Puttaswamy vs. Union Of India

The Right to Privacy is the freedom from unwanted publicity and the ability to live without excessive intrusion from the government or any other individual in things that are not of public interest. Also, it stops the unauthorised sharing of personal data, which is protected under Article 21 of the Indian Constitution. The "Right to Privacy" jurisprudence in India is founded on the case of Justice K.S. Puttaswamy vs Union of India. In this instance, the nine-judge bench unanimously reiterated that everyone has the constitutional right to privacy. The Supreme Court ruled that maintaining one's privacy is essential to the freedoms afforded by other fundamental rights and is also a vital component of one's sense of worth, autonomy, and liberty. The initial contention in the case concerned whether the right to privacy was a basic right, which was brought up in 2015 during discussions about the constitutionality of the Aadhaar database.

Brief Facts Of The Puttaswamy Case

Retired Karnataka High Court Judge K.S. Puttaswamy filed a petition challenging the constitutionality of the Aadhaar project, which assigns a 12-digit identification number to Indian residents through the Unique Identification Authority of India (UIDAI). The Aadhaar program aimed to streamline welfare services and eliminate fraudulent beneficiaries. Puttaswamy questioned the legality of collecting demographic and biometric data, arguing it violated the right to privacy.

In 2015, a three-judge Supreme Court bench examined whether Aadhaar violated privacy rights. The Attorney General argued that the Constitution did not explicitly guarantee a fundamental right to privacy, citing earlier cases of M.P. Sharma and Kharak Singh.

The case was eventually referred to a nine-judge bench, where the petitioner argued that the right to privacy is protected under Article 21, which guarantees the right to life and dignity. The Court discussed the legal and philosophical basis of privacy as a fundamental right.

Issues Of The Puttaswamy Case

1. Whether the right to privacy is a fundamental right under the Indian Constitution.

2. If privacy is a fundamental right, what is its scope and limitations?

3. Whether the Aadhaar scheme, as implemented, violates the right to privacy.

Contentions Raised In The Puttaswamy Case

Petitioner’s View

• Petitioners contended that the decisions in the cases of M.P. Sharma and Kharak Singh, which rejected privacy as a basic right, were founded on antiquated ideas from the State of Madras v. A.K. Gopalan case. They emphasized that the Supreme Court eventually rejected A.K. Gopalan's strategy of interpreting each basic right independently in Rustom Cavasjee Cooper v. Union of India.

• Petitioners emphasized that the Supreme Court reversed the majority position and upheld Justice Subba Rao's minority opinion in Kharak Singh, which backed privacy rights. They contended that this indicated a move in favour of acknowledging privacy as essential.

• Petitioners argued for a multi-dimensional model of privacy as a fundamental right.

• They argued that privacy is not just a statutory or common law concept but is inherent in the Constitution and supported by international human rights norms. They advocated for interpreting the Constitution in light of its Preamble, which emphasizes justice, liberty, and equality.

Respondent’s View

• The Respondents mainly relied upon the judgments in the cases of M.P. Sharma and Kharak Singh, which had observed that the Constitution did not specifically protect the right to privacy. The Respondents argued that they would therefore be binding over the judgments of smaller benches given subsequently.

• The Respondents further argued that the makers of the Constitution did not intend to make the right to privacy a fundamental right.

• The Respondents argued that it was unconstitutional to pass the Aadhaar Act as a money measure. A money bill may only contain measures that address the issues outlined in Article 110(1) clauses (a) through (g) of the Indian Constitution in order to be approved.

• They further argued that the Aadhaar Act will demonstrate that it regulates a number of additional components of the Aadhaar scheme, none of which fall under the purview of Article 110(1).

Judgement Of The Puttaswamy Case

On August 24, 2017, the Supreme Court handed down a historic ruling in the KS Puttaswamy case, upholding privacy as a basic right guaranteed by Article 21 of the Indian Constitution.

This case reversed past rulings and established the importance of privacy for individual autonomy and human dignity. The Court made it clear that although privacy is vital, it is not unqualified and might be legally limited to serve legitimate governmental objectives. Strict requirements must be met for this restriction in order for it to be valid, essential, and appropriate for the intended outcome.

First, the right to privacy is the freedom from unjustified state interference in one's personal affairs; second, privacy is the ability to make decisions on one's own without undue influence. These two dimensions of privacy were highlighted in the ruling.

It also acknowledged that, particularly in the context of digital technology, privacy includes informational privacy, which is safeguarding personal data against illegal use or access. The Court emphasized the necessity of a strong legislative framework for data protection in order to secure personal information. Although it emphasized that data collection and usage for governance and service delivery must respect individuals' right to privacy, it also underlined the importance of data.

The ruling also addressed the rights of underrepresented groups, such as the LGBTQ+ community, stating that a person's sexual orientation is an essential component of who they are and is thus protected by their right to privacy.

Analysis Of The Puttaswamy Case

• Constitutionality: The Supreme Court upheld the Aadhaar Act but struck down certain provisions as unconstitutional.

• Aadhaar for Taxes: Aadhaar is mandatory for filing Income Tax Returns (ITR) and linking with PAN cards.

• Telecom & SIM Cards: Private telecom companies (e.g., Jio, Airtel) cannot mandate Aadhaar for issuing SIM cards. Any valid legal document can be used for proof.

• Online Payment Apps: Apps like PhonePe and Paytm can no longer require Aadhaar for Know Your Customer (KYC) processes after the ruling.

• Section 57: Struck down as unconstitutional, as it allowed private companies to mandate Aadhaar, raising privacy concerns.

• Aadhaar Usage: It can only be used to avail benefits from government agencies. Private entities cannot compel Aadhaar submission.

• Children's Benefits: No government agency can deny benefits to children who don’t have Aadhaar.

• Privacy Concerns: The judgment emphasized protecting individuals' privacy by limiting access to Aadhaar information.

Conclusion

The Puttaswamy case set a precedent by affirming privacy as an integral part of India’s fundamental rights framework. It provided clarity on the scope and limitations of privacy rights, ensuring that individuals’ autonomy and dignity are respected while balancing legitimate state interests. The decision underscored the importance of legislative and judicial measures to protect privacy in an increasingly digital age, marking a significant milestone in Indian jurisprudence on individual rights and freedoms.