In Justice K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India, the Supreme Court affirmed privacy as a fundamental right under Article 21, integral to dignity and autonomy, yet subject to reasonable restrictions.
Deep dive into the aadhar judgement in our latest podcast!
Citation: AIR 2017 SC 4161, (2017) 10 SCC 1
Date of Judgement: 24th August, 2017
Court: Supreme Court of India
Bench: J.S. Khehar (CJ), Jasti Chelameswar (J), S.A. Bobde (J), R.K. Agrawal (J), Rohinton Fali Nariman (J), Abhay Manohar Sapre (J), Dr. D.Y. Chandrachud (J), Sanjay Kishan Kaul (J), S. Abdul Nazeer (J)
Facts
- The landmark case of Justice K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India challenged the constitutionality of the Aadhaar scheme launched by the Government of India. Justice K.S. Puttaswamy, a retired judge, filed a writ petition under Article 32 of the Constitution, arguing that mandatory collection of demographic and biometric data for Aadhaar violated citizens’ right to privacy.
- The petition contended that such a mass surveillance mechanism, without adequate safeguards, infringed upon citizens' fundamental rights.
- The Union of India defended the Aadhaar scheme by stating that privacy was not explicitly mentioned in the Constitution and cited previous Supreme Court decisions in M.P. Sharma v. Satish Chandra[1] and Kharak Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh[2], which held that privacy was not a constitutionally protected right. Given the importance of the issues raised, the matter was referred to a nine-judge Constitution Bench to decide whether the right to privacy is a fundamental right under the Indian Constitution.
Decision of the Supreme Court
The nine-judge Bench unanimously declared the right to privacy as a constitutionally protected fundamental right under Part III of the Indian Constitution. It held that privacy is intrinsic to the right to life and personal liberty guaranteed by Article 21 and also forms a part of other fundamental rights.
Key legal issues discussed
1. Whether the right to privacy is a fundamental right under the Constitution of India?
Yes
The Supreme Court undertook a comprehensive review of the constitutional scheme and jurisprudence, both domestic and international, to determine whether privacy is a fundamental right. It analyzed the nature of privacy and its indispensable role in preserving human dignity and autonomy. The Court observed that Article 21, which guarantees the right to life and personal liberty, encompasses privacy as an integral component, as it provides individuals the liberty to make personal decisions without unwarranted state interference.
In Behram Khurshed Pesikaka v. The State of Bombay[3], Chief Justice Mahajan, speaking for the Constitution Bench, noted the link between the constitutional vision contained in the Preamble and the position of the fundamental rights as a means to facilitate its fulfilment.
The right to privacy ensures that individuals have the freedom to control their personal space and maintain autonomy over personal choices, especially those related to family life, marriage, procreation, and sexual orientation.
Reading para 412 of this judgment, it reads “In view of foregoing discussion, my answer to question No. 2 is that "right to privacy" is a part of the fundamental right of a citizen guaranteed under Part III of the Constitution. However, it is not an absolute right but is subject to certain reasonable restrictions…”
The Court emphasized that privacy has evolved as a natural right that pre-exists the Constitution, and thus, is inherent in human existence. It noted that denying privacy as a fundamental right would not only contradict the essence of the Constitution but would also undermine the broader notion of constitutional morality. The reasoning also included comparative references, highlighting how privacy is recognized as a fundamental right in democratic nations worldwide, reinforcing its universality and significance.
The Court also explained that privacy is not limited to physical spaces but extends to informational privacy, emphasizing that the protection of personal data is crucial in the digital age. The recognition of privacy as a fundamental right signifies that any state action encroaching upon it must be justified by a compelling public interest and must adhere to the principles of legality, necessity, and proportionality.
2. Whether the right to privacy is absolute?
No
While acknowledging privacy as a fundamental right, the Supreme Court clarified that it is not absolute. Restrictions on privacy are permissible, provided they are imposed by a valid law that pursues a legitimate aim. The law must be proportional, meaning that it should employ the least restrictive measures necessary to achieve its objective. The proportionality test ensures that state actions are not arbitrary or excessive, maintaining a balance between individual rights and societal interests.
The Court identified legitimate grounds for restricting privacy, such as national security, crime prevention, and social welfare distribution. However, any such law must pass the rigorous tests of fairness and reasonableness as prescribed under Article 21. The Court specifically noted that the Aadhaar scheme would need to comply with these principles to be deemed constitutional, thereby indicating that privacy is subject to judicial scrutiny to prevent potential misuse of state power.
The court relied on R Rajagopal v. State of Tamil Nadu[4] and Kharak Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh[5] and then in para 47 of this judgment, the judgment holds about the absoluteness of this right that “The right to privacy in any event will necessarily have to go through a process of case-by-case development. Therefore, even assuming that the right to personal liberty, the right to move freely throughout the territory of India and the freedom of speech create an independent right of privacy as an emanation from them which one can characterize as a fundamental right, we do not think that the right is absolute”
3. Whether the right to privacy includes informational privacy?
Yes
The Supreme Court highlighted informational privacy as a crucial aspect of the broader right to privacy, emphasizing its relevance in the digital era. The Court acknowledged that the increasing digitization of personal data and the state's ability to access and process this data pose significant privacy challenges. Informational privacy refers to the individual’s right to control the collection, storage, and dissemination of personal information. The Court underscored the need for a robust data protection regime to safeguard citizens from potential misuse of their data by both state and non-state actors.
Reading para 190 of the judgment, we find a plain construction by the court holding that “Informational privacy is a facet of the right to privacy…”
The judgment pointed out that the state has a positive obligation to protect personal data from unauthorized access and breaches. It asserted that any law that seeks to regulate informational privacy must be framed with precision, ensuring minimal intrusion while fulfilling its legitimate purpose. The Court suggested that the legislative framework for data protection must strike a balance between individual rights and the state's interests in preventing misuse, enhancing public safety, and promoting efficient governance.
[1] AIR 1954 SC 300.
[2] AIR 1963 SC 1295.
[3] (1955) 1 SCR 613.
[4] (1994) 6 SCC 632.
[5] (1964) 1 SCR 332.
