“JUSTICE K. S.
PUTTASWAMY
vs.
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS, 2017”
INTEGRAL UNIVERSITY LUCKNOW
FACULTY OF LAW
COURSE: CONSTITUTIONAL LAW-II (LW-363)
SESSION: 2024-25
SUBMITTED BY:
AREESHA AAFREEN SUBMITTED TO:
Enrollment No: 2200100935 DR. MIRZA JUNED BEG
Course: B.A. LL.B (3rd Year) (ASSISTANT PROFESSOR)
1
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
First of all, I bow in reverence to the Almighty for blessing me with strong will power,
patience and confidence, which helped me in completing the present work.
I am writing to express my sincere gratitude to Prof. (Dr.) Naseem Ahmed (Dean ,
Faculty of Law) for the support and guidance provided during the process of writing
my recent article. Your encouragement and feedback have been invaluable in shaping
my understanding of legal research and writing.
I would also like to extend my appreciation to Dr. Seema Siddiqui (Head of
Department) for creating an environment that fosters academic growth and critical
thinking. Your leadership has inspired me to delve deeper into legal discourse and
explore new avenues of legal analysis.
Furthermore, I am grateful to my course teacher Dr. Mirza Juned Beg (Assistant
Professor), for their expertise and dedication in guiding me through the intricacies of
legal writing. Their insightful feedback and constructive criticism have significantly
enhanced the quality of my work.
I am proud to have had the opportunity to contribute to the legal literature under your
mentorship, and I look forward to applying the skills and knowledge gained from this
experience in my future endeavors.
Thank you once again for your continuous support and belief in my academic
pursuits.
AREESHA AAFREEN
B.A. LL.B
2200100935
2
TABLE OF CONTENT
S. NO. TITLE PAGE NO.
1. INTRODUCTION 4
2. BRIEF FACTS 5
3. ISSUES 5
4. CONTENTION BY PARTIES ON 6-8
ISSUES
5. JUDGEMENT AND REASONING 9-10
6. CRITICAL ANALYSIS 11
7. WHAT IF THIS CASE IS DECIDED IN 11-13
2025?
8. CONCLUSION 13
9. REFRENCES 14-15
3
“Justice [Link] (Retired) vs. Union of India and Ors, 20171”
Name of the Case: Justice [Link] (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 KS 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 J.J.
I. INTRODUCTION
This case is a landmark judgment concerning the right to privacy, challenging the validity of the
Aadhaar. The Aadhaar is a 12 digit unique identity number that can be obtained by citizens of
India, based on their biometric and demographic data. The data is collected by UIDAI (Unique
Identification Authority of India), a statutory authority established in January 2009 by the
Government of India, under the Ministry of Electronics And Information Technology. The
Aadhaar card contains details such as Name. Date of Birth, Aadhaar Number, Gender.
Photograph, Residential Address, and QR code representing the Aadhaar. The principle purpose
of Aadhaar is to empower the State to distribute the available resources to the underprivileged
masses, ensuring that these valuable resources are not misused by those who already have the
means to use these resources.
This judgment is important as it deals with a right which is so precious to every individual. No
individual would appreciate unnecessary intervention by others in their personal lives. We live
in an interconnected world where we find we find technology at work in every inch of our lives,
which desperately calls for a development in protecting the privacy of individuals.
1
(2017) 10 SCC 1
4
II. BRIEF FACTS
A retired High Court Judge K.S Puttaswamy filed a petition in the Supreme Court in 2012
against the Union of India challenging the constitutionality of Aadhaar on the ground that it
violated an individual’s right to privacy. In the public interest litigation, the petitioners
specifically challenge the ground that it violates the fundamental rights of the citizens of the
country. More than a billion Indians have so far been registered in the Aadhaar programme,
which sees citizens issued with a 12-digit number that aligns to specific biometric data such as
eye scans and fingerprints. Registration is now become mandatory for filing tax returns, opening
bank accounts, securing loans, buying and selling property or even making purchases of 50,000
rupees and above. Many orders were passed from time to time but in 2016 with the enactment
of the Aadhaar Act, these petitioners filed a new petition challenging the Aadhaar Act. In mid-
2017 the former Union Minister and the congress leader Jairam Ramesh approached the
Supreme Court challenging the decision to treat the Aadhaar Bill as the money Bill. Finally on
August 24, 2017, a nine judge bench of apex court giving the verdict that the right to privacy
considered to be a fundamental right under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.
