CASE ANALYSIS

Justice K.S. Puttaswamy (Retd.) & Anr. vs. Union of India &
Ors.

Submission of Assignment for the fulfillment of BALLB Degree

Submitted by : Komal Singh

Course : BALLB ( 3rd Semester )
Enrollment No. : 35725503823

Submitted to : Dr. Komal Chauhan

Designation : Assistant Professor , Department of Law
 Introduction

The case of K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India (2017) is a landmark judgment by the Supreme
Court of India that redefined the contours of fundamental rights under the Constitution. The case
arose from concerns over the implementation of the Aadhaar scheme, which required citizens to
provide biometric and personal data, raising questions about privacy violations. Filed by retired
Justice K.S. Puttaswamy, the petition argued that the right to privacy is a fundamental right
implicit under Article 21 (Right to Life and Personal Liberty) and related provisions of the
Constitution. The nine-judge bench of the Supreme Court delivered a unanimous decision,
affirming that privacy is a constitutionally protected right and integral to human dignity and
liberty, thereby overruling earlier decisions that denied its fundamental status. This judgment has
since become a cornerstone of Indian constitutional law, influencing debates on individual
autonomy, data protection, and state surveillance.

Facts of the Case

This case was initiated through a petition filed by Justice K.S. Puttaswamy, a retired judge of the
Karnataka High Court, challenging the Aadhaar Project led by the Unique Identification
Authority of India (UIDAI). The Aadhaar initiative involved issuing a unique 12-digit
identification number to Indian residents and was linked to various welfare schemes with the aim
of streamlining service delivery and eliminating fraudulent beneficiaries. Justice Puttaswamy's
petition questioned the constitutional validity of the Aadhaar scheme. Over time, additional
petitions challenging different aspects of Aadhaar were also brought before the Supreme Court.

In 2015, a three-judge bench of the Supreme Court considered whether the government’s collection
and compilation of demographic and biometric data under Aadhaar violated the right to privacy.
The Attorney General of India argued that privacy was not a fundamental right, relying on earlier
decisions in M.P. Sharma v. Satish Chandra (1954) and Kharak Singh v. State of Uttar
Pradesh (1962), which denied privacy as a constitutionally protected right. However, the bench
noted that subsequent judgments of the Supreme Court had recognized privacy as a fundamental
right, though these decisions were rendered by smaller benches, raising questions about their
authority.

To address this inconsistency, the case was referred to a larger bench to review the precedents set
in M.P. Sharma and Kharak Singh and assess the validity of later rulings affirming the right to
privacy. On 18 July 2017, a Constitution Bench decided that the matter required examination by a
nine-judge bench, given its profound constitutional significance.

Issues Raised

1. Whether the right to privacy is protected under Part III of the Indian Constitution, particularly
under Articles 14, 19, and 21.

2. Whether earlier Supreme Court decisions in M.P. Sharma (1954) and Kharak Singh (1962),
which denied the existence of a fundamental right to privacy, were still valid.
3. If privacy is a fundamental right, what is its scope, and under what circumstances can it be
restrict.

4. Whether the Aadhaar scheme's collection of biometric and demographic data violates the right to
privacy.

Judgement

The Supreme Court, in its landmark judgment, unanimously declared that the right to privacy is a
fundamental right guaranteed under Article 21 (Right to Life and Personal Liberty) and other
provisions of Part III of the Indian Constitution. It overruled earlier decisions in M.P. Sharma v.
Satish Chandra (1954) and Kharak Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh (1962) to the extent that
they denied the existence of privacy as a fundamental right. The Court emphasized that while
privacy is a protected right, it is not absolute and may be subject to reasonable restrictions through
laws that serve a legitimate aim, are proportionate, and adhere to constitutional principles.
Although this judgment did not directly address the validity of the Aadhaar scheme, it laid the
groundwork for assessing its compliance with privacy standards, which was subsequently
examined in later cases.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court's ruling established that the right to privacy is a fundamental right under the
Indian Constitution, forming an essential part of the right to life and personal liberty (Article
21). The judgment underscored the critical role of privacy in safeguarding individual dignity,
autonomy, and freedom within a democratic society. It further clarified that while privacy is a
fundamental right, it is not absolute and may be curtailed by reasonable and proportionate actions
by the state. This landmark decision set a vital precedent for the protection of citizens' rights in the
digital era.
5. Whether the Aadhaar scheme's collection of biometric and demographic data violates the right to
privacy.

Judgement

1. Right to Privacy as a Fundamental Right:

The Supreme Court unanimously held that the right to privacy is a fundamental right protected
under Article 21 (Right to Life and Personal Liberty) and other provisions of Part III of the
Indian Constitution.

2. Overruling Earlier Judgments:

The Court overruled M.P. Sharma v. Satish Chandra (1954) and Kharak Singh v. State of Uttar
Pradesh (1962) to the extent that they denied the existence of a fundamental right to privacy.

3. Scope and Restrictions:

Privacy is not absolute and can be restricted by reasonable laws that serve a legitimate aim, are
proportional, and comply with constitutional principles.

4. Implications for Aadhaar:

While this judgment did not directly decide the validity of Aadhaar, it provided the framework
for evaluating its compliance with the right to privacy, which was addressed in subsequent cases.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court's decision affirmed that the right to privacy is a fundamental right under the
Indian Constitution, integral to the right to life and personal liberty (Article 21). The judgment
emphasized the importance of privacy in protecting individual dignity, autonomy, and freedom
in a democratic society. It also clarified that privacy is not absolute but can be limited by
reasonable and proportional state actions. This ruling set a significant precedent for protecting
citizens' rights in the digital age.