Author: Archee Samaiya

Court: Supreme Court of India

Date of Judgment: 24 August 2017

Case Type: Writ Petition (Civil)

Bench: J.S. Khehar (CJI), Dr. D.Y. Chandrachud, J. Chelameswar, S.A. Bobde, R.F. Nariman, A.M. Sapre, Abhay Manohar Sapre, Sanjay Kishan Kaul, and S. Abdul Nazeer, JJ.

Relevant Provisions: Articles 14, 19, and 21 of the Constitution of India

Introduction

The case of Justice K.S. Puttaswamy (Retd.) v. Union of India (2017) is a defining moment in Indian constitutional law that officially acknowledged the Right to Privacy as a fundamental right. The nine-judge bench of the Supreme Court delivered this landmark judgment while examining the constitutional validity of the Aadhaar scheme.

The judgment is historic not only for recognizing privacy as an essential part of personal liberty but also for reinforcing the idea that human dignity and individual autonomy are central to the Indian Constitution. The case overturned earlier precedents that had taken a narrow view of privacy, especially M.P. Sharma v. Satish Chandra (1954) and Kharak Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh (1962). By doing so, the Court reaffirmed the constitutional vision of protecting individuals against excessive State intrusion and arbitrary power.

Brief Facts

The petitioner, Justice K.S. Puttaswamy, a retired judge of the Karnataka High Court, filed a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) in 2012 questioning the constitutional validity of the Aadhaar project. The Aadhaar initiative, launched by the Government of India, aimed to provide each citizen with a unique identification number based on their biometric and demographic information, such as fingerprints and iris scans.

The petitioner argued that compelling citizens to submit sensitive personal data violated their right to privacy and personal liberty. According to him, such extensive data collection could lead to

surveillance and misuse, thereby undermining the fundamental freedoms guaranteed by the Constitution.

The Union Government, on the other hand, defended the Aadhaar scheme, claiming that it was necessary for effective welfare distribution and governance. It maintained that privacy was not a fundamental right and that Aadhaar enhanced transparency and accountability by preventing duplication and fraud in government subsidies.

Given the conflicting views, the Supreme Court constituted a nine-judge Constitution Bench to decide the broader constitutional question—whether the right to privacy is a fundamental right under the Constitution of India.

Issues Involved

1. Whether the Right to Privacy is a fundamental right protected under the Indian Constitution.
2. Whether the earlier decisions in M.P. Sharma (1954) and Kharak Singh (1962), which denied the constitutional protection of privacy, were correctly decided.
3. Whether the right to privacy can be derived from Articles 14, 19, and 21, which together form the golden triangle of fundamental rights.

Petitioner’s Argument

The petitioners asserted that the Right to Privacy forms an intrinsic part of Article 21—the right to life and personal liberty—and extends to other fundamental freedoms under Articles 14 and 19. They contended that privacy is not merely the right to be left alone, but the right to exercise control over one’s personal data, choices, and bodily autonomy.

The petitioners highlighted that in the modern digital era, where technology enables constant monitoring and data collection, recognizing privacy as a fundamental right is indispensable for safeguarding individual dignity. They also relied on international human rights standards, such as Article 12 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and Article 17 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, both of which recognize privacy as a core human right.

It was further argued that earlier rulings like M.P. Sharma and Kharak Singh were outdated, as they were based on a pre-independence understanding of liberty. The petitioners urged the Court to interpret the Constitution dynamically, in line with contemporary realities, and affirm privacy as an inherent right emanating from the principles of equality, liberty, and dignity.

Respondent’s Argument

The Union of India opposed the petition, maintaining that privacy is not expressly guaranteed as a fundamental right under the Constitution. Relying on M.P. Sharma and Kharak Singh, the government contended that the framers of the Constitution deliberately chose not to include privacy within the scope of fundamental rights.

The respondents argued that the Aadhaar scheme was a welfare-oriented initiative aimed at curbing corruption and ensuring that government benefits reached the intended recipients. They asserted that recognizing privacy as an absolute right could restrict legitimate State functions such as national security, taxation, and public health surveillance.

Furthermore, the government contended that in a developing country like India, the collective welfare of the population must take precedence over individual privacy concerns. Therefore, any restriction imposed by the State on privacy should be deemed reasonable and justified in the larger public interest.

Judgment

In a unanimous verdict, the Supreme Court held that the Right to Privacy is a fundamental right protected under Articles 14, 19, and 21 of the Constitution. The bench categorically overruled the earlier decisions in M.P. Sharma and Kharak Singh to the extent that they denied the existence of such a right.

