ABSTRACT

The landmark case of Puttaswamy vs. Union of India, adjudicated by the Supreme Court of
India in 2017, marked a significant milestone in the realm of constitutional law and
individual rights in the country. At the heart of this case was the question of the right to
privacy as a fundamental right guaranteed under the Indian Constitution.

The case originated from a series of challenges to the Aadhaar program, a biometric
identification system implemented by the Indian government. Petitioners argued that the
Aadhaar program violated their right to privacy and raised concerns about the potential for
mass surveillance and infringement of civil liberties.

In its judgment, the Supreme Court recognized the right to privacy as an intrinsic part of the
fundamental rights guaranteed by the Constitution, encompassing the right to bodily integrity,
personal autonomy, and informational privacy. The Court's decision affirmed that privacy is
essential for the exercise of other freedoms and is indispensable in a democratic society.

Furthermore, the Court laid down a framework for evaluating privacy infringements,
emphasizing the need for any encroachment on privacy to be justified by a legitimate state
interest and to adhere to the principles of proportionality and necessity.

The Puttaswamy judgment has had far-reaching implications beyond the Aadhaar program,
shaping the legal landscape concerning privacy rights in India. It has influenced subsequent
rulings, government policies, and public discourse on issues such as data protection,
surveillance, and technology regulation.

In summary, the Puttaswamy case stands as a pivotal moment in Indian jurisprudence,

affirming the centrality of the right to privacy in safeguarding individual freedoms and
establishing a robust framework for its protection in the digital age.
Introduction

In the modern digital era, where information flows freely and technology permeates every
aspect of daily life, the protection of individual privacy has become a paramount concern.
Against this backdrop, the Puttaswamy vs. Union of India case emerges as a watershed
moment in Indian jurisprudence, marking a significant milestone in the recognition and
safeguarding of privacy rights.

The case originated from a series of legal challenges to the Aadhaar program, a biometric
identification system launched by the Indian government. However, its ramifications
extended far beyond the specific context of Aadhaar, touching upon fundamental questions
about the scope and sanctity of privacy in the digital age.

At the heart of the Puttaswamy case lay a fundamental question: Does the Indian Constitution
guarantee a right to privacy as a fundamental right? The petitioners argued vehemently in the
affirmative, contending that privacy is intrinsic to the dignity and autonomy of individuals,
forming the bedrock upon which other freedoms rest.

In its landmark judgment delivered in August 2017, the Supreme Court of India
unequivocally affirmed the existence of a fundamental right to privacy under thethe
Constitution. The Court's ruling, authored by a nine-judge bench, articulated a nuanced
understanding of privacy encompassing various facets such as bodily integrity, personal
autonomy, and informational privacy.

The significance of the Puttaswamy judgment transcends the immediate context of the
Aadhaar program. It set forth a robust legal framework for evaluating privacy infringements,
emphasizing the need for any encroachment on privacy to be justified by a legitimate state
interest and to adhere to the principles of proportionality and necessity.

Moreover, the Puttaswamy case ignited broader conversations about the implications of
technology on privacy rights, spurring discussions on data protection, surveillance practices,
and the regulation of emerging technologies. It underscored the imperative for laws and
policies to adapt to the evolving digital landscape while upholding constitutional principles
and individual liberties.

In essence, the Puttaswamy vs. Union of India case stands as a testament to the judiciary's
role in safeguarding fundamental rights in the face of technological advancements and
societal transformations. By recognizing and affirming the right to privacy as a cornerstone of
democracy and individual dignity, the judgment has left an indelible mark on India's legal
landscape and serves as a beacon for privacy advocates worldwide.

Constitution. The Court's ruling, authored b1y a nine-judge bench, articulated a nuanced
understanding of privacy encompassing various facets such as bodily integrity, personal
autonomy, and informational privacy.

2.https://blog.ipleaders.in/justice-k-s-puttaswamy-retd-and-anr-vs-union-of-india
BACKGROUND

2
The background of the Puttaswamy vs. Union of India case is rooted in the implementation
of the Aadhaar program in India. Aadhaar, introduced by the Indian government in 2009, is a
unique 12-digit identification number assigned to residents based on their biometric and
demographic data. The program aimed to streamline government welfare delivery, enhance
administrative efficiency, and curb corruption by ensuring targeted service delivery to
intended beneficiaries.

