On August 24, 2017, the Supreme Court of India delivered a landmark judgment in Justice K.S. Puttaswamy (Retd.) & Anr. vs. Union of India & Ors., unanimously declaring the right to privacy as a fundamental right under the Indian Constitution. This decision, rendered by a nine-judge bench, marked a pivotal moment in Indian constitutional jurisprudence, overturning earlier rulings and establishing privacy as an intrinsic part of the right to life and personal liberty under Article 21, as well as other freedoms guaranteed under Part III of the Constitution. This article explores the significance of the Puttaswamy judgment, its legal implications, and its impact on subsequent cases and policy frameworks in India.
Background of the Puttaswamy Case
The case originated from a challenge to the constitutional validity of the Aadhaar scheme, a biometric-based identity program introduced by the Indian government. In 2012, Justice K.S. Puttaswamy, a retired Karnataka High Court judge, filed a writ petition arguing that the mandatory collection of biometric data under Aadhaar violated the right to privacy. The Union government countered that privacy was not a fundamental right, citing earlier Supreme Court decisions in M.P. Sharma vs. Satish Chandra (1954) and Kharak Singh vs. State of Uttar Pradesh (1964), which had denied constitutional protection to privacy. To resolve this conflict, a three-judge bench referred the matter to a five-judge bench, which subsequently escalated it to a nine-judge bench to definitively determine whether privacy is a fundamental right.
The Puttaswamy Judgment: Key Findings
The nine-judge bench, comprising Justices J.S. Khehar, J. Chelameswar, S.A. Bobde, R.K. Agrawal, R.F. Nariman, A.M. Sapre, D.Y. Chandrachud, S.K. Kaul, and S.A. Nazeer, delivered a unanimous verdict with six concurring opinions. The key findings include:
- Privacy as a Fundamental Right: The Court held that the right to privacy is protected under Articles 14 (equality), 19 (freedom of speech and expression), and 21 (life and personal liberty) of the Constitution. It is an inalienable natural right, intrinsic to human dignity and autonomy.
- Overruling of Earlier Judgments: The bench explicitly overruled M.P. Sharma and Kharak Singh to the extent that they denied privacy as a fundamental right, citing their reliance on the outdated A.K. Gopalan doctrine, which treated fundamental rights as isolated silos. Subsequent cases like Maneka Gandhi vs. Union of India (1978) had established an interconnected view of fundamental rights, supporting the recognition of privacy.
- Dimensions of Privacy: The judgment recognized four dimensions of privacy: space, body, information, and choice. Justice Chandrachud emphasized that privacy includes personal intimacies such as family, marriage, procreation, and sexual orientation, which are core to individual dignity.
- Proportionality Test: While affirming privacy as a fundamental right, the Court clarified that it is not absolute. Any state action infringing on privacy must satisfy three tests:
- Legality: The action must have a legislative mandate.
- Legitimate Aim: It must pursue a legitimate state purpose, such as national security or prevention of crime.
- Proportionality: The action must be necessary, with a rational nexus between the means and the objective, and must be the least intrusive alternative.
- International Alignment: The Court referenced international human rights frameworks, including Article 12 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and Article 17 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, to underscore privacy’s global recognition. It also drew on comparative jurisprudence from the United States, Canada, South Africa, and the European Union.
Implications of the Puttaswamy Judgment
The Puttaswamy judgment has had far-reaching implications across various domains:
1. Aadhaar and Data Protection
The judgment directly impacted the Aadhaar scheme’s constitutional scrutiny. In 2018, a five-judge bench upheld the Aadhaar Act but struck down provisions allowing private entities to use Aadhaar data, citing the proportionality test. The ruling emphasized the need for robust data protection laws, leading to the introduction of the Personal Data Protection Bill, 2019, to regulate data collection and processing.
2. Decriminalization of Homosexuality
The judgment laid the groundwork for Navtej Singh Johar vs. Union of India (2018), where the Supreme Court decriminalized consensual same-sex relationships under Section 377 of the Indian Penal Code. The Court relied on Puttaswamy’s recognition of sexual orientation as an aspect of privacy and dignity, overturning the 2013 Suresh Kumar Koushal judgment that had upheld Section 377.
3. Right to Health and Informational Privacy
The judgment influenced cases involving health data, such as the Vinit Kumar vs. CBI (2019) case, which addressed phone tapping under the Indian Telegraph Act. The Court applied Puttaswamy’s proportionality test to balance public safety with privacy rights. It also prompted discussions on protecting health information under the HIV/AIDS Act, 2017, and raised concerns about mandatory Aadhaar linkage for medical treatment.
4. Freedom of Choice
Puttaswamy’s recognition of privacy as encompassing individual choice impacted cases like Joseph Shine vs. Union of India (2018), which decriminalized adultery, affirming personal autonomy in intimate relationships. It also influenced debates on laws restricting food choices, such as beef bans, by framing them as violations of privacy and personal liberty.
5. Surveillance and State Accountability
The judgment highlighted concerns about state surveillance, particularly in the context of programs like the Aadhaar scheme and the proposed Social Media Monitoring Hub. It underscored the need for state actions to adhere to the proportionality test to prevent the creation of a surveillance state. However, critics note that government practices, such as mass surveillance authorized by the Ministry of Home Affairs in 2018, have often disregarded these principles, leading to ongoing legal challenges.
Challenges and Criticisms
Despite its transformative impact, the Puttaswamy judgment has faced challenges:
- Implementation Gaps: The government’s continued use of surveillance programs and delays in enacting comprehensive data protection laws have raised concerns about the judgment’s practical enforcement.
- Ambiguity in Application: The broad definition of privacy has led to varied interpretations, with some arguing it lacks clarity for consistent judicial application.
- Balancing State Interests: The proportionality test requires a delicate balance between individual rights and state interests, which courts must navigate on a case-by-case basis.
Steps Forward for Privacy Protection
To strengthen the right to privacy post-Puttaswamy, the Indian government should consider:
- Enacting Robust Data Protection Laws: Implement the Personal Data Protection Bill with clear provisions for consent, data minimization, and accountability of state and non-state actors.
- Establishing a Data Protection Authority: Create an independent regulatory body to enforce privacy laws and address violations.
- Limiting Surveillance: Ensure surveillance programs comply with the proportionality test and are subject to judicial oversight.
- Promoting Awareness: Educate citizens about their privacy rights to empower them against violations.
- Aligning with International Standards: Harmonize domestic laws with global privacy frameworks to ensure comprehensive protection.
Conclusion
The Puttaswamy judgment is a cornerstone of Indian constitutional law, affirming the right to privacy as a fundamental right integral to dignity, autonomy, and liberty. By overturning outdated precedents and establishing a robust framework for privacy protection, it has reshaped legal discourse on issues ranging from data protection to personal freedoms. However, its legacy depends on effective implementation through legislation, judicial consistency, and state accountability. As India navigates the digital age, the principles laid down in Puttaswamy will continue to guide the balance between individual rights and state interests, ensuring that privacy remains a cornerstone of democratic governance.
Contributed By : Sonam (Intern)