Justice D.Y. Chandrachud, writing for the majority, observed that privacy is not an elitist concept but a core component of human dignity and personal liberty. He emphasized that privacy includes the right to make personal decisions, maintain bodily integrity, and control dissemination of personal information.

Justice Chelameswar described privacy as encompassing the right to control one’s personal space, including the freedom of thought, belief, and expression. Justice Nariman held that privacy is both a common law right and a fundamental right, inseparable from the guarantees of liberty and equality.

The Court established a three-fold test to determine the validity of State interference with privacy:

1. Legality – The intrusion must have a legal basis.
2. Necessity – The restriction must serve a legitimate State aim.
3. Proportionality – The action must be proportionate to the objective sought to be achieved.

Ratio Decidendi

Recognition of Privacy as a Fundamental Right: Privacy is intrinsic to life and liberty under Article 21 and part of the freedoms guaranteed by Articles 14 and 19. It is not conferred by the State but exists as an inherent right of every individual.

1. Overruling of Earlier Judgments: M.P. Sharma and Kharak Singh were declared incorrect and inconsistent with later rulings like Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India (1978), which expanded the interpretation of personal liberty.
2. Dimensions of Privacy: The Court identified three major facets of privacy:
3. Bodily Privacy – Protection against physical intrusions or surveillance.
4. Decisional Privacy – Freedom to make intimate personal choices regarding relationships, marriage, or procreation.
5. Informational Privacy – The right to control personal data and its dissemination.
6. Reasonable Restrictions: The right to privacy, while fundamental, is subject to reasonable limitations under the law that meet the tests of legality, necessity, and proportionality.
7. Dignity and Autonomy: The judgment reaffirmed that privacy is essential to ensure dignity, individual autonomy, and self-determination—values central to a democratic and constitutional order.

Analysis

The Puttaswamy verdict is one of the most significant constitutional decisions in post- independence India. It not only expanded the scope of fundamental rights but also established a new framework for balancing individual freedom with State interests.

By affirming privacy as a constitutional guarantee, the Court transformed the relationship between the citizen and the State. It recognized that in a digital society, individuals must have control over their identity and data. The judgment thus serves as a constitutional shield against excessive surveillance, data misuse, and arbitrary executive actions.

This ruling also reinforced the “living Constitution” doctrine—emphasizing that constitutional interpretation must evolve with time and technological progress. The Court’s approach aligned India with global human rights standards, echoing decisions of the European Court of Human Rights and U.S. Supreme Court, which have long recognized privacy as an essential civil liberty.

At the same time, the judgment acknowledged that privacy is not absolute. The three-tier test ensures a fair balance between individual liberty and legitimate State interests such as security or public welfare.

The case’s impact extends beyond the Aadhaar debate. It forms the foundation for future legal discourse on data protection, reproductive autonomy, LGBTQ+ rights, digital security, and informational self-determination. The verdict also catalyzed discussions leading to the drafting of the Personal Data Protection Bill, aiming to regulate data collection and usage in India.

While the Court did not strike down Aadhaar in this phase, it laid the groundwork for subsequent adjudication in Puttaswamy (Aadhaar) (2018). The judgment’s emphasis on dignity, consent, and limited State interference marks a decisive move towards a more rights-oriented governance model.

Final Decision

The Supreme Court of India, on 24 August 2017, unanimously ruled that Right to Privacy is a fundamental right enshrined in the Constitution. The major conclusions of the Court are:

1. Recognition of Privacy: Privacy is a constitutional right derived from Articles 14, 19, and 21, forming an inseparable part of the right to life and personal liberty.
2. Overruling of Earlier Precedents: The decisions in M.P. Sharma and Kharak Singh were overruled as inconsistent with constitutional principles.
3. Scope of Privacy: The Court declared that privacy encompasses bodily integrity, informational control, and personal decision-making.
4. Restrictions on Privacy: Any State limitation on privacy must comply with the tests of legality, necessity, and proportionality.
5. Binding Nature: The ruling is binding on all branches of the State and serves as a guiding precedent for all future legislation and executive actions involving personal liberty and data protection.

The K.S. Puttaswamy judgment thus marks a turning point in India’s constitutional evolution. It reaffirms that every individual possesses an inherent sphere of privacy that the State must respect, thereby strengthening the democratic foundation of liberty, dignity, and equality in India.