Case Brief: Justice K.S. Puttaswamy (Retd.) & Anr. v. Union of India & Ors.

Bench

1. Chief Justice J.S. Khehar

Case Number
Writ Petition (Civil) No. 494 of 2012

Facts
The case was brought by 91-year-old retired High Court Judge Puttaswamy against the Union of
India before a nine-judge bench of the Supreme Court, referred by a Constitution Bench, to
determine whether the right to privacy is an independent fundamental right under the
Constitution, following conflicting rulings by other benches.

The case originated from a challenge to the Aadhaar scheme, a biometrics-based identity system
proposed as mandatory for accessing government services. Petitioners argued it violated the right
to privacy, while the Attorney General contended that the Indian Constitution does not explicitly
protect privacy, citing observations in M.P. Sharma v. Satish Chandra (eight-judge bench) and
Kharak Singh v. Uttar Pradesh (five-judge bench). However, an eleven-judge bench later upheld
the dissent in Kharak Singh, stating fundamental rights are interrelated, forming the basis for
smaller bench decisions recognizing privacy as a right.

The nine-judge bench was constituted to resolve the matter. The Petitioner argued that privacy is
an independent right under Article 21’s guarantee of life with dignity. The Respondent
maintained that the Constitution recognized personal liberties, which may include limited
privacy rights. The Court considered arguments on fundamental rights, constitutional
interpretation, and the philosophical foundations of the right to privacy

Issue

1. 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?
2. 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.)
3. Whether the Aadhaar Act defies the concept of Limited Government, Good Governance
and Constitutional Trust?
4. Could the Aadhaar Act be passed as ‘Money Bill’ within Article 110 of the Indian
Constitution?
5. Whether Section 139AA of the Income Tax Act, 1961 is violative of right to privacy and
is, therefore, unconstitutional?
6. 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?
7. Whether Circular dated March 23, 2017 issued by the Department of
Telecommunications mandating linking of mobile number with Aadhaar is illegal and
unconstitutional?
8. Whether certain actions of the respondents are in contravention of the interim orders
passed by the Court, if so, the effect thereof?

Judgment
The nine-judge bench of the Supreme Court unanimously recognized that the Constitution
guaranteed the right to privacy as an intrinsic part of the right to life and personal liberty under
Article 21. The right to privacy was reinforced by the concurring opinions of the judges in this
case, which recognized that this right includes autonomy over personal decisions, bodily
integrity, and the protection of personal information. The concurring judgments included specific
implications of this right, some of which are illustrated below:

● J. Chandrachud (on behalf of himself, C.J. Kehar, J. Agrawal, and J. Nazeer): This
opinion stated that privacy was not surrendered entirely when an individual is in the
public sphere. Further, it found that the right to privacy included the negative right
against State interference, as in the case of the criminalization of homosexuality, as well
as the positive right to be protected by the State. On this basis, the Judges held that there
was a need to introduce a data protection regime in India.
● J. Chelameswar: in his opinion, the Judge said that the right to privacy implied a right to
refuse medical treatment, a right against forced feeding, the right to consume beef and
the right to display symbols of religion in one’s personal appearance etc.
 ● J. Nariman: in this concurring opinion, the Judge classified the facets of privacy into
non-interference with the individual body, protection of personal information and
autonomy over personal choices.
● J. Sapre: the Judge said that, in addition to its existence as an independent right, the right
to privacy included an individual’s rights to freedom of expression and movement and
was essential to satisfy the constitutional aims of liberty and fraternity which ensured the
dignity of the individual.
J. Kaul: The judge discussed the right to privacy regarding the 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 the state to intercede with data.
The Court also recognized that the right was not absolute but allowed for restriction where this
was provided by law, corresponded to a legitimate aim of the State and was proportionate to the
objective it sought to achieve.

Held
The nine-judge bench of the Supreme Court of India unanimously held that the right to privacy is
a fundamental right protected under the Indian Constitution. The Court ruled that this right is an
intrinsic part of the rights to life and personal liberty guaranteed by Article 21, and is also
protected under other fundamental rights, such as the freedoms guaranteed under Articles 14, 19,
and 21.