However, as Aadhaar became increasingly integrated into various aspects of daily life,
concerns arose regarding its implications for privacy and civil liberties. Critics argued that the
collection and centralized storage of biometric and personal data posed significant risks to
individual privacy, potentially enabling mass surveillance and unauthorized access to
sensitive information.

A series of petitions challenging the constitutional validity of the Aadhaar program were filed
before the Supreme Court of India. The primary contention of the petitioners was that
Aadhaar violated the fundamental right to privacy guaranteed under the Indian Constitution.
They argued that privacy is an inherent aspect of human dignity and autonomy, essential for
the exercise of other freedoms, and that any infringement upon it must be justified by a
compelling state interest and subject to stringent legal safeguards.

The case gained momentum as it progressed through various stages of litigation, ultimately
culminating in a historic judgment by a nine-judge bench of the Supreme Court in August
2017. While the immediate focus was on the constitutionality of Aadhaar, the case also
provided an opportunity for the Court to address broader questions about the scope and nature
of privacy rights in the digital age.

The Supreme Court's judgment in the Puttaswamy case was eagerly anticipated, as it had the
potential to redefine the contours of privacy law in India and establish a precedent for future
cases involving technology, data protection, and individual liberties. Ultimately, the Court's
ruling affirmed the existence of a fundamental right to privacy under the Indian Constitution
and laid down guidelines for evaluating privacy infringements, setting a significant precedent
for the protection of privacy rights in India3.

3
Justice K.S.Puttaswamy(Retd) vs Union Of India on 15 December, 2017 (indiankanoon.org)
OVERVIEW OF THE CASE

• 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:
o Appellant: Justice K. S. Puttaswamy (Retired)

Respondent: Union of India and Others

4
The Aadhaar (Authentication) Regulations, 2016, the PML (Maintenance of Records) Fifth
Amendment Rules, 2017 and all notifications issued under Section 7 of the Act, which made
Aadhaar mandatory for obtaining various benefits, have all been the subject of legal
challenges even after the Aadhaar scheme received statutory backing with the passage of the
Act in 2016. The claim that the Aadhaar scheme and the Act infringed the right to privacy
was one of the main criticisms levelled against them.

Along with the substantive challenge based on the right to privacy, the enactment of the Act
as a Money Bill in accordance with Article 110 of the Constitution of India was contested
because it did not require a Rajya Sabha vote.

‘Unique Identification for BPL Families’ was a project which was initiated by the Government
of India. A Committee was set up for the project. The creation of a Unique Identification
database was suggested by the Committee for the said project. The project was decided to be
set up in three phases.

In January 2009, the Planning Commission of India passed a notification on UIDAI (Unique
Identification Authority of India). In 2010, the National Identification Authority of India Bill
was passed by the Commission. Retired Justice K S Puttaswamy and Mr. Parvesh Sharma in
November 2012 filed a PIL Writ Petition in the Supreme Court challenging the validity of
Aadhaar.

The scheme was challenged as it was violative of Fundamental Rights. The scheme violated
the right to privacy under Article 21 of the Indian citizens. After filing this writ petition, a series
of orders were passed. The Aadhaar Act was passed in 2016. The petitioners then filed another
writ petition challenging the vires of the Act. This writ petition was then merged with the
previous one and was treated as one writ petition.5

Jairam Ramesh who was the Former Union minister and Congress leader moved Supreme
Court in May 2017. He challenged the decision to treat the Aadhaar Bill as a money bill.

4
Justice K.S.Puttaswamy(Retd) vs Union Of India on 26 September, 2018 (indiankanoon.org)
5
Constitution of india
On 24th August 2017, the Supreme Court ruled that the right to privacy is a Fundamental Right
under Article 21 of the Indian Constitution. On 17th January 2018, the hearing of Aadhaar Case
was started in Supreme Court. The Supreme Court on 25th April 2018 questioned the Centre
on linking the Aadhaar with mobile. On 26th September 2018, the Supreme Court held Aadhaar
card to be valid but struck down certain provisions such as mandatory linking of Aadhaar with
mobile, bank accounts and school admissions6

ISSUES RAISED IN JUSTICE K.S. PUTTASWAMMY(RETD) V. UNION OF INDIA

• Whether the Aadhaar Project creates or has tendency to create surveillance state and is,
thus, unconstitutional on this ground?
a) What is the magnitude of protection that needs to be accorded to collection, storage and
usage of biometric data?

b) Whether the Aadhaar Act and Rules provide such protection, including in respect of data
minimisation, purpose limitation, time period for data retention and data protection and
security?

