Author: Archita Bhargava, Narsee Monjee Institute of Management Studies, Indore

Back in 2017 SC gave a landmark decision in Justice K.S. Puttaswamy (Retd.) v. Union of India, by addressing a very important question that is “Is the right to privacy a fundamental right under our Constitution”? 

The issue came up from the Aadhar scheme, which requires citizens to share their personal biometric and demographic data for welfare services. What initially appeared to be just another government formality, which initially appeared to be just another government formality soon raised deeper worries about who actually holds control over people’s personal information in an increasingly digital world. 

Realizing how serious the issue was, the Court ruled that privacy is not just a personal freedom and dignity, protecting not just where a person lives but also their choices, identity, and personal information shared online. This judgment established India's first explicit constitutional framework of privacy, which reminded us that freedom and dignity lose their true meaning without privacy. 

Legal Issues

The principal legal issue which the court was concerned about was the question of whether the right to privacy could ever exist within the existing clauses of the Indian Constitution, specifically Article 14, 19 and 21, and whether the previous rulings which had declined such a right had to come up for reconsideration in the prevailing atmosphere of data driven governance and surveillance.

Parties Involved: 

The petitioners included Justice K.S. Puttaswamy (Retd.), a former judge of the Karnataka HC, and a group of public spirited citizens, academicians, and privacy advocates. The respondent was the Union of India, represented by various government departments defending the Aadhar initiatives. 

Facts: 

The Aadhar project, which was initially a voluntary project of the sort meant to improve public delivery of services, gradually became compulsorily necessary for the use of a multitude of document services, subsidies, and benefits. The petitioners complained that the collection of personal and biometric data without proper protection was a behemoth risk to the liberty and privacy of the people. The government insisted that the old rulings such as M.P. Sharma and Kharak Singh did not enshrine privacy as a right. Hence, a specialized nine judge bench was set up to clarify the matter.

Procedural History: 

It came up before a three judge bench of the SC, which, appreciating the importance of the issues, referred the case to a five judge bench. Appreciating the difference of opinion in the earlier cases and the serious repercussions it could have for the rights of the citizens, the five- judge bench, itself, referred the case to a nine - judge constitutional bench, one of the rarest and the most authoritative forms of judicial review anywhere in India.

Issues Raised: 

1. Whether the right to privacy is a constitutionally protected fundamental right under Part III of the Indian constitution. 

2. Whether the judgments in M.P. Sharma and Kharak Singh, which denied privacy such protection, should be overruled. 

Importance: 

These issues are very important because they directly affect the main part of our constitutional freedoms, especially now when technology allows both the government and the private companies to easily collect, manage and misuse private information. Beyond data, privacy encompasses bodily autonomy, personal decisions, sexual orientation, reproductive rights and freedom of thought making it an essential component of dignity and liberty. 

The nine-judge bench declared the right to privacy as a constitutionally guaranteed fundamental right, which was secured by Article 21 and as a constituent of the freedoms bestowed through the Part III. The Court made it clear that the Constitution itself was a dynamic document intended to keep pace with the times, keeping in mind social progress as much as new rights springing up. It went a step further to add that the life and liberty of an individual wouldn't count for much unless individuals were granted freedom to make individual choices without the state's arbitrary interference.

Majority Opinion:

Justice D.Y. Chandrachud said that privacy itself isn’t a right, but it has a very strong relationship with our freedom, dignity, and equality. If you don't have privacy, these rights wouldn't make any sense in life. He went further to expound that when your privacy goes, other rights wouldn’t help you much. He termed privacy as “the heart of human dignity” of the Constitution. The Court went on to say that privacy itself is about your body, information, and choices.The Court also obtained help through the Indian as well as global cases like Griswold v. Connecticut (United States), R. v. Dyment (Canada) and Naz Foundation (India). An important factor is that all the nine judges rendered their own verdicts. For example, Justice Chelameswar believed privacy is required to have a free and tension-free life, Justice Bobde identified it with having authority over the own body along with freedom, whereas Justice Kaul focussed upon the need to prevent misuse of our individual information. The Court overruled the former cases like M.P. Sharma and Kharak Singh which had declined privacy as a right. It even used Articles 14, 19, 21 and the cases like Gobind and R. Rajagopal to justify the verdict. 

This case was an effective precedent for later cases related to privacy. It helped landmark judgments like the Navtej Singh Johar and the Aadhaar case, which enshrined laws regarding the use of Aadhaar. It affected new laws such as the Digital Personal Data Protection Act, 2023 and pushed forward the issue of AI, face recognition, and the state's snooping. It changed the way the state deals with the private lives of the people and put forth significant debates regarding the issue of privacy, individual data, and freedom

This Supreme Court judgment proved a landmark, as it found that our Constitution can adapt to the times. While citing privacy as a living right covering our body, our personal information, and our life choices, the Court went further to link privacy with major areas like bodily security, sexual inclinations, and liberty of the individual.Another good was the Court's balanced opinion it had about privacy not being absolute but it could be limited, when necessary, legal, and sensible. That secured privacy and the government acting sensibly together.

The Puttaswamy judgment is a landmark for India's constitutional democracy. It appropriately reinterpreted the Constitution in the light of today's reality and established a place for privacy as a core, non-derogable right. It set the template for future legal jurisprudence involving data protection, AI regulation, and self-determination of the body. In a rapidly digitizing age, the judgment ensures that constitutional values remain germane to new technology and societal change. It continues to be a beacon of how courts can advance individual rights despite the rising authority of the state.