Decided on-: 26 September 2018
Bench-: J.S. Khehar, C.J.I., Jasti Chelameswar, S.A. Bobde, R.K. Agrawal, Rohinton Fali Nariman, Abhay Manohar Sapre. Dr. D.Y. Chandrachud, Sanjay Kishan Kaul and S. Abdul Nazeer, JJ.
Judgment-: Justice A.K. Sikri
FACTS
This case was initiated through a petition filed by Justice K.S. Puttaswamy, a retired judge of the Karnataka High Court, regarding the Aadhaar Project led by the Unique Identification Authority of India (UIDAI). The Aadhaar number, a 12-digit identification, aimed to streamline service delivery and eliminate fraudulent beneficiaries in various government welfare schemes. Justice Puttaswamy's petition challenged the constitutional validity of the Aadhaar card scheme. Subsequently, other petitions challenging different aspects of Aadhaar were also brought before the Supreme Court.
In 2015, a three-Judge Bench of the Court raised concerns about the government's collection of demographic biometric data, alleging a violation of the right to privacy. The Attorney General of India contested the existence of the fundamental right to privacy, citing earlier judgments in the cases of M.P. Sharma and Kharak Singh. The three-Judge Bench, while addressing these challenges, recognized several Supreme Court decisions affirming the existence of a constitutionally protected fundamental right to privacy. Notably, these subsequent decisions supporting the right to privacy were issued by benches with fewer judges than those in M.P. Sharma and Kharak Singh. As a result, the case was referred to a Constitution Bench to reevaluate the precedents established in M.P. Sharma and Kharak Singh and assess the correctness of the subsequent decisions. On 18 July 2017, a Constitution Bench deemed it necessary to resolve the matter with a panel of nine judges.
ISSUE
Whether the right to privacy was a fundamental right under Part III of the Constitution of India.
RATIONALE
The Supreme Court confirmed privacy as a fundamental right under Article 21 of the Constitution. It expanded the concept beyond physical intrusion, encompassing body, mind, decisions, and information. The court overruled previous rulings that denied privacy as a fundamental right, emphasizing its broad and enforceable nature. It rejected the compartmentalized view of rights seen in prior judgments. The Court stated that privacy isn't absolute but can be restricted if necessary, lawful, and proportionate. It outlined a framework for judicial review of state intrusion, requiring legality, necessity, proportionality, and procedural guarantees. Different justices offered varying standards of scrutiny for privacy claims based on context. The judgment highlighted the importance of sexual orientation in privacy rights and recognized informational privacy. While advocating for a data protection law, it left the matter for Parliament to legislate. Overall, the judgment establishes privacy as a robust fundamental right while acknowledging the need for balanced limitations and protective measures in the interest of individuals' privacy.
JUDGMENT
The Supreme Court ruled that privacy is a fundamental right under Article 21 of the Constitution. It expanded privacy beyond physical invasion to cover body, mind, decisions, and information. The judgments in M.P. Sharma and Kharak Singh were overruled, affirming privacy as a fundamental right. The Court rejected the limited view of personal liberty from Kharak Singh and established privacy as an integral part of constitutional rights. It outlined that privacy isn't absolute but can be restricted if lawful, necessary, and proportional. The judgment stressed the need for procedural guarantees against state interference. Different justices presented varying standards of scrutiny for privacy claims, emphasizing the importance of context. The Court highlighted sexual orientation as a crucial aspect of privacy and recognized informational privacy. It urged for a data protection law, leaving it to Parliament to legislate on the matter. The ruling aimed to safeguard privacy comprehensively within constitutional provisions while allowing for reasonable limitations in specific instances.
Commentaires