III. ISSUES
1. Whether the ‘right to privacy’ is an intrinsic right under the ‘right to life and personal liberty
under Article 21 2 and the various other freedoms enshrined under Part III of the Indian
Constitution?
2. Whether the decision made by the Court in M. P. Sharma and Others v. Satish Chandra,
District Magistrate, Delhi, and Others3’ and Kharak Singh vs. The State of UP4 is correct
in law?
2
The constitution of India, art. 21
3
AIR 1954 SC 300
4
AIR 1963 SC 1295
5
IV. CONTENTION BY PARTIES ON ISSUES
PETITIONERS:
The petitioners contended that the planning of the Aadhaar Act by its very virtue is probabilistic
in nature. The Act aims to extend subsidies, benefits, and services to society. It is possible that
rather than providing these benefits, subsidies, and services to the section of society for which
these are meant, it may end up excluding them from receiving such beneficiaries.
The main arguments were that the Act may take away the rights and liberties of the citizens of
the country which are guaranteed to them under the Indian Constitution. Strict implementation
of the Aadhaar Act can be a serious problem as it is contrary to the Fundamental Rights which
are given in the Indian Constitution to the citizens of the country.
The Aadhaar was in contravention to the Constitution and had the potential to enable an intrusive
state to become a surveillance state (a state in which the Government has the ability to monitor
the activities of its citizens) based on the information that would be collected from each.
Individual by creating a joint electronic mesh.
It was contended that the Right to Privacy of the citizens was being violated. Right to Privacy
is an integral part of Article 21 of the Indian Constitution le Right to life and liberty. The Act
imposes restrictions that are not provided under Article 19 5 as reasonable restrictions. If any
restriction is imposed then it is important that it satisfies the requirements of Article 14 and 19
of the Indian Constitution 6. It is also important that the law which imposes such a restriction
must be fait, just and reasonable.
In the present case, the restrictions which are imposed by the Government through the Aadhaar
Act do not fall under reasonable restrictions and are arbitrary and unreasonable. There isn’t any
reasonable classification as there is no nexus between the classification of society made by the
Act and the objective which the Act strives to achieve The information which was sought from
5
The Constitution of India, art. 19
6
The Constitution of India, art. 14 & 19
6
the citizens violated the integrity of the citizens. The object of the Act was not in nexus with the
information which was sought to be collected by the citizens. The Act also made a classification
of citizens based on religion. Classification based on religion did not only discriminate citizens
but also forced them to reveal their religion which is violative of Article 25 7 of the Indian
Constitution. Further, the Act also made Aadhaar Cards compulsory for availing certain benefits
that were offered by the Government to the citizens under the Act. The compulsion of Aadhaar
Cards will also enable the Government to put the citizens under its surveillance and this would
amount to a violation of the Right to privacy under Article 21 of the Constitution. Violation of
the Right to privacy is a very serious violation of the Right to life as it encroaches upon the life
and dignity of the citizens which is the basic right guaranteed under the Constitution.
RESPONDENTS:
It was stated by the respondents in the affidavit that their intention behind introducing the Act
was to ensure that all the citizens who are eligible for the benefits and subsidies by the
Government receive such benefits and subsidies and aren’t deprived of it.
