Author: Utkarsh Singh

Court: Supreme Court of India

Case Type: Writ Petition (Civil) No. 494 of 2012

Date of Judgment: 24th August 2017

Bench: Chief Justice J.S. Khehar, and Justices J. Chelameswar, S.A. Bobde, R.F. Nariman, A.M. Sapre, D.Y. Chandrachud, S. Abdul Nazeer, and Sanjay Kishan Kaul

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

Introduction

The landmark judgment in K.S. Puttaswamy (Retd.) v. Union of India (2017) reshaped Indian constitutional law by declaring the right to privacy as a fundamental right under Part III of the Constitution. Delivered by a nine-judge Constitution Bench, the decision overruled prior conflicting precedents and recognized privacy as intrinsic to life, liberty, and human dignity under Article 21. The Court underscored the point that privacy is not a State-granted privilege but an inalienable right necessary for autonomy, personal choice, and the practice of other basic freedoms under Articles 14 and 19.

The case was raised in response to challenges to the Aadhaar Scheme, which entailed collection of biometric and demographic information. Justice K.S. Puttaswamy (Retd.) submitted that mandatory enrollment and centralized retention breached privacy. The Union Government replied that the Constitution did not clearly enshrine privacy, based on previous judgments rejecting it as a fundamental right. The Supreme Court, recognizing the constitutional and social implications, referred the issue to a nine-judge bench to determine the legal ambiguity.

Facts of the Case

The Aadhaar Scheme, launched in 2009, aimed to provide every resident a unique identification number based on biometric data. The State justified it for administrative efficiency, welfare distribution, and preventing duplication of benefits.

Justice Puttaswamy filed a writ petition under Article 32, claiming the collection, storage, and potential misuse of personal data violated the implicit right to privacy under Article 21. He argued that such a mechanism encroached upon individual autonomy and the principle of limited government.

The Union Government relied on M.P. Sharma v. Satish Chandra (1954) and Kharak Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh (1962) to assert that privacy is not a constitutional right. Due to conflicting precedents, the Supreme Court referred the matter to a nine-judge bench to determine the scope of the right to privacy, examining its implications beyond Aadhaar.

Issues Involved

1. Whether the right to privacy is a fundamental right under the Constitution.

2. Whether it derives from Articles 14, 19, and 21.

3. Whether prior rulings in M.P. Sharma (1954) and Kharak Singh (1962) were correct.

4. The nature and scope of privacy as a constitutional right.

Petitioner’s Arguments

The petitioner argued that privacy is an inherent and irreducible right, inherent in Articles 14, 19, and 21. He quoted decisions such as Gobind v. State of Madhya Pradesh (1975) and R. Rajagopal v. State of Tamil Nadu (1994), pointing out that surveillance devices like Aadhaar impinge on individual autonomy.

He contended that privacy is consonant with global standards for human rights, among which are Article 12 of the Universal Declaration on Human Rights and Article 17 of the ICCPR, which safeguards individuals from arbitrary interference. Technological intrusions without balancing safeguards, the petitioner stressed, violate both international norms and constitutional assurances.

Respondent’s Arguments

The Union Government rejected privacy as a basic right, claiming judicial acceptance would give more power to the judiciary at the cost of legislative and executive prerogatives. It relied on M.P. Sharma and Kharak Singh to assert privacy is merely a statutory or common law right.

The State had asserted Aadhaar was for serving legitimate public interests—effective welfare delivery, transparency, and governance. It had contended that infringement with personal information is proportionate and regulated, reiterating privacy must give way to compelling state interests in welfare, national security, and public order.

Judgment

On 24th August 2017, the Supreme Court unanimously affirmed that privacy is a fundamental constitutional right under Part III, overruling M.P. Sharma and Kharak Singh. Justice D.Y. Chandrachud emphasized that privacy is core to human dignity, autonomy, and personal choice.

The Court formulated a tripartite test for state interference:

1. Legality: Intrusion must be authorized by law.

2. Necessity: Interference must pursue a legitimate objective.

3. Proportionality: Degree of intrusion must be commensurate with the objective.

This framework balances individual liberty with legitimate state action, preventing arbitrary intrusion.

Ratio Decidendi

Privacy is an inherent, inalienable component of Article 21. It encompasses bodily integrity, personal choices, relationships, communications, and conduct. Restrictions are permissible only if lawful, necessary, and proportionate. By situating privacy at the core of liberty and dignity, the Court strengthened individual autonomy and reinforced constitutional safeguards against arbitrary state action..

Observations by Individual Judges

Justice R. V. Chelameswar: Privacy protects intellectual independence and moral autonomy.

Justice S. A. Bobde: Privacy is essential for personal dignity and prevents arbitrary constraints.

Justice R. F. Nariman: Right to privacy connects Articles 14, 19, and 21—the “golden triangle.”

Justice D. Y. Chandrachud: Constitution is dynamic; privacy recognition reflects adaptive constitutionalism.

Justice Dinesh Maheshwari Kaul: Privacy protects identity and control over digital and personal history.

Analysis

The ruling aligned Indian law with global norms, reiterating that genuine freedom is dependent on privacy. It reaffirmed the “golden triangle” of Articles 14, 19, and 21 and laid down a proportionality test to stop arbitrary monitoring. The Court emphasized constitutional morality so that basic rights could overcome fleeting political or societal pressures. Later cases such as Navtej Singh Johar v. Union of India (2018) and Joseph Shine v. Union of India (2018) depended upon Puttaswamy, proving its long-term relevance.

Impact and Importance

The judgment paved the way for data protection legislation, such as the Personal Data Protection Bill. It reiterated that technological and administrative controls should observe human dignity, privacy, and constitutional protections. The proportionality principle guarantees that surveillance or collection of data is a justified, necessary, and reasonably specific necessity, creating a legal precedent for digital rights.

Conclusion / Final Verdict

The Supreme Court, in a unanimous decision, reaffirmed that the right to privacy is a core, inalienable aspect of life, liberty, and human dignity under Part III. It overturned earlier contrary judgments, brought Indian law in keeping with international standards, and stressed the inherent nexus between privacy and autonomy, freedom, and dignity. The tripartite test—legality, necessity, and proportionality—is a normative framework for permissible state intrusion, ensuring the protection of individual rights in the digital era. The Puttaswamy judgment therefore marks a milestone in Indian constitutional law, confirming that freedom cannot be effectively exercised without privacy.

References  (Bluebook Style)

1. K.S. Puttaswamy (Retd.) v. Union of India, Writ Petition (Civil) No. 494 of 2012, Supreme Court of India (Aug. 24, 2017).

2. India Const. art. 14 & 19 &  21.

3. M.P. Sharma v. Satish Chandra, AIR 1954 SC 300.

4. Kharak Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh, AIR 1963 SC 1295.

5. R. Rajagopal v. State of Tamil Nadu, (1994) 6 SCC 632.

6. Universal Declaration of Human Rights, G.A. Res. 217 (III) A, U.N. Doc A/810 (Dec. 10, 1948), art. 12.

7. International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, Dec. 16, 1966, 999 U.N.T.S. 171, art. 17.