The case of Justice K. S. Puttaswamy (Retd.) and Another v. Union of India is a landmark decision by the Supreme Court of India. The ruling provided a new perspective on citizens' right to privacy, affirming that the Right to Privacy is a Fundamental Right protected under Articles 14, 19, and 21 of the Indian Constitution.
The Hon’ble Court upheld the Aadhaar Act but struck down certain unconstitutional provisions within it. The Court affirmed that the Right to Privacy is an essential component of the Right to Life and Personal Liberty under Article 21, and is part of the freedoms guaranteed by Part III of the Constitution. This decision explicitly overturned the earlier landmark Supreme Court judgments in Kharak Singh vs State of UP and M.P. Sharma vs Satish Chandra, which had previously ruled that the Right to Privacy was not a Fundamental Right under the Indian Constitution.
Let's know more about this case in detail
Court
Supreme Court of India
Full case name
Justice K. S. Puttaswamy (Retd.) and Anr. vs Union Of India And Ors.
Decided
August 24, 2017
Citation
Writ Petition (Civil) No 494 of 2012; (2017) 10 SCC 1; AIR 2017 SC 4161
Judges sitting
J.S. Khehar, J. Chelameswar, S.A. Bobde, R.K. Agarwal, Rohinton F. Nariman, A.M. Sapre, Dr. D.Y. Chandrachud, Sanjay Kishan Kaul and S.A. Nazer
FACTS OF THE CASE
• A case was filed by 91-year-old retired High Court Judge Puttaswamy against the Indian Government before a nine-judge Supreme Court bench, which was established to resolve conflicting decisions on whether the right to privacy is an independent fundamental right.
• The case challenged the Aadhaar scheme, which the government wanted to make mandatory for accessing services and benefits, arguing that it violated the right to privacy.
• The Attorney General argued that the Constitution did not specifically protect the right to privacy, referencing earlier decisions in M.P. Sharma v. Satish Chandra and Kharak Singh v. Uttar Pradesh.
• An eleven-judge bench had previously clarified that fundamental rights should not be viewed as isolated, which influenced later decisions recognizing privacy as a fundamental right.
• A Constitution Bench decided that a nine-judge bench was needed to determine if the right to privacy was a fundamental right under the Constitution.
• The Petitioner argued that the right to privacy was an independent right, protected under Article 21, which guarantees the right to life with dignity.
• The Respondent contended that the Constitution only acknowledges personal liberties, which might include privacy to a limited extent.
• The Court examined extensive arguments on fundamental rights, constitutional interpretation, and the philosophical basis for the right to privacy.
ISSUE RAISED
1. Whether the right to privacy was a fundamental right under Part III of the Constitution of India.
ARGUMENT BY THE PARTIES
RESPONDENTS' ARGUMENTS:
- Relied on M.P. Sharma and Kharak Singh cases, where the Constitution was found not to specifically protect the right to privacy.
- These judgments were by an eight-judge and a six-judge bench respectively, argued to be binding over later judgments by smaller benches.
- Contended that the Constitution's framers did not intend for the right to privacy to be a fundamental right.
PETITIONERS' ARGUMENTS:
- Asserted that M.P. Sharma and Kharak Singh were based on the principles from A.K. Gopalan vs. State of Madras, which was later overruled by an eleven-judge bench in Rustom Cavasji Cooper vs. Union of India.
- Argued that the foundation of M.P. Sharma and Kharak Singh was therefore invalid.
- Highlighted that in Maneka Gandhi vs. Union of India, the minority view of Justice Subba Rao in Kharak Singh was approved, and the majority decision was overruled.
- Advocated for a multi-dimensional model of privacy as a fundamental right, contrasting with the Respondents' view that privacy is an ambiguous concept and should be addressed through statutory and common law.
- Argued for interpreting the Constitution in light of the Preamble, considering privacy as a natural and international human right, whereas Respondents favored a narrower approach focused solely on the Constitution and Parliament's role in modifying fundamental rights.
JUDGEMENT
In its judgment, the Court emphasized several key points:
1. Privacy concerns today can originate from both state and non-state actors, so privacy violations can be claimed against both.
2. Informational privacy in the internet age is not absolute; exercising control over personal data can sometimes lead to significant privacy breaches.
3. Article 21's scope has expanded over time, with various rights being incorporated into it due to judicial consensus.
4. On August 24, 2017, a 9-judge bench of the Supreme Court ruled that the fundamental right to privacy is a core component of Article 21, which guarantees fundamental rights. The Court highlighted the need to balance individual privacy with legitimate government interests.
The Court also clarified that the right to privacy is not absolute and any infringement by state or non-state actors must meet a "triple test":
- Legitimate Aim
- Proportionality
- Legality
The bench overruled the previous decisions in M.P. Sharma v. Satish Chandra, which denied constitutional protection for the right to privacy, and Kharak Singh, which limited privacy protection under Part III. It confirmed that the right to privacy is constitutionally protected under Article 21 and is a fundamental part of the rights guaranteed in Part III of the Constitution.
CONCLUSION
Justice K.S. Puttaswamy, a retired judge of the Karnataka High Court, challenged the Aadhaar scheme on constitutional grounds, claiming it violated his right to privacy. Initially, a three-judge panel acknowledged that the right to privacy was a constitutional guarantee and recommended that the matter be reviewed by a higher court. Consequently, a nine-judge Supreme Court bench examined the issue and on August 24, 2017, unanimously affirmed in the case of Justice K.S. Puttaswamy vs. Union of India, along with related cases, that every individual has a constitutional right to privacy.
Post a Comment