• Whether the Aadhaar Act violates right to privacy and is unconstitutional on this
ground? (in context of Sections 7 and 8 of the Aadhaar Act.)
• Whether the Aadhaar Act defies the concept of Limited Government, Good Governance
and Constitutional Trust?
• Whether the Aadhaar Act could be passed as ‘Money Bill’ within the meaning of
Article 110 of the Indian Constitution?
• Whether Section 139AA of the Income Tax Act, 1961 is violative of right to privacy
and is, therefore, unconstitutional?
• Whether Rule 9(a)(17) of the Prevention of Money Laundering (Maintenance of
Records) Rules, 2005 and the notifications issued thereafter, which mandate linking of
Aadhaar with bank accounts, are unconstitutional?
Justice Chandrachud's dissenting opinion was grounded in a robust understanding of privacy
as essential for protecting individual autonomy and human dignity. He argued that privacy is
not explicitly enumerated in the Constitution but is implicit in the guarantee of personal
liberty under Article 21
Case law: Justice Chandrachud referred to various landmark cases to support his argument,
including:
Kharak Singh vs. State of Uttar Pradesh (1962): Although this case did not explicitly
recognize privacy as a fundamental right, it laid the groundwork for acknowledging
privacy concerns in surveillance practices.7
Maneka Gandhi vs. Union of India (1978): This case expanded the scope of personal
liberty under Article 21, emphasizing the importance of procedural fairness and
individual freedoms.8

6
Case Summary: Justice K. S. Puttaswamy (Retd.) vs. Union of India, 2017 - LawLex.Org
7
Kharak Singh vs. State of Uttar Pradesh (1962
8
Maneka Gandhi vs. Union of India (1978
 R. Rajagopal vs. State of Tamil Nadu (1994): In this case, the Supreme Court
recognized the right to privacy as inherent in the right to life and personal liberty,
particularly in the context of protecting journalistic sources9
Kaul's Dissent: Justice
Justice Kaul's dissenting opinion took a pragmatic stance, questioning whether
privacy should be elevated to the status of a fundamental right explicitly protected
under the Constitution.
Case law: While Justice Kaul did not explicitly reference case law in his dissent, his
arguments align with certain principles established in previous judgments, such as:
A.K. Gopalan vs. State of Madras (1950): This case initially construed the right to life
and personal liberty under Article 21 narrowly, focusing primarily on procedural
safeguards rather than substantive freedoms.10
Minerva Mills Ltd. vs. Union of India (1980): In this case, the Supreme Court struck
down parts of the 42nd Amendment to the Constitution, emphasizing the importance
of balancing fundamental rights and governmental powers11

Overall, the dissenting opinions in the Puttaswamy case, while not prevailing, provided
valuable perspectives on the interpretation of privacy rights under the Indian Constitution. By
referencing relevant case law, the dissenting justices contributed to a nuanced discussion on
the scope and implications of privacy in the digital age, enriching the legal discourse
surrounding fundamental rights and governmental powers.

9.R. Rajagopal vs. State of Tamil Nadu (1994):

