Case Briefing
The case is JUSTICE K.S. PUTTASWAMY (RETD) V. UNION OF INDIA, decided on 24 August 2017, and cited as 2017 INSC 801. The Supreme Court heard the matter before a Nine-Judge Bench, including Chief Justice Jagdish S. Khehar, Justice Jasti Chelameswar, Justice Sharad A. Bobde, Justice Rajesh K. Agrawal, Justice Rohinton F. Nariman, Justice Abhay M. Sapre, Justice (Dr.) Dhananjaya Y. Chandrachud, Justice Sanjay K. Kaul, and Justice Syed A. Nazeer.
Question Presented
The central constitutional question addressed by the Bench was: Is the right to privacy a part of the right to life and personal liberty under Article 21 and other rights guaranteed by Part III of the Constitution?
Factual Background
The case arose from challenges to the Aadhaar card scheme and the Aadhaar (Targeted Delivery of Financial and Other Subsidies, Benefits and Services) Act, 2016. The Union of India adopted these measures to collect demographic and biometric data of individuals with the goal of reducing leakages in the distribution of public benefits. This data collection was challenged before the Supreme Court on the basis that it violated the individual’s right to privacy.
Due to previous pronouncements by larger benches—M.P. Sharma v. Satish Chandra, District Magistrate (Eight-Judge Bench) and Kharak Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh (Six-Judge Bench)—which had stated that the right to privacy was not protected under the Constitution, the issue was referred to a Nine-Judge Bench to clarify the law. Although the majority view in Kharak Singh had been overruled in Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India, and the foundational premise of non-overlapping rights (A. K. Gopalan) was rejected in R.C. Cooper v. Union of India, the existence of the larger bench decisions necessitated the referral.
Decision and Holding
The Nine-Judge Bench unanimously upheld the right to privacy. The Court held that the right to privacy is part of the right to life and personal liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution. Furthermore, it is a protected right across the fundamental freedoms guaranteed under Part III of the Constitution. The Supreme Court concluded that privacy is inherent and inseparable from dignified human existence.
Justice Chandrachud authored a plurality opinion on behalf of himself, Chief Justice Khehar, Justice Agrawal, and Justice Nazeer, while Justices Chelameswar, Bobde, Nariman, Kaul, and Sapre all authored separate concurring opinions.
Reasoning (Rationale)
Overruling Precedent and Interconnected Rights: The Court found that the decisions in M. P. Sharma and Kharak Singh were based on the doctrine in A. K. Gopalan, which treated each article in Part III as embodying distinct, non-overlapping freedoms. This view was rejected in R. C. Cooper, which held that fundamental rights do not operate in “watertight compartments”.
- Regarding M.P. Sharma: The Court noted that the earlier Eight-Judge Bench only refused to read the right to privacy as part of the right against self-incrimination under Article 20(3). Crucially, M.P. Sharma refrained from making observations regarding the import of privacy under other fundamental rights. Therefore, M.P. Sharma does not impede the interpretation of the fundamental right to privacy within Part III of the Constitution.
- Regarding Kharak Singh: The majority view in Kharak Singh that the right to privacy is not part of the Constitution was held incorrect and overruled to that extent. The Court acknowledged that Kharak Singh was accurate in asserting that dignity is essential for human existence, but its ultimate finding on privacy was flawed.
- The constitutional protection for the right to privacy under Article 21 had already been affirmed in preceding cases, including Govind v. State of Madhya Pradesh, R. Rajagopal v. State of Tamil Nadu, and People’s Union of Civil Liberties v. Union of India. Protection for privacy, in both the physical and mental sense, was also recognized in Selvi v. State of Karnataka.
Nature and Scope of Privacy: The Supreme Court held that the absence of a definition of ‘privacy’ in the constitutional text does not prevent the Court from recognizing it. Privacy is declared the foundational condition for exercising the right to life and personal liberty. Dignity, which is recognized in the Preamble and Article 21, cannot be safeguarded without privacy.
The right to privacy encompasses the preservation of personal intimacies, the sanctity of family life, marriage, procreation, and sexual orientation. Justice Chelameswar specified that privacy includes three facets: repose (freedom from unwarranted stimuli), sanctuary (protection against intrusive observation), and intimate decision-making (autonomy over personal choices). Furthermore, privacy extends beyond a person’s body to informational privacy, emphasizing the right of individuals to control the dissemination of their personal information.
Constitutional Protection vs. Statutory Law: The Court rejected the argument that statutory laws acknowledging privacy made it unnecessary to declare it a fundamental right. The Court emphasized that constitutional rights are essential because, unlike statutory rights, they cannot be modified, annulled, or curtailed by the legislative majority.
Constituent Assembly Debates: The argument that the Constituent Assembly debates conclusively rejected the existence of the right to privacy was dismissed, and the Court held that the right must be assessed within the contemporary context.
Limitations on the Right
The right to privacy is not absolute and is subject to reasonable restrictions imposed by the State to protect legitimate State interests. Any limitation on privacy must satisfy a three-part test derived from Article 21:
- Legality: There must be a validly enacted law that authorises the infringement of privacy.
- Necessity/Legitimacy: The infringement must be necessary to meet a legitimate aim (or legitimate government interest).
- Proportionality: The means or methods adopted by the State must be proportionate to the government’s legitimate objective.
Case: JUSTICE K.S. PUTTASWAMY (RETD) vs UNION OF INDIA W.P.(C) No. 494/2012
