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

1. Introduction: The case revolves around the constitutional validity of the Aadhaar Project, raising the pivotal question of whether the right to privacy is a fundamental right under the Indian Constitution. The dispute emerged in 2015, initially concerning the Aadhaar database, and subsequently evolved into a landmark decision regarding the broader concept of the right to privacy.

(i) Facts: Initiated by retired Justice K.S. Puttaswamy, the case challenged the constitutional validity of the Aadhaar card scheme, a 12-digit identification number linked to various welfare schemes in India. The challenge was based on concerns about the violation of the right to privacy, leading to the case being referred to a nine Judge Bench due to conflicting precedents.

(ii) Issue: The central issue was whether the right to privacy constitutes a fundamental right under Part III of the Indian Constitution.

(iii) Arguments: The Respondents relied on earlier decisions in M.P. Sharma and Kharak Singh, arguing that these judgments, which did not recognize the right to privacy, were binding. They contended that the framers of the Constitution did not intend to establish privacy as a fundamental right. In contrast, the Petitioners argued that these decisions were based on outdated principles and were overruled by subsequent judgments. They advocated for a broader interpretation of privacy, aligning with international human rights principles.

(iv) Decision: The Supreme Court, through six separate opinions, unanimously declared the right to privacy as a distinct and independent fundamental right under Article 21 of the Constitution. The Court overruled M.P. Sharma and Kharak Singh, emphasizing the expansive nature of privacy, covering not only physical invasion but also the mind, decisions, choices, and information.

The Court outlined a nuanced standard of review for state intrusion into privacy, emphasizing legality, need, and proportionality. It acknowledged that the right to privacy is not absolute but can be restricted under certain conditions. Additionally, the judgment recognized sexual orientation as an essential facet of privacy and affirmed informational privacy as part of the broader right.

While acknowledging the need for a data protection law, the Court left the matter for Parliament to legislate on. The decision laid the groundwork for the right to privacy as an intrinsic part of the Constitution, reinforcing its connection to dignity, autonomy, and liberty.

(v) Key Points:

1. The right to privacy is a fundamental right under Article 21 and Part III of the Indian Constitution.
2. M.P. Sharma and Kharak Singh judgments, which denied the right to privacy, were overruled.
3. The standard of review for state intrusion includes legality, need, and proportionality.
4. Sexual orientation is recognized as an integral aspect of privacy.
5. Informational privacy is affirmed as part of the right to privacy.
6. Parliament is tasked with legislating on data protection. [1]

2. Constitutional Interpretation in K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union Of India (2017)

Background: The Indian legal system historically rejected the right to privacy as a fundamental right in cases like MP Sharma v. Satish Chandra and Kharak Singh v. State of UP. However, the landscape changed in 2017 with the K.S. Puttaswamy judgment, where a nine-member constitutional bench declared the right to privacy as an intrinsic part of Article 21, falling under Part III of the Indian Constitution.

Constitutional Interpretation Methods:

(i)Comparative Constitutional Interpretation: The court employed a genealogical approach, comparing foreign constitutions, case laws, and international human rights documents. This method aimed to derive insights and legal principles from other jurisdiction. Mentioned countries like the United States, the United Kingdom, South Africa, and international documents like the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR). Criticisms were noted, emphasizing the need for caution in comparative interpretation and its potential limitations.

(ii) Structuralist Constitutional Interpretation: The court used a structuralist approach, correlating the term "liberty" in the Preamble with Article 21. This method focused on understanding the values, theories, and philosophies embedded in different parts of the constitution. Highlighted the interconnectedness of liberty in the Preamble and Article 21, emphasizing the guiding principles of the constitution. Argued that structural interpretation provides a foundation for recognizing the right to privacy within Article 21, forming the basis for legal claims. [2]

3. Conclusion:

• The combination of Comparative and Structuralist Constitutional Interpretation in the K.S. Puttaswamy judgment reinforced the acceptance of the right to privacy as a fundamental right under Article 21.
• Structuralist interpretation laid the foundation within the constitutional text, linking liberty principles between the Preamble and Article 21.
• Comparative interpretation provided additional support by demonstrating similar claims in other legal systems, establishing the relevance of the right to privacy globally.
• Together, these methods validated the court's decision to incorporate the right to privacy within Article 21, ensuring it as a fundamental right protected by the state

4. 4.444
10. Top of Form

4. Citations

[1] Justice K.S. Puttaswamy (Retd.) Anr. vs. Union of India Ors., Available at: https://privacylibrary.ccgnlud.org/case/justice-ks-puttaswamy-ors-vs-union-of-india-ors#:~:text=Case%20Brieftext=The%20nine%20Judge%20Bench%20in,of%20dignity%2C%20autonomy%20and%20liberty (Last visited January 20, 2024).

[2] Structuralist and Comparative Interpretation of the K.S.Puttaswamy v. Union Of India, Available at: https://www.legalserviceindia.com/legal/article-3513-structuralist-and-comparative-interpretation-of-the-k-s-puttaswamy-v-union-of-india.html#:~:text=In%20the%20K.S.%20Puttaswamy%20Judgment,Kingdom%2C%20therefore%20establishing%20a%20direct. (Last visited January 20, 2024).