3nd INTERNAL ASSESSMENT

LEGAL DATABASE

Name: Jahnavi Sharma

PRN: 18010126224
Division: C

Submitted to
Prof. Aditya Kaithal
________________

1|Page
Q. “Right to privacy should not be made fundamental right.” Do
you agree with this statement? Please justify your answer with the
following:

(A) CASE LAW1

i. Party Name:

 JUSTICE K S PUTTASWAMY (RETD.), AND ANR. (Petitioners)

 UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. (Respondents)

ii. Citation:

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION

WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO 494 OF 2012

iii. Judges:

 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
 S. Abdul Nazeer, JJ.

iv.Date of Judgement:24 August 2017

1
MANU/SC/1044/2017

2|Page
v. Judgement:

The nine judges of the Court gave six separate opinions, producing what would be the
contender for the longest reasoned judgment ever produced by a court, in a remarkable and
wide ranging 547page judgment the Court ruled unanimously that privacy is a constitution
protected right in India. The joint judgment makes it clear that the Indian Government is
under an obligation to establish a data protection regime to protect the privacy of the
individual.

By its order the Court ruled that the right to privacy is protected as part of the right to life and
fundamental liberty, this can be referred under Article 21. The case was referred to the
original bench three judges for decision on the merits.

vi. Why is the case law relevant?

The decision has been recognized as being one of the great legal and political significance.
The Opposition Congress party leader said that, “it will rank among the most important
judgments delivered by the Supreme Court since the advent of the constitution of India.” The
Hindustan Times stated that, “The country could not have got a better gift from the judiciary
for its 70th year of Independence”. The case has been a major setback for the Modi
Government.

The decision has been welcomed by the Indian and International commentators, it puts the
right to privacy at the heart of the constitutional debate in the world’s largest democracy and
is likely to provide assistance and inspiration for privacy campaigners around the world.

3|Page
 B. ARTICLE2

i. Title: Sowing the Seeds Of Doubt In The Fundamental Right To Privacy

ii. Journal: Comparative Constitutional Law and Administrative Law Quarterly

iii. Author: Anusha Ramesh

iv. Year of Publication: 2016

v. Summary of the article:

In 2012, a Writ Petition was filed on behalf of (Retd.) Justice K. S. Puttaswamy challenging
the constitutional validity of the AADHAR scheme of the Government, which provided for
the creation of the “Unique Identity Development Authority of India” (UIDAI) through an
Executive Order under the aegis of the Planning Commission. Pursuant to the said Order,
UIDAI, which was not even a statutory body, proceeded to collect personal data of residents
of India including Biometric Information to generate a “Unique Identification Number.” This
unique identification number came to be made a condition-precedent by governmental bodies
for an ailment of essential services as well as withdrawal of salary. In the Petition, besides
challenging the lack of any statutory authority backing the scheme, the heart of the
petitioner’s contention rested in that the Scheme strikes at the root of various fundamental
rights guaranteed under our Constitution including the right to privacy.
vi. Why is the article relevant?
The subject matter in the Writ Petition in Puttaswamy challenging the validity of the
AADHAAR Scheme most certainly warrants a reference to a Constitutional bench under
Article 145(3), having involved substantial questions relating to the contours of various
Rights guaranteed under Part III of our Constitution. But, for more than three years that the
matter was pending before the Supreme Court, a reference to a larger Bench under Article
145(3) was eschewed; and the reference in Puttaswamy was made regarding the very
recognition of the fundamental right to privacy that has been long settled, and effectively
protected by various judgments of the Supreme Court over more than thirty years. Therefore,

2
SCC Online

4|Page
it is a question which ceases to be substantial and the law on the subject has been rightly and
effectively followed over many years.

5|Page