It was also rebutted by the respondents that the Aadhaar Act does not ask for any information
which can violate a person’s Right to Privacy. It was submitted by the respondents that the Act
barely asks for any personal information from the citizens which can enable State surveillance
on them. The respondents further stated that the demographic information which the Act seeks
to ask from the citizens. Include name, date of birth, gender, address, mobile number and email
address of the citizens. Providing mobile number and email address to the State was left on the
option of the citizens and these two are required only for transmitting relevant information to
the AMH and for providing One Time Password (OTP) for their authentication. The information
which the Act seeks to receive from the citizens is in the public domain. It was also stated by
the respondents that the Act under Section 2(k) 8 specifically provides that the regulations cannot
ask for the information like race, religion, caste, tribe, ethnicity, language, income, records of
7
The Constitution of India, art. 25
8
The Aadhaar Act, s 2(k)
7
entitlement or medical history from the citizens and hence, any sensitive information can’t be
asked from the citizens through this Act. In light of the Section stated above the scope of
obtaining any additional demographic information is very limited and even the biometric
information which the Act seeks to obtain from the citizens is limited to their fingerprints and
an iris scan.
It was stated by the respondents that Aadhaar works as an identity card which is used by around
92 crore people for accessing various social schemes or availing benefits which are provided by
the Government to its citizens. It is a document which widely is being used by the citizens and
restricting it would create a problem for the citizens. Aadhaar is a document that can help the
Government in detecting and eliminating the duplication and impersonation in muster rolls and
beneficiary lists. It also helps the workers under MONREGA and pensioners to withdraw their
wages and pensions every month.
The respondents also rebutted the privacy contention stating that the data which is obtained by
the Act is secure as it is encrypted at its source and all the biometrics of the citizens are stored
by the Government in the Government of India's servers. The Government of India's servers has
a security standard which is one of the best in the world. The duplication of cards or fake cards
for availing the benefits. which are provided by the Government can be avoided with the help
of Aadhaar number which asked from the citizens. Aadhaar will also be able to help in reducing
the involvement of middlemen who try to drain off a part of the Government's subsidy which is
made available for a particular section of the society. Government subsidies are mainly
concerned with goods and services like food grains, fertilizers, water, electricity, education,
healthcare. The Government usually provides these goods and services at a lower price than the
market price. To make this initiative work efficiently Aadhaar can be used. Aadhaar can be used
to ensure timely and direct payment to the sections of society for which subsidies are made
available by the Government and prevent leakage of money. This step can save thousands of
crores of rupees which are lost in leakage. The Government have identified crores of duplicate
ration cards, Aadhaar can ensure that the benefits and subsidies which are mean for certain
sections of society actually reaches them.
8
V. JUDGEMENT AND REASONING
The case came before a three judge Bench of the Court which, on 11 th August 2015, ordered that
the matter should be referred to a larger Bench of the Court. On 18 th July 2017, a five judge
Constitution Bench ordered the matter to be heard by a nine judge Bench and the Judgment was
delivered on 24 August, 2017.
• [Link] (on behalf of himself, C.J. Kehar, J. Agrawal and J. Nazeer) was of the
view that there was a need for the Constitution to evolve to face the challenges that an
individual may come across in an age where technology governs virtually every aspect of
our lives. It is imperative for the Courts to impart meaning to the concept of individual
liberty, particularly where an overarching presence of State and non-State entities regulates
aspects of social existence which bear upon the freedom of an individual. Every individual
irrespective of social or economic status is entitled to the intimacy and autonomy which
privacy protects.
• J. Chelameswar was of the opinion that among basic rights conferred on individuals by the
Constitution as a shield against excesses by the State, some rights are at the core of human
existence. Thus, they are granted the status of fundamental, inalienable rights essential to
enjoy liberty. Liberty is the freedom of an individual to do what he pleases and the exercise
of that freedom would be meaningless in the absence of privacy.
• J. Bobde was of the opinion that natural rights are those rights which protect the moral
rights which are inbuilt in human existence. The dignity and autonomy of an individual over
themselves are safeguarded moral values, thereby making privacy a natural and inalienable
right. It must be elevated to the status of a fundamental right and granted constitutional
protection irrespective of whether it is legal or common law right.
