In Justice K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India, decided on 24 August 2017, all nine judges of the Supreme Court held that the right to privacy is protected as an intrinsic part of the right to life and personal liberty under Article 21 and as part of the freedoms guaranteed by Part III. The Court overruled M.P. Sharma (1954) and Kharak Singh (1962) to the extent they held that the Constitution does not protect privacy. Privacy is not absolute, and an intrusion must pass the tests of legality, a legitimate aim and proportionality.
What exactly did the Supreme Court decide in Puttaswamy?
The operative order, signed by all nine judges, made three declarations and recorded that later cases recognising privacy state the correct law.
- M.P. Sharma v. Satish Chandra, so far as it holds that the right to privacy is not protected by the Constitution, is overruled.
- Kharak Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh is overruled to the extent that it holds that the right to privacy is not protected by the Constitution.
- The right to privacy is protected as an intrinsic part of the right to life and personal liberty under Article 21 and as a part of the freedoms guaranteed by Part III.
- Decisions after Kharak Singh that recognised privacy as a constitutionally protected right lay down the correct position in law.
There were six opinions. Chandrachud J. wrote for himself, Khehar C.J., Agrawal J. and Nazeer J. Chelameswar, Bobde, Nariman, Sapre and Kaul JJ. wrote separately. All of them agreed on the order. When you write about the reasoning, attribute it to the opinion it comes from; the order is the only text that speaks for all nine.
The Law Maker summary of the Puttaswamy judgment quotes the order and the key passages with page references, which is useful when you need the exact words.
Why did a nine-judge bench have to decide the question?
Because two earlier benches larger than any that had since recognised privacy, eight judges in M.P. Sharma and six in Kharak Singh, had said things that seemed to deny the right, and only a larger bench could overrule them.
The question arose during the challenge to the Aadhaar scheme, where the collection of demographic and biometric data was attacked as a violation of privacy. The Attorney General argued that the existence of a fundamental right to privacy was doubtful because of those two decisions. A three-judge bench referred the question on 11 August 2015, and on 18 July 2017 a Constitution Bench placed it before nine judges.
What had the earlier cases said? In M.P. Sharma, decided in March 1954, the Court upheld searches of the Dalmia group's records under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898. It held that a search and seizure is not compelled testimony under Article 20(3), and observed that the Constitution contained no provision like the Fourth Amendment of the United States, so a right to privacy could not be imported. In Kharak Singh, the majority struck down night-time domiciliary visits but upheld other surveillance, saying that privacy was not a guaranteed right.
Between 1962 and 2017, smaller benches had moved on. Gobind v. State of Madhya Pradesh (1975) assumed a right to privacy that could be restricted for a compelling public interest. R. Rajagopal v. State of Tamil Nadu (1994) recognised a right to be let alone against publication. PUCL (1996) held telephone tapping to be an intrusion on privacy. These decisions sat uneasily with the larger benches, and Puttaswamy resolved the conflict.
Where in the Constitution does the right to privacy come from?
Primarily from Article 21, with elements arising from the other freedoms in Part III, such as Articles 14, 19, 20(3) and 25, depending on the context.
The plurality opinion of Chandrachud J. said that privacy emerges primarily from the guarantee of life and personal liberty, and that elements of it arise in varying contexts from other facets of freedom and dignity. Several opinions described privacy as a natural right that the Constitution recognises rather than creates. The absence of an express "right to privacy" in the text did not matter, just as there is no express right to a fair trial or to livelihood.
The plurality also described privacy as having several dimensions. A simple way to remember them:
- Bodily and spatial privacy: the body and the home, as in Kharak Singh's protection against intrusions at night.
- Informational privacy: control over personal data, the dimension that matters most for Aadhaar and data protection.
- Decisional privacy or autonomy: the freedom to make intimate choices about family, sexuality, food and belief.
This classification is a study aid, not a statutory list. Courts still decide each case on its facts.
When can the State restrict the right to privacy?
When the restriction is backed by a law, pursues a legitimate state aim, and is proportionate to that aim; this is the three-fold test set out in the plurality opinion.
| Requirement | What it asks | Illustration |
|---|---|---|
| Legality | Is there a law authorising the intrusion? | Executive instructions failed in Kharak Singh because they were not law |
| Legitimate aim | Is the intrusion directed at a legitimate state purpose? | Preventing crime, national security, distributing welfare benefits |
| Proportionality | Is there a rational nexus between the means and the aim, and is the intrusion no more than necessary? | Collecting fingerprints of every citizen to grant a library card would fail |
Chandrachud J.'s opinion put it in these terms: legality, which postulates the existence of law; need, defined in terms of a legitimate state aim; and proportionality, which ensures a rational nexus between the objects and the means. Kaul J. added procedural guarantees against abuse. Under Article 21, the law must also lay down a procedure that is fair, just and reasonable, which brings in the Maneka Gandhi standard.
The test was applied soon after. On 26 September 2018 a five-judge bench, by 4:1, upheld the Aadhaar Act in large part as a proportionate measure for targeted welfare, but struck down section 57 so far as it allowed private entities to demand Aadhaar authentication. Chandrachud J. dissented and would have struck down the Act. Remember this as a separate judgment, often called Puttaswamy (Aadhaar), not part of the 2017 privacy decision.
How did ADM Jabalpur fare in Puttaswamy?
