice K.S. Puttaswamy (Retd.), previously a judge within the Karnataka High Court, submitted a writ petition to the Supreme Court in 2012; this initiated the challenge. .He said that the Aadhaar scheme violated individuals’ right to privacy because it required the state to collect and preserve personal information.
4. Including members of civil society as well as activists, the petitioners contended that:

• Even though the text did not articulate it outright, the Constitution of India ensured a basic entitlement regarding privacy.
• The Aadhaar scheme encroached upon individual self-governance and corporeal inviolability. Informational self-determination was also encroached upon.
• Civil liberties faced severe trouble via possible abuse or breach of biometric data coupled with the absence of legislative backing.

5. There was no natural annuity to sequestration expressly assured by the Constitution.

Privacy was not a basic right per former Supreme Court adjudications. This was decreed notably in M.P. Sharma v. Satish Chandra (1954) in addition to Kharak Singh v. State of U.P. (1963).

Aadhaar was a gamechanger for effective governance, stopping leakages and direct delivery of welfare transfer to the poor.

6. The case was of legal significance due to:

• A nebulous issue faced by the Supreme Court: Whether there exists an indigenous right to sequestration in the Indian Constitution?
• Decisions on privacy as the Supreme Court on Friday read and overruled its past pronouncements refusing privacy a fundamental right.
• The tension between the interests of the state (for welfare, security, or efficiency) and those of the individual (dignity, liberty, or autonomy).

7. Legally relevant facts include:

• The lack of an enactment for Aadhaar when the design began.
• The compulsory (and often involuntary) enrollment in Aadhaar across various government plans.
• The threat of state surveillance and data abuse.
• The conflicting judgments of the smaller benches of the Supreme Court on whether there is a right to privacy, which now needs to be settled by a larger bench.

8. The issue ultimately became one of determining whether the right to privacy comes under Part III of the Constitution, for example, Article 21 (Right to Life and Personal Liberty).

ISSUES OF THE CASE

1. Whether there is a fundamental right to privacy under the Indian Constitution, especially Part III that includes Article 21 (Right to Life and Personal Liberty), and other provisions, such as Article 19, aspired to in, yet not defined by, Article 20.
2. Whether the judgments in M.P. Sharma v. Satish Chandra (1954) and Kharak Singh v. State of U.P. (1963), which concluded that the right to privacy is not a basic right, correct? 
3. Or whether it was high time for reconsideration of the same?
4. Whether the biometric and demographic information collected by the State (as per the Aadhaar scheme, as it existed at the time), is a violation of the right to sequestration which is implicit under the rights guaranteed by Composition 21, sequestration being secondary of liberty as held by the Supreme Court in K.S. Puttaswamy vs. Union of India( 1)?
5. How far can the State encroach upon private and informational autonomy in serving valid ends, as in national security, delivery of welfarist resources or general public interest?
6. What are the extant and limitations of the right to sequestration as an aboriginal right under the Indian Constitution?

JUDGMENT

1. Did the Constitution extend a fundamental right to privacy?

• The Supreme Court ruled unanimously that the right to sequestration is a natural part of Part III of the Constitution, granted under Articles 14, 19 and 21.
• Court stressed sequestration to be an inalienable part of a naturally defended Life and particular Liberty under Article 21, and also as a buttress to other inalienable freedoms elevated in Part III.

2. Whether previous decisions were correct (M.P. Sharma and Kharak Singh)13.

• The Court ruled that previous opinions that there is no abecedarian right to sequestration are overruled.
• The court explained that those holdings relied on a restricted reading of the constitutional language and were no longer good law.

3. On the use of personal data by the State as envisaged in the Aadhaar scheme:

• The Court did not test the technical constitutionality of the Aadhaar scheme in this judgment, but it established that interference with privacy would have to answer to the tests of legality, necessity and proportionality.
• Some of the legality of the scheme and the privacy implications of it were left to be decided in future court hearings.

4. How much can the State encroach upon personal and informational privacy in the service of valid purposes like national security, allocation of welfare, or public interest?

• The Court had held that privacy is not an iron curtain and can be curtailed within reasonable limits. If it does, interference by the State is justifiable if:-(i) it is sanctioned by law; (ii) it is necessary for a legitimate objective; and (iii) the extent of interference is proportionate to the need for such interference.

5. What’s the extent, nature, and limitations of the right to sequestration as an aboriginal right under the Indian Constitution?

• The Court also explained that the right to privacy has many aspects which include the right to see that information about an individual which is pertaining to him as information no one can permit to be publicised to the world at large. This right is the foundation to the protection of moral quality in the digital age, albeit subject to restrictions that must be in accordance with the law and necessary and proportionate in a democratic society.

