JUSTICE K.S.PUTTASWAMY V. UNION OF INDIA(2017) 10 SCC1

REFERRED SECTION:

1. Article 14: Right to Equality
2. Article 19: Right to Freedom
3. Article 21: Privacy Affirmed

FACTS OF THE CASE

In 2015, Justice K.S. Puttaswamy filed a petition challenging the constitutional validity of India’s Aadhaar card scheme, which collected and stored biometric data for identification purposes. The main issue was whether the right to privacy was a fundamental right under the Indian Constitution. The State’s Attorney General argued against its existence, citing previous cases. The petitioners countered those later judgments recognized privacy as a fundamental right. The case was referred to a nine-judge bench to settle the matter.

Ultimately, the nine-judge bench unanimously upheld the right to privacy as a fundamental right under the Constitution. They declared it essential for dignity, autonomy, and liberty, protected under Article 21 (Right to Life and Personal Liberty) and Part III of the Constitution. This landmark decision marked a significant milestone in India’s ‘Right to Privacy’ jurisprudence, safeguarding privacy as a fundamental right with far-reaching implications for data protection and individual liberties

ISSUES

In the case of Justice K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India (2017) 10 SCC 1, two primary issues were raised: firstly, whether the right to privacy should be recognized as a fundamental right under Part III of the Indian Constitution, and secondly, the validity of the Aadhaar card scheme and its impact on the right to privacy. The petitioners argued that privacy was inherent and deserved constitutional recognition under Article 21 and Part III, as it is intricately linked to human dignity, autonomy, and liberty. On the other hand, the respondents, representing the Union of India, relied on earlier judgments in M.P. Sharma and Kharak Singh, which did not explicitly recognize privacy as a fundamental right. The court faced the challenging task of reconciling these conflicting views and deciding whether the right to privacy should be established as a fundamental right. This case held significant implications for data privacy, individual freedoms, and the legality of the Aadhaar card scheme, which involved the collection and storage of Indian residents’ biometric and demographic data.

ARGUMENTS 

In the case of Justice K.S. Puttaswamy (Retd.) & Anr. v. Union of India & Ors. (2017) 10 SCC 1, the arguments put forth by the petitioners and respondents:

Petitioners’ Arguments:

1. Fundamental Right to Privacy: The petitioners asserted that privacy is an inherent fundamental right stemming from Article 21, which guarantees the right to life and personal liberty. They emphasized that privacy is vital for human dignity and individual autonomy, warranting its inclusion as a fundamental right under Part III of the Constitution.
2. Overruling Precedents: The petitioners sought to overturn the rulings in M.P. Sharma and Kharak Singh, citing their reliance on outdated principles. They pointed to the Supreme Court’s subsequent decision in Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India, which recognized privacy as a fundamental right, as a basis for revisiting and overturning the earlier judgments.
3. International Human Rights: The petitioners drew upon international human rights standards to bolster their claim. They argued that privacy is universally recognized as a fundamental human right, and India should align itself with these global norms by constitutionally recognizing privacy as a fundamental right.

Respondents’ Arguments:

The respondents, representing the Union of India, presented three key arguments in the case. Firstly, they asserted that the Constitution did not explicitly mention the right to privacy as a fundamental right. They relied on the judgments in M.P. Sharma and Kharak Singh, which held that privacy was not specifically provided for in the Constitution. Secondly, the respondents emphasized that the precedents set by M.P. Sharma and Kharak Singh, being decisions by larger benches, had a binding effect on subsequent smaller bench decisions that recognized privacy as a fundamental right. Lastly, they argued that the Parliament should have the jurisdiction to decide on recognizing privacy as a fundamental right, as any modification or expansion of fundamental rights should occur through the democratic process of lawmaking. The court had the challenging task of reconciling these conflicting viewpoints to determine the status of the right to privacy as a fundamental right under the Indian Constitution.

JUDGEMENT

In the case of Justice K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India (2017) 10 SCC 1, the Supreme Court delivered a landmark judgment, settling the issue of whether the right to privacy is a fundamental right under the Indian Constitution. The nine-judge bench unanimously upheld privacy as a fundamental right protected under Article 21 (Right to Life and Personal Liberty) of the Constitution. The judgment emphasized privacy’s significance for human dignity, autonomy, and personal liberty, making it an intrinsic part of the freedoms guaranteed by Part III of the Constitution.

The Court overruled the previous judgments in M.P. Sharma and Kharak Singh, asserting that the right to privacy is universal and not limited to certain individuals. However, the right is not absolute and can be subject to reasonable restrictions. The judgment established a three-fold requirement for such restrictions: legality, need, and proportionality, with an added aspect of procedural safeguards to prevent misuse of state interference.

The Court also recognized that informational privacy is integral to the right to privacy and stressed the need for a data protection law, leaving it to the Parliament to legislate on the matter. The judgment further affirmed the protection of sexual orientation as part of the right to privacy and clarified that privacy encompasses a broad range of aspects beyond physical intrusion, including personal choices and freedom of thought.

REFERENCES

https://indiankanoon.org/

This Article is written by Sakshi Pawar of ISB&M College of Engineering, Pune, Intern at Legal Vidhiya.

Admin