The plurality expressly overruled it. ADM Jabalpur v. Shivkant Shukla (1976) had held, by 4:1, that during the 1975 Emergency no one could move a court for habeas corpus to challenge detention, because the presidential order under Article 359 had suspended enforcement of Article 21.
Chandrachud J. wrote that the majority judgments in ADM Jabalpur were seriously flawed, that life and personal liberty are inalienable to human existence, and that ADM Jabalpur "must be and is accordingly overruled". Kaul J. agreed that it should be expressly overruled. Since this view was not part of the operative order, the safest way to write it is that the Puttaswamy plurality, joined by Kaul J., overruled ADM Jabalpur. The constitutional answer had come earlier through the 44th Amendment, which barred suspension of Articles 20 and 21 under Article 359.
Which cases should be read together with Puttaswamy?
Read it with the cases that prepared the ground and the cases that applied it, because examiners often ask you to place it in that sequence.
| Case | Year | Link with privacy |
|---|---|---|
| M.P. Sharma v. Satish Chandra | 1954 | Rejected privacy in the search context; overruled on that point |
| Kharak Singh v. State of U.P. | 1962 | Struck down night visits, rejected a right to privacy; overruled on that point |
| Gobind v. State of M.P. | 1975 | Assumed privacy, subject to compelling public interest |
| PUCL v. Union of India | 1996 | Telephone tapping infringes privacy; safeguards laid down |
| Selvi v. State of Karnataka | 2010 | Forced narcoanalysis, polygraph and brain mapping violate Articles 20(3) and 21 |
| Puttaswamy (privacy) | 2017 | Privacy a fundamental right; three-fold test |
| Navtej Singh Johar v. Union of India | 2018 | Section 377 IPC read down; sexual orientation and intimacy protected |
| Joseph Shine v. Union of India | 2018 | Adultery decriminalised; privacy and autonomy within marriage |
| Puttaswamy (Aadhaar) | 2018 | Proportionality applied to the Aadhaar Act |
PUCL v. Union of India deserves attention for its practical content. It held that the right to hold a telephone conversation in the privacy of one's home or office is part of Article 21, and that the power under section 5(2) of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885 depends on a public emergency or the interest of public safety. Pending rules, the Court laid down safeguards such as orders by a senior officer and a review committee. The power to order interception now also appears in section 20(2) of the Telecommunications Act, 2023, in force since 26 June 2024, which speaks of a public emergency or public safety and of procedure and safeguards to be prescribed.
Selvi v. State of Karnataka remains the leading case on compelled scientific techniques. Even a voluntary test's results are not admissible as such, though facts later discovered with its help may be proved under the rule on discovery.
How does privacy affect data protection law today?
Puttaswamy asked the Union to put in place a regime for data protection, and Parliament later enacted the Digital Personal Data Protection Act, 2023, which regulates the processing of digital personal data by data fiduciaries and gives rights to data principals.
For exam purposes, connect three ideas. Informational privacy is a facet of the right recognised in 2017. The three-fold test governs any law that intrudes on it. A statute like the DPDP Act is how the State meets its positive duty to protect that privacy against private actors as well as itself. Section 1(2) of the Act allows different provisions to be brought into force on different dates, so check the current commencement position before writing about any particular provision.
Suppose a State government requires every tenant to upload a selfie and Aadhaar number to a police app, with the data stored indefinitely. A Puttaswamy analysis would ask whether a law, not merely an executive order, authorises this; whether verifying tenants is a legitimate aim; and whether indefinite storage of biometric images is proportionate when less intrusive methods exist. The last limb is where such a scheme is most vulnerable.
For a member of the public whose data has been misused, the practical first step is often a cyber complaint, and the guide on how to report cyber crime in India explains the process. Questions about a specific data breach can also be put to verified advocates through the cyber law section of Ask a Lawyer. This is general information; a lawyer should be consulted for a specific case.
How is Puttaswamy asked in judiciary exams?
Prelims papers ask about the bench size, the date, the cases overruled and the three-fold test, while mains papers ask you to apply the test to a surveillance or data scheme.
Common mistakes:
- Saying Puttaswamy was a 7:2 or 5:4 decision. It was unanimous on the order, with six opinions.
- Saying privacy was "created" by Puttaswamy. Several opinions treat it as a natural right that the Constitution recognises.
- Mixing up the 2017 privacy judgment with the 2018 Aadhaar judgment.
- Writing that Puttaswamy overruled Kharak Singh entirely. It did so only on privacy; Kharak Singh's holding on night-time visits remains good law.
- Treating privacy as absolute. Every opinion accepted reasonable limits.
Key points to remember
- Puttaswamy was decided by nine judges on 24 August 2017; the order was unanimous.
- Privacy is protected under Article 21 and as part of the Part III freedoms.
- M.P. Sharma and Kharak Singh were overruled only to the extent they denied a right to privacy.
- Restrictions must satisfy legality, legitimate aim and proportionality, with fair procedure under Article 21.
- The plurality, joined by Kaul J., expressly overruled ADM Jabalpur.
- The 2018 Aadhaar judgment is a separate five-judge decision that applied the test.
- Informational privacy underpins the Digital Personal Data Protection Act, 2023.
Where to go next
Read the Puttaswamy, M.P. Sharma and Kharak Singh pages linked above together, then test the sequence on the constitutional law mock tests, where questions on the cases overruled and the three-fold test appear regularly.