10
A.K. Gopalan vs. State of Madras (1950):
11
Minerva Mills Ltd. vs. Union of India (1980
IMPACT OF THE JUDGEMENT
The Puttaswamy judgment had a profound impact on the legal landscape in India,
particularly in relation to privacy rights and data protection. Here are some key effects of this
landmark ruling:
1. Recognition of Fundamental Right to Privacy:
o The most significant outcome was the recognition of the fundamental right
to privacy as an intrinsic part of the right to life and personal liberty under
Article 21 of the Indian Constitution.
o Prior to this judgment, privacy was not explicitly recognized as an
independent fundamental right.
2. Privacy as a Constitutional Right:
o The Supreme Court clarified that privacy is not merely a common law right
but a constitutional right.
o It emphasized that privacy is essential for the dignity and autonomy of an
individual.
3. Overturning Previous Decisions:
o The Puttaswamy case overturned earlier decisions (such as M.P. Sharma &
Ors. vs. Satish Chandra, DM, Delhi & Ors. and Kharak Singh vs. The State of
U.P.), which had held that there was no fundamental right to privacy.
o By doing so, it reaffirmed the importance of privacy in the modern digital age.
4. Impact on Aadhaar and Biometric Data:
o The case specifically challenged the constitutionality of Aadhaar, India’s
biometric identification system.
o The judgment led to significant reforms in the Aadhaar system,
including limiting its mandatory use and ensuring better protection of
citizens’ biometric data.
5. Data Protection and Regulation:
o The Puttaswamy judgment laid the groundwork for data protection laws in
India.
o It emphasized the need for robust regulations to safeguard individuals’
personal information.
6. Global Influence:
o The ruling had implications beyond India’s borders, inspiring discussions on
privacy rights worldwide.
o It contributed to the global discourse on digital privacy and the balance
between security and individual rights.12

In summary, the Puttaswamy judgment marked a significant shift in India’s legal framework,
recognizing privacy as a fundamental right and influencing subsequent legislation and legal
developments related to privacy and data protion
In the Puttaswamy vs. Union of India case, judicial review and the principle of
separation of powers played significant roles in shaping the Court's decision regarding
the right to privacy. Here's how these concepts were dealt with in the case:
Judicial Review:
The Puttaswamy case involved a thorough judicial review of the constitutional
validity of the Aadhaar program, which was challenged on the grounds of violating
the right to privacy.

12
Case summary: K.S Puttaswamy Vs Union of India | Law column
 The Supreme Court, acting as the guardian of the Constitution, engaged in a
comprehensive analysis of the Aadhaar Act and its implications for privacy rights.
Through judicial review, the Court assessed whether the Aadhaar program, with its
collection and use of biometric and demographic data, adhered to the constitutional
principles of individual liberty, dignity, and privacy.
Ultimately, the Court's judgment affirmed the right to privacy as a fundamental right
under the Indian Constitution, thereby exercising its power of judicial review to strike
down provisions of the Aadhaar Act that were deemed unconstitutional
Separation of Powers:
The separation of powers doctrine is fundamental to democratic governance. It
divides government functions into three branches: legislative, executive, and judicial.
In the Puttaswamy case, the Court recognized the importance of maintaining this
separation:
Legislative: The power to make laws.
Executive: The power to implement laws and govern.
Judicial: The power to interpret laws and ensure their constitutionality.
By asserting the limits on the central government’s use of Article 356, the Court reinforced
the idea that no single branch should dominate the others1
Impact and Legacy:
The Puttaswamy judgment not only established the right to privacy but also had
broader implications:
Decriminalization of Homosexuality: The ruling paved the way for the
decriminalization of homosexuality in India in the Navtej Singh Johar v. Union of
India case (2018).13
Abolishing Adultery Provisions: It also played a role in abolishing provisions related to the
crime of adultery in the case of Joseph Shine v. Union of India (2018)114

The Supreme Court's judgment in the Puttaswamy case was eagerly anticipated, as it had the
potential to redefine the contours of privacy law in India and establish a precedent for future
cases involving technology, data protection, and individual liberties. Ultimately, the Court's
ruling affirmed the existence of a fundamental right to privacy under the Indian Constitution
and laid down guidelines for evaluating privacy infringements, setting a significant precedent
for the protection of privacy rights in India.

o 13
Navtej Singh Johar v. Union of India case (2018).13

14
Joseph shine vs union of india 2018
DISSENTING OPINION ANALYSIS
In the Puttaswamy vs. Union of India case, while the majority of the justices recognized the
right to privacy as a fundamental right under the Indian Constitution, there were dissenting
opinions that offered alternative viewpoints. Let's analyze the dissenting opinions along with
relevant case laws:

1. Justice Chandrachud's Dissent:

• Justice Chandrachud's dissenting opinion was grounded in a robust
understanding of privacy as essential for protecting individual autonomy and
human dignity. He argued that privacy is not explicitly enumerated in the
Constitution but is implicit in the guarantee of personal liberty under Article
21.
• Case law: Justice Chandrachud referred to various landmark cases to support
his argument, including:
• Kharak Singh vs. State of Uttar Pradesh (1962): Although this case did
not explicitly recognize privacy as a fundamental right, it laid the
groundwork for acknowledging privacy concerns in surveillance
practices.
• Maneka Gandhi vs. Union of India (1978): This case expanded the
scope of personal liberty under Article 21, emphasizing the importance
of procedural fairness and individual freedoms.
• R. Rajagopal vs. State of Tamil Nadu (1994): In this case, the Supreme
Court recognized the right to privacy as inherent in the right to life and
personal liberty, particularly in the context of protecting journalistic
sources.
2. Justice Kaul's Dissent:
• Justice Kaul's dissenting opinion took a pragmatic stance, questioning whether
privacy should be elevated to the status of a fundamental right explicitly
protected under the Constitution.
• Case law: While Justice Kaul did not explicitly reference case law in his
dissent, his arguments align with certain principles established in previous
judgments, such as:
• A.K. Gopalan vs. State of Madras (1950): This case initially construed
the right to life and personal liberty under Article 21 narrowly,
focusing primarily on procedural safeguards rather than substantive
freedoms.
• Minerva Mills Ltd. vs. Union of India (1980): In this case, the Supreme
Court struck down parts of the 42nd Amendment to the Constitution,
emphasizing the importance of balancing fundamental rights and
governmental powers.

Overall, the dissenting opinions in the Puttaswamy case, while not prevailing, provided
valuable perspectives on the interpretation of privacy rights under the Indian Constitution. By
referencing relevant case law, the dissenting justices contributed to a nuanced discussion on
the scope and implications of privacy in the digital age, enriching the legal discourse
surrounding fundamental rights and governmental powers.
Judicial review and the separation of powers are fundamental principles in constitutional law
that help ensure a system of checks and balances within a democratic government. Let's delve
into each concept
JUDICIAL REVIEW AND SEPARATION OF POWERS:
In the Puttaswamy vs. Union of India case, judicial review and the principle of separation of
powers played significant roles in shaping the Court's decision regarding the right to privacy.
Here's how these concepts were dealt with in the case:

1. Judicial Review:
• The Puttaswamy case involved a thorough judicial review of the constitutional
validity of the Aadhaar program, which was challenged on the grounds of
violating the right to privacy.
• The Supreme Court, acting as the guardian of the Constitution, engaged in a
comprehensive analysis of the Aadhaar Act and its implications for privacy
rights.
• Through judicial review, the Court assessed whether the Aadhaar program,
with its collection and use of biometric and demographic data, adhered to the
constitutional principles of individual liberty, dignity, and privacy.
• Ultimately, the Court's judgment affirmed the right to privacy as a
fundamental right under the Indian Constitution, thereby exercising its power
of judicial review to strike down provisions of the Aadhaar Act that were
deemed unconstitutional.
2. Separation of Powers:
• The principle of separation of powers was implicitly addressed in the
Puttaswamy case, particularly concerning the roles of the legislative,
executive, and judicial branches.
• The Court's ruling in the case underscored the importance of the judiciary's
role as an independent arbiter tasked with interpreting and upholding the
Constitution.
• By declaring the right to privacy as a fundamental right, the Court asserted its
authority to review and potentially invalidate legislative actions (such as the
enactment of the Aadhaar Act) that infringe upon constitutional rights.
• Additionally, the judgment reaffirmed the separation of powers by
emphasizing the need for legislative and executive actions to adhere to
constitutional principles and not exceed their respective spheres of authority.

