Case Analysis Justice K.S. Puttaswamy v. UOI | Right to Privacy
Keywords: Fundamental Right, Right to Life, Indian Constitution, Right to Privacy, Absolute Right, Supreme Court
Written By: Simran Chandel
Title of the Case: Justice K.S.Puttaswamy (Retired). vs Union of India And Ors., 2017.
Citation: Writ Petition (Civil) No. 494 of 2012, (2017) 10 SCC 1
Court: Supreme Court of India
Parties Involved-
Appellant: Justice K S Puttaswamy (Retired)
Respondent: Union of India and Others.
Bench: Sanjay Kishan Kaul, Dhananjaya Y. Chandrachud, R. K. Agrawal, J. S. Khehar, S. A. Bobde, S. A. Nazeer, R. K. Agrawal, J. Chelameswar, A.M. Sapre JJ.
Brief Facts of Justice K.S. Puttaswammy (retd) v. Union of India
The case was brought by 91-year-old retired High Court Judge Puttaswamy against the Union of India (the GOI) before a nine-judge Supreme Court bench on a request from the Constitution Bench. To determine whether the right to privacy was guaranteed as an independent fundamental right following conflicting Supreme Court decisions.
The most recent instance involved a legal challenge against the government’s Aadhaar scheme (a biometrics-based identity card that the government proposed making mandatory for access to government services and benefits). The case was brought before a three-judge Supreme Court panel because the plan infringed on the right to privacy. On behalf of the UOI, the Attorney General contended that the Indian Constitution does not provide specific protection for the right to privacy. He based this on findings in the cases of M.P. Sharma v. Satish Chandra (an eight-judge bench) and also Kharak Singh v. Uttar Pradesh (an eight-judge bench) (a five-judge bench). However, an eleven-judge panel later concluded that basic rights should not be regarded as separate, unrelated rights, upholding the dissenting opinion in Kharak Singh. Later rulings by smaller SC benches that explicitly affirmed the right to privacy were based on this precedent.
In this context, a Constitution Bench was established, also with the conclusion that a nine-judge bench was required to evaluate whether the Constitution contained a basic right to privacy.
The Petitioner claimed before the nine-judge panel that this was an independent right granted by Article 21 of the Constitution’s Right to Life with dignity. According to Respondent, the Constitution only recognises personal liberty, which may include a limited right to privacy. The Court deliberated extensively on the nature of fundamental rights, constitutional interpretation, and the theoretical and philosophical foundations for the right to privacy, as well as the nature of the right itself.
Issues
- Is there a fundamental right to privacy guaranteed by the Indian Constitution?
- Is the Court’s conclusion in M.P. Sharma & Ors. vs. Satish Chandra, DM, Delhi & Ors., and also in Kharak Singh vs. The State of U.P., that there are no such fundamental rights, the proper statement of the constitutional position?
Petitioner’s Argument
The petitioner argued in court that the right to privacy is an integral part of the right to life and personal liberty guaranteed by Article 21 of the Constitution, as well as a part of the freedoms guaranteed by Part III of the Constitution and that it should be protected by the Indian constitution. It was also proposed to assess the correctness of the decisions in Karak Singh vs. The State of Uttar Pradesh and M. P. Sharma vs. Satish Chandra, alleging that they infringe on Article 21 of the Constitution’s Right to Privacy.
Respondent’s Argument
The defendant argued that the Indian constitution does not specifically protect the right to privacy and that because the right to privacy is not guaranteed under the Constitution, Article 21 of the Indian Constitution (the right to life and personal liberty) did not apply in the cases of M. P. Sharma vs Satish Chandra as well as Karak Singh vs. the State of Uttar Pradesh.
To complement the clear analysis, the court has examined a variety of privacy considerations.
1. State and Non-State Actors Face Privacy Concerns
It was decided that the claim of privacy protection can be made against both state and non-state actors. The threat in the age of technological advancement can come from both state and non-state actors.
2. Protection of personal information (Not an absolute right).
According to the court, informational privacy is a part of the right to privacy. The unauthorized use of such information may consequently constitute a violation of an individual’s right to control his or her data and to regulate his or her online presence.