• J. Nariman in his concurring opinion, classified the facets of privacy into non-interference
with the individual body, protection of personal information and autonomy over personal
choices. He was of the opinion that The three great dissents of Fazl Ali J. In A.K. Gopalan,
9
Subba Rao J. In Kharak Singh, and Khanna J. In ADM Jabalpur indicate the true meaning
of Article 21. The dissenting opinion of Subba Rao J. In particular has a direct bearing on
privacy. It records that the right to life and personal liberty under Article 21 includes the
right to be free from encroachments in private life, and even in the absence of an express
right to privacy in the Constitution, it is an essential ingredient of personal liberty.
• J. Sapre was of the opinion that the right to privacy is an inherent, inalienable and
multifaceted right of an individual enabling the enjoyment of a meaningful life with dignity
and must be recognised and cherished in every society governed by Rule of Law. It emanates
from Articles 21 and 19 as well as the Preamble. However, this right is subject to reasonable
restrictions which the State is entitled to impose by law, to protect social, moral and
compelling public interest.
• J. Kaul discussed the right to privacy with respect to protection of informational privacy
and the right to preserve personal reputation. He said that the law must provide for data
protection and regulate national security exceptions that allow for interception of data by
the State.
Decision that has been passed by all nine judges holds:
(i) The decision in MP Sharma vs. Satish Chandra which holds that the right to privacy is
not protected by the Constitution of India stands over-ruled;
(ii) The decision in Kharak Singh vs. State of UP to the degree that it holds that the right to
privacy is not protected by the Constitution also stands over-ruled;
(iii) The right to privacy is protected as an intrinsic part of the right to life and personal
liberty under Article 21 of the constitution of India and as a part of the freedoms
guaranteed by Part III of the Constitution
10
VI. CRITICAL ANALYSIS
Broadly, the promise of the Aadhaar scheme was to ensure efficient, transparent, and targeted
delivery of subsidies, benefits and services by the government of India in its quest for the elusive
idea of good governance. The constitutional validity of this Act was challenged by several
individuals and organisations. One of the main challenges to the Act was that it violated a
fundamental right to privacy of Indian citizens. But, the Aadhaar scheme was one of the most
ambitious projects of the Government of India. Launched with the sole purpose of empowering
the marginalized section of the society, it was initiated as a scheme to provide a unique
identification number for every citizen in India This scheme gave way to many privacy rights
battles. The question of dignity, informational self-determination and consent formed the basis
for the privacy rights claims surrounding the Aadhaar scheme.
VII. WHAT IF THIS CASE IS DECIDED IN 2025?
If the Justice K.S. Puttaswamy (Retd.) v. Union of India case were decided in 2025, the legal
landscape concerning privacy would likely be even more developed than it is today. Here’s a
speculative analysis:
1. Technological Advancements and Privacy Concerns:
• Increased reliance on AI and Big Data: By 2025, AI and Big Data would be even more
deeply integrated into daily life. The court would need to grapple with the privacy
implications of technologies like facial recognition, predictive analytics, and the Internet of
Things (IoT).
• The Metaverse and Virtual Worlds: The rise of the Metaverse and virtual reality platforms
would present novel challenges to privacy, as individuals leave behind extensive digital
footprints in these immersive environments.
• Data Breaches and Cybersecurity: With the increasing volume of personal data being
collected and stored, data breaches and cybersecurity threats would be even more significant
11
concerns. The court would need to consider the adequacy of existing data protection
measures and the need for stricter regulations.
2. Potential Outcomes of the Case:
• Stronger Emphasis on Data Protection: The court might issue more specific guidelines on
data protection, including data minimization, purpose limitation, and storage restrictions.
This could lead to stricter regulations on data collection and processing by both government
and private entities.
• Recognition of New Privacy Rights: The court might expand the scope of privacy rights to
encompass emerging technologies and digital environments. This could include recognizing
the right to control one’s digital identity, the right to be forgotten in the Metaverse, and the
right to protection from AI-driven surveillance.
