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

OVERVIEW:

Justice K.S. Puttaswamy (Retd.) & Anr. vs. Union of India & Ors. has been regarded as the
linchpin of the country's Right to Privacy rulings. The nine-judge bench of the Supreme Court
unanimously ruled that the right of privacy is an essential component of India's Constitution and
is a part of its freedom and autonomy.

This case was initially about the fundamental right to privacy. In 2015, the arguments related to
the validity of the Aadhaar database were raised. It was then referred to a nine-judge bench of the
Supreme Court due to the significant importance of this right and the various issues surrounding
it. In a unanimous decision, the Supreme Court ruled that the right to privacy is an integral part
of the freedom of individuals to live and work in accordance with Article 21 and Part III of the
Constitution. It also overruled the previous judgments of the court in Kharak Singh and M.P.
Sharma.

The case reinforced the concept of the right to privacy and paved the way for the implementation
of new legislation safeguarding the confidentiality of personal information. It also discussed its
importance as an intrinsic value.

FACTS OF THE CASE:

The case was filed by Justice Puttaswamy who was a judge of the court that handled the case
related to the UIDAI's controversial project, which involved the issuance of an ID number
known as the Aadhaar.The goal of the project was to create a more efficient and effective service
delivery system by linking various welfare schemes with the biometric identification number.
The judge's petition sought to challenge the validity of the scheme. Other similar cases were also
filed in the Supreme Court.

In 2015, a three-judge bench of the court questioned the government's data collection and
compilation procedures regarding the use of biometric information. The Attorney General of the
country argued that the right to privacy was not protected by precedents like M.P. Sharma vs.
Satish Chandra1 and Kharak Singh vs. State of Uttar Pradesh2.

The judges noted that the Supreme Court had already ruled that the right to privacy was a
fundamental right. But, their subsequent decisions, which upheld the protection of this right,
were made by smaller benches. A Constitution Bench was then appointed to look into the case to

1
(1954) SCR 1077
2
(1964) 1 SCR 332
determine if the decisions made in the previous cases were correct. In 2017, the court ruled that
the issue should be decided by a nine-judge bench.

ISSUES RAISED:

Amongst 9 issues raised, the following issues standout:

1. Whether the creation of a surveillance state is possible under the aegis of the Aadhaar
Project?
2. Whether the implementation of the Aadhaar project is unconstitutional and a violation of
the right to privacy?
3. Is the protection of children included in the provisions of Section 7 of the Aadhaar Act?
4. Is the Aadhaar Act a Money Bill under the provisions of Article 110 of the Constitution
of India?
5. Whether the issue of Section 139AA of Income Tax Act, 1961 violates the right of
citizens to privacy?
6. Is the 2005 Rule 9(a) of the Maintenance of Records Rules, which requires linking of the
national identity card with bank accounts, valid under the Constitution of India?
7. Whether the Telecom Department's March 23, 2017 circular regarding the linking of
mobile numbers with the national ID card, is unconstitutional and illegal?
8. Is the manner in which the respondents conducted themselves in violation of the interim
orders of the court?

LAWS CONCERNED:

1. Article 110, Article 14, Article 19, and Article 21 of Constitution

2. Sections 2(c) and 2(d) read with Section 32, Section 2(h) read with Section 10, Section
2(v), Section 3, Section 5, Section 6,Section 7, Section 8, Section 9; Sections 11 to 23;
Sections 23 and 54; Section 23(2)(g) read with Chapter VI & VII; Section 29, Section 33,
Section 47, Section 48, Section 57, Section 59 of the Aadhaar Act
3. Section 139AA of Income Tax Act 1961

ANALYSIS:

The Respondents relied on the decisions of M.P Sharma and Kharak Singh, who had noted that
the Constitution does not provide for the protection of privacy. The two judgments were
delivered by eight and six Judge Benches respectively. The Respondents claimed that these
decisions would be binding on the decisions of other benches. They also argued that the founders
did not intend for the right to privacy to be a fundamental right.
The petitioners stated that Kharak Singh and M.P. Sharma were founded on the principles
established in A.K. Gopalan v. State of Madras3. They also claimed that A.K. Gopalan's
interpretation of the fundamental rights provision in the Chapter was not good law. The
petitioners stated that the decisions of the previous tribunals were not correct. They also urged
the court to disregard the majority's decision in the Maneka Gandhi vs. Union of India4 case and
approve the minority's verdict in the Kharak Singh case. Other arguments were made regarding
the scope of the right of privacy. The petitioners argued that the concept of privacy should be
considered a fundamental right, while respondents stated that it was an ambiguous concept that
could only be properly classified as a common and statutory right. They highlighted that the
Constitution should be read in accordance with the Preamble, and that the right to privacy was an
international and natural right. They also argued that the Parliament was the only body that has
the power to modify the Constitution's fundamental rights.

In their affidavit, the respondents stated that the purpose of the Act was to make sure that the
citizens who are entitled to benefits and subsidies from the government are not deprived of them.
They also maintained that the Act does not violate the Right to Privacy. According to the
respondents, the Act does not ask for personal information about citizens. It only seeks to collect
demographic data such as their names, ages, genders, and email addresses. The Act provides that
the citizens can provide their email address and mobile number to the government. However,
these two are only required to provide AMH with certain information and authentication
methods. The Act also seeks to collect information from the public domain. They also stated that
the Act prohibits the government from collecting sensitive information from citizens, such as
their medical history, caste, ethnicity, and religion. Due to Section 3 of the Act, it is very limited
when it comes to collecting information about citizens. Besides their email addresses and mobile
numbers, the Act also only seeks to collect biometric information such as their iris scans and
fingerprints.

The government has included a provision in the Income Tax Act that requires the citizens to
quote their 12-digit biometric identifier known as Aadhaar while applying for a PAN card and
filing their returns. This is aimed at identifying tax evaders and ensuring that only one person has
a PAN card. Making the mandatory requirement of the 12-digit national identity card known as
Aadhaar a part of the national security framework can help identify and prevent fraudulent
activities. The UIDAI can also deactivate or permanently disable the number provided to
individuals.

CONCLUSION:

In six separate opinions, the Supreme Court ruled that the right to privacy is a fundamental right
under the Constitution. It was not a derivative right, as some believe, but a right that covers the

3
1950 SCR 88
4
(1978) 1 SCC 248
mind and body, including freedom of thought, expression, and decision-making. The court ruled
that the right to privacy is a multi-faceted and enforceable right under the Constitution's third
section. It was not a derivative right, as some believe, but a right that covers the mind and body,
including freedom of thought, expression, and decision-making.

The Court held that the M.P Sharma case was not affected by the limitations on the powers of the
authorities to search and seize under the Indian Constitution. It maintained that the laws did not
limit the search and seizure powers of the law enforcers.The US Constitution's Fourth
Amendment did not provide a comprehensive protection to the privacy of individuals in India.
As a result, the Court overturned the M.P. Sharma verdict.

The Court rejected the concept of personal liberty that was presented by Kharak Singh, who had
borrowed from A.K. Gopalan. The Court noted that this approach was no longer acceptable after
Maneka Gandhi. The majority opinion of the court in Kharak Singh was based on an internal
contradiction. It held that there was no legal basis to strike down police surveillance and
domiciliary visits on the basis of privacy.

The decisions made following the Kharak Singh decision on the protection of privacy will be
considered according to the principles of the judgment, the Supreme Court ruled. The Court also
examined the issue of whether the right to private life was protected under the Constitution's
various guarantees of personal liberty and freedom. The court rejected the Attorney General's
argument that the right to privacy should be disregarded in the interest of providing welfare
benefits. It also held that the right to privacy could not be absolute. However, it provided a
comprehensive overview of the judicial review standard that should be applied in cases of state
intrusion into the privacy of individuals.

The Supreme Court stressed the importance of protecting one's sexual orientation, stating that it
was an essential aspect of privacy. It also discussed the positive and negative aspects of the right
to enjoy privacy, wherein the State was restrained from interfering with the individual's right to
privacy, and it was required to take adequate measures to protect it. The court ruled that
informational privacy was a part of the fundamental right to privacy, and it left it to Parliament to
enact a data protection law.