K.S. Puttaswamy Case (2017)
– Right to Privacy as a Fundamental Right
Background of the Case
The case arose in the context of challenges to the Aadhaar scheme, where the Union Government argued that → The Constitution does not recognise a fundamental right to privacy
This contention relied on two old Supreme Court judgments:
- M.P. Sharma Case (1954)
- Kharak Singh Case (1962)
Given the wide constitutional ramifications, a nine-judge Constitution Bench was constituted.
Core Constitutional Questions
- Is the Right to Privacy a Fundamental Right under the Constitution?
- If yes, where is it located—Article 21 alone or Part III as a whole?
- What are the limits and tests for restricting privacy?
Supreme Court’s Judgement
The Court delivered a unanimous verdict, though through multiple concurring opinions.
(a) Right to Privacy Declared a Fundamental Right
The Court held that:
- Right to privacy is a Fundamental Right
- It is protected:
- As an intrinsic part of Article 21 (life and personal liberty)
- And also, as a component of the freedoms under Part III (Articles 14, 19, etc.)
Thus, Privacy is not a standalone right, but a constitutional value that permeates Part III.
(b) Privacy as Autonomy and Dignity
The Court gave a philosophical and human-centred meaning to privacy and held that it:
- Protects individual autonomy
- Allows individuals to:
- Control personal choices
- Shape their identity
- Decide intimate aspects of life
Privacy was linked to → Human dignity, Personal liberty, Self-determination
(c) Privacy Is Not an Absolute Right
The Court clarified that:
- Like all Fundamental Rights, privacy is not absolute
- It can be restricted, but only under strict constitutional scrutiny
The Three-Fold Test for Invasion of Privacy
The Court laid down a clear constitutional standard for any law that infringes privacy.
Such a law must satisfy:
- Legality
- There must be a law in existence
- Executive action alone is insufficient
- Legitimate State Aim (Need)
- The law must pursue a legitimate state purpose
- Such as national security, welfare delivery, public order, etc.
- Proportionality
- There must be a rational nexus between → The objective and the means adopted
- The least intrusive method must be used
Additionally:
- The procedure must be fair, just, and reasonable, in line with Article 21
Overruling of Earlier Judgements
The Court expressly overruled → M.P. Sharma (1954), Kharak Singh (1962)
It held that → Later judgments recognising privacy had laid down the correct position of law
This restored doctrinal coherence.
Constitutional Significance
This judgment:
- Expanded Article 21 into the digital age
- Strengthened constitutional morality
- Shifted Indian jurisprudence from:
- State-centric → Individual-centric
- Made dignity and autonomy foundational constitutional values
Impact on Subsequent Judgements
The Puttaswamy verdict became the constitutional foundation for major rights-based decisions, including:
- Indian Young Lawyers Association (Sabarimala, 2018) – bodily autonomy
- Joseph Shine (2018) – decriminalisation of adultery
- Navtej Singh Johar (2018) – LGBTQ+ rights and dignity
Aadhaar Judgement (Puttaswamy-II, 2018)
Based on this ruling, the Supreme Court later examined the Aadhaar Act, 2016.
Key findings:
- Aadhaar is constitutionally valid
- Collection of biometric and demographic data → Does not per se violate privacy
- Aadhaar does not create a surveillance state
- However, certain provisions were struck down or read down
As a follow-up:
- Aadhaar and Other Laws (Amendment) Act, 2019 was enacted
Place in Article 21 Evolution
| Case | Contribution |
|---|---|
| Maneka Gandhi (1978) | Fair, just, reasonable procedure |
| NALSA (2014) | Identity & dignity |
| Puttaswamy (2017) | Privacy, autonomy, proportionality |
Summary
The K.S. Puttaswamy Case (2017) declared the Right to Privacy a Fundamental Right, grounded in Article 21 and Part III, overruled earlier contrary precedents, and laid down a three-fold test of legality, legitimate aim, and proportionality for any invasion of privacy.