The Planning Commission of India formed a group of experts to provide thorough reports on data protection as well as informational privacy, which submitted a report on October 16, 2012. The five main points of this paper were supposed to serve as a conceptual foundation for privacy laws.
The expert committee proposed a framework based on five key characteristics:
(i) Technological neutrality and interoperability with international standards;
(ii) Privacy in multiple dimensions;
(iii) Horizontal applicability to state and non-state entities;
(iv) Conformity with privacy principles; also
(v) A co-regulatory enforcement regime.
PDP Bill, 2018
On July 31, 2017, the Union Government formed a committee chaired by Retd. Justice B N Srikrishna, a former Supreme Court of India judge. Also to evaluate data protection rules in the country provide suggestions. The Committee’s report was released, and the first draft of the Personal Data Protection Bill, 2018 replaced the traditional concepts of the data controller. Also it is the entity that processes data, and the data subject, which is the natural person whose data is being collected, with data ‘fiduciary’ and data ‘principal’.
It intended to establish a trusting relationship between the two parties. The Bill substantially adopted data protection concepts from the EUGDPR and EU data protection case law, such as fair and reasonable data processing, purpose limitation, collection limitation, lawful processing, storage limitation, data quality, and accountability. The right to access and correction, the right to data portability, also with the right to be forgotten – a right to prevent or limit a fiduciary’s disclosure of personal data – are among these rights. Most notably, in the draught data protection law, consent was given a high priority. As a result, individual consent must be a major basis for processing personal data.
Judgment
On August 24, 2017, a nine-judge panel of the Supreme Court of India issued a major decision. As well as it preserves the basic right to privacy guaranteed by Article 21 of India’s constitution.
Also “No person shall be deprived of his right to life or personal liberty except according to the procedure prescribed by law,” says Article 21 of the Constitution.
The verdict states that privacy will be an inherent part of Part III of the Indian Constitution, which establishes people’s fundamental rights. The Supreme Court further declared that the state must strike a careful balance between individual privacy and legitimate goals, at all costs. As fundamental rights cannot be granted or taken away by legislation, all laws as well as activities must be consistent with the constitution. The Court also stated that the right to privacy is not absolute. And that any invasion of privacy by a state or non-state actor must pass the triple test, which includes the following:
1. Legitimate Aim
2. The proportionality principle
3. Compliance with the law
The decision of all nine judges holds that:
(i) the decision in M P Sharma vs. Satish Chandra, which holds that the right to privacy is not protected by the Indian Constitution, is overturned; (ii) the decision in Kharak Singh vs. the State of UP, to the extent that it holds that the right to privacy is not protected by the Constitution, is also overturned; and (iii) Under Article 21 of the Indian Constitution, the right to privacy is safeguarded as an integral aspect of the right to life and personal liberty, as well as one of the freedoms guaranteed by Part III of the Constitution.
Conclusion
The Supreme Court of India has once again shown itself to be the solitary defender of the constitution, establishing a legal basis for privacy protections in India. The verdict addresses all of the problems and establishes that, under India’s constitution, privacy is a fundamental inalienable right, intrinsic to human dignity as well as liberty.
In the case of Navtej Singh Johar v. Union of India (2018), the verdict paved the path for the legalising of homosexuality in India, as well as the repeal of the provisions of the crime of adultery in the case of Joseph Shine v. Union of India (27 September 2018). The case widens freedom of expression by recognising privacy as a right that may be enforced on its own, rather than as a right that can only be exercised in the context of constitutionally given freedoms. This protects freedom of expression by recognising rights such as the right to be free of arbitrary and unrestricted government monitoring, the right to express one’s sexual orientation, religious expression, and data protection.
Cases cited for Reference:
- M P Sharma v. Satish Chandra
- Kharak Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh
- A K Gopalan v. State of Madras
- Rustom Cavasji Cooper v. Union of India
- Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India
- Gobind v. State of Madhya Pradesh
- R Rajagopal v. State of Tamil Nadu
- People’s Union for Civil Liberties v. Union of India
Mail us at edumoundofficial@gmail.com