Summary of the Court’s Conclusion:

In a unanimous decision, the Supreme Court held that the right to privacy is accorded the status of a fundamental right, overturning its previous judgments and defining the constitutional parameters within which it may be enforced and restricted.

Final Decision:

It supported the concept that the right to privacy is a basic right, rejected or disregarded previous conflicting rulings, and remanded the specific challenges to the Aadhaar system to a smaller bench to be heard again in light of the privacy principles set forth in the opinion.

REASONING

1. COM, the Supreme Court conducted an elaborate examination of the Constitutionality of the right to privacy being protected by reason of the implied fundamental rights under Part III of the Constitution. The Court held that though ‘privacy’ was not expressly stated as a fundamental right, it is a fundamental right comprised in Article 14 (equality), Article 19 (liberty) and Article 21 (life and liberty).
2. The Court applied the living-document principle of constitutional interpretation, maintaining that societal values and technological advancements must be reflected in the evolution of fundamental rights. Its emphatic message was that the Constitution must be interpreted in a way that ensures a maximum amount of individual dignity, autonomy, and liberty.
3. It overruled the verdicts in M.P. Sharma and Kharak Singh by clarifying that these cases were decided before the advent of contemporary constitutional jurisprudence and did not regard privacy as a facet of personal liberty or human dignity. These precedents were declared archaic and inconsistent with posterior rulings, similar to Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India (1978), which broadened the compass of Composition 21.
4. The Court embraced a triplex test for assessing the legality of any curtailment of the sequestration right.

• Legality – The existence of a law that supports the State’s actions.
• Legitimate purpose: The law must serve a legitimate governmental interest.
• Proportionality – The restriction must be reasonable in relation to the purpose sought.

5. The justices acknowledged that privacy encompasses several facets, including:

• Bodily privacy (control over one’s own body),
• Informational privacy (control over access to personal data),
• Decisional autonomy (freedom to make personal life choices, such as marriage, reproduction, and sexual orientation).

6. The Court analysed comparative constitutional law to see how privacy is treated in mature democracies like the United States, the United Kingdom, South Africa, and Canada. This global view supports the notion that privacy is a fundamental human right common to all stable democracies.
7. The Court observed that essential to preserving democracy and preventing arbitrary state surveillance was recognising the right to privacy. That was especially true in the digital age, the Court reasoned. Data is so easily collected nowadays and can be so easily misused. The Court saw the right to privacy as a kind of bulwark, maintaining a balance between individual freedoms and state power.
8. Even while acknowledging that the right to privacy is not unconditional, the Court underlined that when the State aims to restrict this right—most especially when it’s gathering biometric or personal data—there need to be sufficient legal protections and judicial watch in place.

REFERENCES

1. K.S. Puttaswamy (Retd.) & Anr. v. Union of India & Ors.,

(2017) 10 SCC 1; AIR 2017 SC 4161.

2. M.P. Sharma v. Satish Chandra,

AIR 1954 SC 300; 1954 SCR 1077 – (Overruled precedent on privacy).

3. Kharak Singh v. State of U.P.,

AIR 1963 SC 1295; (1964) 1 SCR 332 – (Overruled precedent on privacy).

4. Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India,

AIR 1978 SC 597; (1978) 1 SCC 248 – (Expanded interpretation of Article 21).

5. Gobind v. State of Madhya Pradesh,

AIR 1975 SC 1378; (1975) 2 SCC 148 – (First recognition of privacy in Indian law).

6. R. Rajagopal v. State of Tamil Nadu,

(1994) 6 SCC 632 – (Freedom of the press and privacy).

7. Article 21, Constitution of India – Protection of life and personal liberty.
8. Chandrachud, Abhinav (2019), “How Privacy Became a Right: The Case of K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India”, Indian Law Review, 3(1), pp. 1–30.
9. DOI: 10.1080/24730580.2019.1588543
10. Bhatia, Gautam (2019), The Transformative Constitution: A Radical Biography in Nine Acts, HarperCollins India.
11. European Convention on Human Rights, Article 8 – Right to respect for private and family life (for comparative reference).

Written by Tanusri Santra, studying in the Department of Law, Calcutta University, 2nd year, during her internship at Legal Vidhiya

Disclaimer: The materials provided herein are intended solely for informational purposes. Accessing or using the site or materials does not establish an attorney-client relationship. The information presented on this site is not to be construed as legal or professional advice, and it should not be relied upon for such purposes or used as a substitute for advice from a licensed attorney in your state. Additionally, the viewpoint presented by the author is personal.