Justice K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India

Facts

A three-judge Bench was hearing challenges to the Aadhaar scheme, in which the collection of demographic and biometric data was attacked as a violation of the right to privacy. The Attorney General argued that the existence of a fundamental right of privacy was in doubt because of M P Sharma (eight judges) and Kharak Singh (six judges). Later decisions such as Gobind, Rajagopal and PUCL had recognised a constitutional right of privacy, but they were rendered by smaller Benches. By order dated 11 August 2015 the three-judge Bench referred the question to a larger Bench. On 18 July 2017 a Constitution Bench placed the issue before nine judges, who decided whether privacy is a constitutionally protected right.

Questions before the Court

1. Whether M P Sharma and Kharak Singh correctly held that the Constitution does not protect a right to privacy.
2. Whether the right to privacy is a fundamental right guaranteed by Part III of the Constitution.
3. Whether the later decisions recognising privacy as a constitutionally protected right lay down the correct law.

What the Court held

• The decision in M P Sharma, so far as it holds that the right to privacy is not protected by the Constitution, is overruled.
• The decision in Kharak Singh 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 of the Constitution.
• Decisions after Kharak Singh which recognised privacy as a constitutionally protected right state the correct position in law.

Why it matters

All nine judges joined an Order of the Court declaring privacy a fundamental right under Article 21 and Part III, and overruled the contrary statements in M P Sharma and Kharak Singh. The four-judge opinion of Chandrachud J. adds that privacy is not absolute, that an intrusion must meet the tests of legality, a legitimate state aim and proportionality, and that informational privacy is a facet of the right, and it asks the Union to put in place a data protection regime.

In the Court's words

Copied from the official judgment; each passage links to its page.

Provisions interpreted

• Article 21, Constitution
• Article 20(3), Constitution
• Article 19, Constitution

Related judgments

• Overrules M.P. Sharma v. Satish Chandra (1954)“The decision in M P Sharma which holds that the right to privacy is not protected by the Constitution stands over-ruled” (page 546)
• Overrules Kharak Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh (1962)“The decision in Kharak Singh to the extent that it holds that the right to privacy is not protected by the Constitution stands over-ruled” (page 546)
• Followed in Navtej Singh Johar v. Union of India (2018)
• Followed in Joseph Shine v. Union of India (2018)

Case and bench

Parties

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

Case

Writ Petition (Civil) No. 494 of 2012

Decided

24 August 2017

Bench

Jagdish Singh Khehar, CJI, J. Chelameswar, S.A. Bobde, R.K. Agrawal, Rohinton Fali Nariman, Abhay Manohar Sapre, D.Y. Chandrachud, Sanjay Kishan Kaul, S. Abdul Nazeer

Opinions

Unanimous. Chandrachud J. delivered the judgment for Khehar CJI, Agrawal J., Abdul Nazeer J. and himself; Chelameswar, Bobde, Sapre, Nariman and Kaul JJ. delivered separate judgments. An Order of the Court signed by all nine judges states how the reference is disposed of.

Questions on this case

13 questions in live Law Maker papers mention this case. A few from free papers:

1. Question 1 · Landmark Judgments Practice Set 1

   Consider the following statements about Justice K.S. Puttaswamy (Retd.) v. Union of India (2017), the nine-Judge Bench decision on privacy: 1. 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. 2. M.P. Sharma v. Satish Chandra was overruled to the extent it indicated that privacy is not a guaranteed right. 3. Kharak Singh v. State of U.P. was overruled in its entirety. Which of the statements given above is/are correct?

   1. A. 1, 2 and 3
   2. B. 1 and 2 only
   3. C. 1 only
   4. D. 2 and 3 only
   Show the answer

   B. 1 and 2 only

   Puttaswamy held privacy to be a constitutionally protected right emerging from Article 21 and other Part III freedoms, and overruled M.P. Sharma to the extent it held otherwise. Kharak Singh was overruled only to the extent it held that privacy is not protected; its reading of 'life' as more than mere animal existence was expressly approved, so statement 3 is wrong.

2. Question 2 · Legal Maxims & Jurisprudence Practice Set 1

   In the Puttaswamy judgment, how did the Supreme Court rule regarding the Right to Privacy?

   1. A. It is not a fundamental right
   2. B. It is a fundamental right under the Constitution
   3. C. It is only a statutory right
   4. D. It is only a common law right
   Show the answer

   B. It is a fundamental right under the Constitution

   In Justice K.S. Puttaswamy (Retd.) v. Union of India (2017) a nine-judge bench unanimously held that the right to privacy is a fundamental right protected as part of Article 21 and Part III, overruling M.P. Sharma and Kharak Singh to that extent.

3. Question 3 · Legal Maxims & Jurisprudence Practice Set 1

   In the landmark Aadhaar judgment, which aspect did the Supreme Court uphold?

   1. A. Aadhaar as unconstitutional
   2. B. Mandatory Aadhaar for all services
   3. C. Aadhaar to be abolished
   4. D. Aadhaar as constitutionally valid but limited
   Show the answer

   D. Aadhaar as constitutionally valid but limited

   In Justice K.S. Puttaswamy (Retd.) v. Union of India (Aadhaar, 2018) the Constitution Bench upheld the Aadhaar scheme and Act as constitutionally valid while striking down or reading down certain provisions, so that Aadhaar is valid but its mandatory use is limited.