In summary, the Puttaswamy case exemplifies the vital role of judicial review in safeguarding
constitutional rights, including the right to privacy. Through its decision, the Supreme Court
reinforced the principle of separation of powers by asserting the judiciary's authority to
review and strike down laws or governmental actions that contravene the Constitution, thus
maintaining a system of checks and balances within the Indian democratic framework.
comparative analysis of the Puttaswamy vs. Union of India case with similar cases or legal
developments in other jurisdictions can provide valuable insights into the global discourse
surrounding privacy rights and constitutional law. Let's compare the Puttaswamy case with
the European Union's General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) and the United States'
Fourth Amendment jurisprudence:
1. Puttaswamy vs. Union of India (India):
• Context: The case centered around the constitutionality of the Aadhaar
program, which involved the collection and use of biometric and demographic
data for identification purposes.
• Outcome: The Supreme Court of India recognized the right to privacy as a
fundamental right under the Indian Constitution, affirming its importance in
safeguarding individual autonomy and dignity. The Court struck down
provisions of the Aadhaar Act that were found to violate privacy rights.
• Implications: The judgment set a significant precedent for privacy rights in
India, influencing subsequent legislation and jurisprudence related to data
protection and surveillance practices. It highlighted the judiciary's role in
protecting fundamental rights in the digital age.
2. General Data Protection Regulation (EU):
• Context: The GDPR is a comprehensive data protection regulation enacted by
the European Union to harmonize data privacy laws across member states and
enhance protection for individuals' personal data.
• Key Features: The GDPR establishes principles for the lawful processing of
personal data, requires organizations to obtain explicit consent for data
processing activities, and grants individuals various rights, including the right
to access, rectify, and erase their personal data.
• Implications: The GDPR has had a significant impact on data protection
practices worldwide, influencing how organizations collect, store, and process
personal data. It has raised awareness about privacy rights and imposed
substantial penalties for non-compliance, prompting global companies to adapt
their policies and procedures.
3. Fourth Amendment Jurisprudence (United States):
• Context: The Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution protects
against unreasonable searches and seizures by the government and requires
probable cause and a warrant for searches and seizures.
• Key Cases: Landmark Supreme Court cases such as v. United States Katz
(1967) and Riley v. California (2014) have expanded Fourth Amendment
protections to include electronic communications and digital data.15
• Implications: U.S. Fourth Amendment jurisprudence has evolved to address
privacy concerns in the digital age, with courts grappling with issues such as
government surveillance, data searches and seizures, and the protection of
electronic communications. The balance between individual privacy rights and
law enforcement interests continues to be a subject of debate and litigation.

In comparison, while the Puttaswamy case focused on privacy rights within the Indian
constitutional framework and the Aadhaar program, the GDPR and U.S. Fourth Amendment
jurisprudence offer broader perspectives on data protection and privacy in the digital era.
However, all three examples reflect ongoing efforts to reconcile technological advancements

15
United States Katz (1967) and Riley v. California (2014) have expanded Fourth
Amendment
with fundamental rights and legal principles, underscoring the global significance of privacy
rights in contemporary society.
CONCLUSION

the K.S. Puttaswamy judgment we see that the two methods of constitutional interpretation
namely, Comparative and Structuralist Constitutional Interpretation, though not similar, end
up supporting each other. The Structuralist approach helps in forming a foundation for the
right to privacy to be accepted as an inextricable part of the Article 21, whilst laying the
framework for the same when read with Article 12.
In
We can further see that structuralist school of interpretation stands as a more effective
foundation when backed by comparative constitutional interpretation. This is because
structural interpretation alone helps define the relevance of right to privacy being read
within Article 21, limiting itself to the texts of the constitution.[17] Although, when read with
the support of comparative constitutional interpretation, it points to the fact that similar
claims are being held in other nations as well which have legal systems that are
genealogically related to India which bolsters the primary argument made on the grounds of
the Structuralist school of constitutional interpretation.

In conclusion, this shows that both Comparative and Structural Constitutional Interpretation
though different form one another when seen independently; but when brought together to
interpret the K.S Puttaswamy judgment, compliment each other, thus validating the Courts
rationale behind incorporating Right to Privacy within Article 21of the Indian Constitution as
a Fundamental Right to be guaranteed by the state.
Case Brief: Justice K.S. Puttaswammy (Retd) v. Union of India (lawbhoomi.com)
Constitutional validity of Aadhar Act in the case of Justice K.S. Puttaswamy (Retd.) and Anr.
Vs. Union of India - iPleaders
Justice K.S.Puttaswamy(Retd) vs Union Of India on 15 December, 2017 (indiankanoon.org)
Case Study: The Case Justice K.S. Puttaswammy v/s. Union Of India (legalserviceindia.com)
Judgment of the Court in Plain English (I) - Supreme Court Observer (scobserver.in)