Analysing the Landmark Supreme Court Judgment in Justice K.S. Puttaswamyv. Union of India
A 9-judge bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India delivered a unanimous & historic verdict in Justice K.S. Puttaswamy vs. Union of India on 24th August, 2017.
This judgement reshaped the landscape of privacy rights in the country by marking the place of an individual’s ‘Right to Privacy’ in the Constitution of India as a fundamental right, the basis of the same was to be found in the Right to live a life of freedom and dignity (Article 21 of the Constitution of India), and its constitutional foundation was to be found ‘across the spectrum of protected freedoms’.
The verdict was authored by Justice Chandrachud, speaking for himself and on behalf of Justices Khehar, R.K. Agarwal and Abdul Nazeer. The remaining 5 judges each wrote individual concurring judgments.
The purpose of this litigation was to determine whether or not privacy is a constitutionally protected value, it was an important subject of constitutional interpretation because if privacy was to be construed as a protected constitutional value, it would redefine in significant ways our concepts of liberty and the entitlements that flow out of its protection, such as protection from any potential government intrusion.
This litigation arose as a result of the following events:
1) A Writ petition filed in 2012 by Justice K S Puttaswamy, a retired judge of the High Court of Karnataka in 2012, challenging the constitutional validity of the Aadhaar scheme introduced by the UPA Government.
2) On August 11th 2015, a Bench of three judges while considering the constitutional challenge to the Aadhaar Scheme, noted in its judgement that the norms for and compilation of demographic biometric data by government was questionable on the ground that it violates the right to privacy. During this examination, the then Attorney General of India stated that that the existence of a fundamental right of privacy was in doubt considering the decisions passed in M P Sharma v Satish Chandra, District Magistrate, Delhi, 1954 (Eight Judge Bench) and Kharak Singh v State of Uttar Pradesh, 1964 (Six Judge Bench).
3) The three-judge bench took note of the above and passed an order that that a Bench of appropriate strength must examine the correctness of the decisions in M P Sharma v Satish Chandra, District Magistrate, Delhi, 1954 (Eight Judge Bench) and Kharak Singh v State of Uttar Pradesh, 1964 (Six Judge Bench).
4) This matter was first placed before a Five Judge Bench. Subsequently, the matter was referred to a Nine Judge Bench on July 18th 2017. The Bench comprised Chief Justice Khehar and Justices Jasti Chelameshwar, S.A. Bobde, DY Chandrachud, Abdul Nazeer, Nariman, R.K. Agarwal, Abhay Manohar Sapre, and Sanjay Kishan Kaul. Arguments began on July 19th 2017 and concluded on August 2nd 2017.
Why did the Aadhaar Case lead to the question of Privacy?
The Aadhaar project, conceived as a mechanism to enhance the optimal utilization of state resources, simultaneously sought to redefine the dynamic between the State and its citizens by facilitating the transmission of personal information. For the implementation of the Aadhaar ID, the citizen was required to, through his/her ‘free will’, allow his/her biometrics and demographic information to be stored by the State, this transmission was to be channelled with the help of private operators, the information provided by ‘free will’ or provided ‘voluntarily’ was to be used for authentication which was in several cases ‘mandatory’. When the three – judge bench questioned the government on concerns in relation to privacy because of the implementation of the Aadhaar scheme, the government did not deny its infringement with privacy, instead they were of the strong opinion that the Constitution of India did not recognize any right to privacy at all.
The then Attorney General of India relied on the judgements of M P Sharma v Satish Chandra, District Magistrate, Delhi, 1954 (Eight Judge Bench) and Kharak Singh v State of Uttar Pradesh, 1964 (Six Judge Bench), whose questionable correctness became the cause of this litigation leading to the landmark judgement being discussed herein.
What questions were dealt with in this verdict?
(i) The correctness of the decisions in M P Sharma and Kharak Singh
(ii) Whether there is a constitutionally protected right to privacy
(iii) If there is a constitutionally protected right, whether this has the character of an independent fundamental right or whether it arises from within the existing guarantees of protected rights such as life and personal liberty
(iv) The doctrinal foundations of the claim to privacy
(v) The content of privacy (vi) The nature of the regulatory power of the state
Differently Unanimous:
As explained earlier, while the judgement was unanimous, there were 6 different conclusions, some of the opinions are produced and commented on below:
I. The collective opinion of Justice Chandrachud, speaking for himself and on behalf of Justices Khehar, R.K. Agarwal and Abdul Nazeer:
‘Like other rights which form part of the fundamental freedoms protected by Part III, including the right to life and personal liberty under Article 21, privacy is not an absolute right. A law which encroaches upon privacy will have to withstand the touchstone of permissible restrictions on fundamental rights.
Informational privacy is a facet of the right to privacy. The dangers to privacy in an age of information can originate not only from the state but from non-state actors as well. We commend to the Union Government the need to examine and put into place a robust regime for data protection. The creation of such a regime requires a careful and sensitive balance between individual interests and legitimate concerns of the state. The legitimate aims of the state would include for instance protecting national security, preventing and investigating crime, encouraging innovation and the spread of knowledge, and preventing the dissipation of social welfare benefits. These are matters of policy to be considered by the Union government while designing a carefully structured regime for the protection of the data.’
This opinion clearly stated that the Right to Privacy was in fact a Constitutional right intrinsically present in Article 21 of the Indian Constitution and in other gamut of protected freedoms.
