Judgement Briefs

Constitutional Law

Justice K.S. Puttaswamy (Retd.) v. Union of India

(2017) 10 SCC 1

Citation
(2017) 10 SCC 1
Court
Supreme Court of India
Date
24 August 2017
Bench
J.S. Khehar C.J.; J. Chelameswar; S.A. Bobde; R.K. Agrawal; R.F. Nariman; Abhay Manohar Sapre; D.Y. Chandrachud; S.K. Kaul; S. Abdul Nazeer

Facts

  • Challenges to the Aadhaar programme raised the argument that collection and use of personal data violated privacy.
  • Earlier Supreme Court decisions had created uncertainty about whether privacy was constitutionally protected.
  • In M.P. Sharma, an eight-judge Bench had stated that the Constitution did not contain a privacy guarantee comparable to the American Fourth Amendment.
  • In Kharak Singh, a majority had rejected a general constitutional right to privacy, although later cases recognised privacy in specific contexts.
  • The Aadhaar proceedings were therefore referred to a nine-judge Constitution Bench to determine the preliminary question:
  • whether privacy is a fundamental right; and
  • where it is located within Part III.
  • The Bench did not decide the constitutional validity of Aadhaar itself.

Issue

  • Whether the Constitution protects a fundamental right to privacy.
  • Whether privacy forms part of Article 21 alone or several fundamental rights.
  • Whether M.P. Sharma and Kharak Singh were correct.
  • Whether privacy is absolute.
  • What conditions must State interference with privacy satisfy.

Rule

  • Privacy is a fundamental right arising primarily from:
  • liberty and dignity under Article 21;
  • equality under Article 14; and
  • the freedoms under Article 19.
  • Privacy includes:
  • bodily privacy;
  • spatial privacy;
  • decisional autonomy;
  • family and intimate choices;
  • sexual orientation; and
  • informational privacy.
  • Privacy is not surrendered merely because a person enters a public space.
  • The right is not absolute.
  • State interference ordinarily requires:
  • legality—a law authorising the interference;
  • a legitimate State aim;
  • proportionality between the means and purpose; and
  • procedural safeguards against abuse.

Application

  • The Court rejected the argument that privacy could not be fundamental merely because the Constitution did not use the word expressly.
  • Numerous constitutional rights, including dignity and travel, had been recognised as necessary implications of expressly guaranteed freedoms.
  • Privacy protects the conditions in which individuals form identity, make intimate decisions and control personal information.
  • Without a private sphere, liberty and dignity would become incomplete.
  • The Court also rejected the claim that privacy was an elitist concern.
  • Poor and disadvantaged persons require privacy protection against:
  • bodily intrusion;
  • surveillance;
  • disclosure of personal information; and
  • coercive governmental profiling.
  • All nine judges agreed on the existence of the right, though they wrote six opinions with varying emphasis.
  • The lead opinion stressed dignity, autonomy and informational privacy.
  • Other opinions examined natural rights, liberty, technological change and the relationship between privacy and other constitutional freedoms.
  • The Court did not decide whether Aadhaar satisfied the privacy test; that question remained for a later Bench.

Conclusion

  • The nine-judge Bench unanimously held that privacy is a fundamental right.
  • It is protected as an intrinsic part of life and personal liberty under Article 21 and as part of the freedoms guaranteed by Part III.
  • M.P. Sharma and Kharak Singh were overruled to the extent that they denied constitutional privacy.