• Balancing Privacy with Innovation: The court would need to strike a balance between
protecting individual privacy and fostering innovation in the digital space. This could
involve creating a regulatory framework that allows for the development of new
technologies while safeguarding fundamental rights.
3. Impact on Society:
• Increased Awareness of Privacy Rights: A 2025 decision in this case would likely raise
public awareness of privacy issues and empower individuals to demand greater control over
their personal data.
• Influence on Global Privacy Laws: India’s Supreme Court is highly regarded internationally.
A strong decision on privacy could influence the development of privacy laws in other
countries, particularly in the Global South.
• Challenges to Implementation: Enforcing privacy rights in the face of rapidly evolving
technologies would be a significant challenge. The government would need to invest in
robust enforcement mechanisms and promote collaboration between stakeholders.
12
In conclusion, a 2025 decision in the Puttaswamy case would likely address the complex privacy
challenges posed by advancements in technology. It could lead to stronger data protection laws,
recognition of new privacy rights, and increased awareness of privacy issues among the public.
However, effectively implementing and enforcing these rights in a dynamic digital landscape
would require ongoing effort and collaboration.
VIII. CONCLUSION
This landmark decision has been used as a precedent in landmark cases such as Navtej Johar v.
Union of India 9 (decriminalising Section 377 10 ) and Joseph Shine v. Union of India 11
(decriminalising adultery). Though this was a judgment through the which the judges passed a
unanimous judgment quoting the works of many famous jurists regarding privacy, the right to
privacy like every other freedom is not absolute but comes with certain restrictions in the interest
of individual and national security. These restrictions must be demonstrably necessary and
proportionate to the legitimate aim pursued. The delicate balancing act between individual
liberty and societal needs remains a continuous process, particularly in the face of evolving
technologies and societal norms. The Puttaswamy judgment, therefore, not only recognized
privacy as a fundamental right but also set the stage for ongoing judicial and legislative
engagement with the complex dimensions of this right in the 21 st century and beyond. The
continuous interpretation and application of this principle will shape the future of privacy in
India.
9
AIR 2018 SC 4321
10
The Indian Penal Code, s. 377
11
AIR 2018 SC 1676
13
REFRENCES
• CASES REFERRED
1. Joseph Shine v. Union of India, AIR 2018 SC 1676
2. Justice [Link] (Retired) v. Union of India and Ors, (2017) 10 SCC 1
3. Kharak Singh v. The State of UP, AIR 1963 SC 1295
4. M. P. Sharma and Others v. Satish Chandra, District Magistrate, Delhi, and Others, AIR 1954
SC 300
5. Navtej Johar v. Union of India, AIR 2018 SC 4321
• BOOKS REFERRED
1. Narender Kumar, Constitutional Law of India
2. Abhay Prasad Singh & Krishna Murari, Constitutional Government and Democracy in India
3. V.N. Shukla, Constitution of India
4. Samaraditya Pal, Indian’s Constitution: Origins and Evolution
• STATUTES REFERRED
1. The Aadhaar Act, 2016
2. The Constitution of India, 1950
3. The Indian Penal Code, 1860
14
• ARTICLES AND REPORTS
1. Justice K.S Puttaswamy, a dedicated champion of Privacy Rights in India, passes away,
available at: [Link]
privacy-case-judge-9642667/ (last accessed on Feb. 23rd, 2025).
2. JUSTICE K.S. PUTTASWAMY VS. UNION OF INDIA – South Asian Translate Database
available at: [Link] (last accessed on Feb. 24th, 2025).
3. Justice K.S. Puttaswamy (Retd.) & Anr. Vs. Union of India & Ors. – Privacy Law Library
available at: [Link] (last accessed on
Feb. 22nd, 2025).
4. Justice KS Puttaswamy vs Union of India – Drishti Judiciary, available at:
[Link]
puttaswamy-retd-v-union-of-india-2019-1-scc-1 (last accessed on Feb. 24th, 2025).
• DATABASES AND WEBSITES
1. [Link]
2. [Link]
3. [Link]
4. [Link]
15