II. J. CHELAMESWAR cited the following:
‘45. The just, fair and reasonable standard of review under Article 21 needs no elaboration. It has also most commonly been used in cases dealing with a privacy claim hitherto.64 Gobind resorted to the compelling state interest standard in addition to the Article 21 reasonableness enquiry. From the United States where the terminology of ‘compelling state interest’ originated, a strict standard of scrutiny comprises two things- a ‘compelling state interest’ and a requirement of ‘narrow tailoring’ (narrow tailoring means that the law must be narrowly framed to achieve the objective).”
The Hon’ble J. Chelameshwar, was in complete agreement with the opinion of other judges emphasised on the importance of the Right to Privacy and explained how its limitations are an exception to only concrete cases of the State, which should be dealt with the strictest scrutiny so as to safeguard the fundamental Right of the Citizens of the country.
III. J. S. A. BOBDE cited the following:
‘b. The right to privacy is inextricably bound up with all exercises of human liberty – both as it is specifically enumerated across Part III, and as it is guaranteed in the residue under Article 21. It is distributed across the various articles in Part III and, mutatis mutandis, takes the form of whichever of their enjoyment its violation curtails. c. Any interference with privacy by an entity covered by Article 12’s description of the ‘state’ must satisfy the tests applicable to whichever one or more of the Part III freedoms the interference affects.’
IV. J SANJAY KISHAN KAUL cited the following:
‘83. Let the right of privacy, an inherent right, be unequivocally a fundamental right embedded in part-III of the Constitution of India, but subject to the restrictions specified, relatable to that part. This is the call of today. The old order changeth yielding place to new.’ The findings of the Hon’ble Justices clarified that though the Right of Privacy is not an absolute right but emphasised on the importance of scrutiny when the state feels the need to interfere with an individual’s Right to Privacy is to be tested.
Final Verdict:
In conclusion, the landmark Supreme Court decision in Justice K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India, delivered on 24th August 2017, stands as a watershed moment in the legal landscape of India. The unanimous verdict by a 9-judge bench not only acknowledged but firmly established the Right to Privacy as an integral and constitutionally protected facet of an individual's life and personal liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution. This judicial pronouncement not only redefined the contours of privacy rights but also set forth a comprehensive framework for evaluating the delicate balance between individual freedoms and the state's legitimate interests.
The significance of this judgment extends beyond the immediate context of the Aadhaar case; it resonates as a guiding precedent shaping future debates on privacy in an increasingly digitized and interconnected world. The justices, in their diverse yet convergent opinions, highlighted the nuanced nature of privacy as a right that is not absolute but subject to permissible restrictions. They underscored the need for a meticulous and context-sensitive approach in determining the validity of laws that encroach upon privacy, emphasizing the importance of a stringent review process.
The opinions articulated by Justice Chandrachud, Justice J. Chelameshwar, Justice S. A. Bobde, and Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul collectively emphasized the evolving nature of privacy rights. While Justice Chandrachud advocated for a robust data protection regime to navigate the challenges of the digital age, Justice J. Chelameshwar underscored the compelling state interest standard, emphasizing that any state interference with privacy must meet rigorous scrutiny.
Justice S. A. Bobde, in his opinion, intricately wove the right to privacy into the fabric of human liberty across the Constitution, reinforcing its distributed presence across various articles in Part III. Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul, while acknowledging privacy as an inherent and unequivocal fundamental right, recognized the need for reasonable restrictions. The final verdict, in overturning the decisions in M P Sharma and Kharak Singh, not only rectified past interpretations but laid down a solid foundation for the protection of privacy rights. It declared that the right to privacy is not merely a derivative of other fundamental rights but an independent and intrinsic right that citizens are entitled to. This ruling serves as a compass, guiding the legal discourse on privacy and individual freedoms.
In the broader societal context, this judgment reinforces the citizens' entitlement to privacy, particularly in the face of technological advancements and government initiatives such as Aadhaar. It underscores the judiciary's commitment to safeguarding individual liberties while recognizing the legitimate concerns of the state. As India navigates its journey through a rapidly evolving digital landscape, this decision provides a constitutional anchor, ensuring that the Right to Privacy remains a bulwark against unwarranted intrusions into the private lives of its citizens. In essence, the Puttaswamy judgment not only upheld privacy as a right but affirmed its centrality in the constitutional scheme, thereby leaving an indelible mark on the jurisprudential landscape of the country. The final verdict over – ruled the decisions in M P Sharma & Kharak Singh which did not uphold the Right to Privacy as Constitutional Right for the Citizens of India.
The court held that the right to privacy is protected as an intrinsic part of the right to life and personal liberty under Article 21 and as a part of the freedoms guaranteed by Part III of the Constitution and also upheld the decisions subsequent to Kharak Singh which have enunciated the position regarding the Right to Privacy being a fundamental right.
Hence, The Right to Privacy is a right that we as the citizens of India are entitled to, a right which cannot be compromised to stop Piracy, as intended by Aadhaar through its unique identification. The judgment affirmed that protecting privacy is crucial in balancing individual interests and the legitimate concerns of the state. As citizens, the entitlement to privacy is a constitutional right that must be upheld, especially in the face of initiatives such as Aadhaar, ensuring the safeguarding of fundamental rights against potential privacy infringements.
References:
1. Fifteen Judgments: Cases that Shaped India’s Financial Landscape – A book by Saurabh Kirpal
2. The Wire
3. The Hindu
Comments