5/27/24, 1:11 PM drishtijudiciary.com/landmark-judgement/constitution-of-india/justice-ks-puttaswamy-retd-v-union-of-india-2019-1-scc-1?
print=2
Justice K.S.Puttaswamy(Retd) v. Union of India 2019 (1) SCC 1 | 13
May 2024
Introduction
In this landmark judgment a nine judges' bench of Supreme Court held that the right to privacy is
protected as an intrinsic part of the right to life and personal liberty under Article 21 and as a part of the
freedoms guaranteed by Part III of the Constitution.
Facts
‘Aadhar’ was introduced as a card from which a person can be identified. It was issued as an ‘Unique
Identity’ and the authority who issues the card and enrolls a person is known as Unique
Identification Authority of India (UIDAI).
UIDAI was established in 2009. The main aim behind the implementation of Unique
Identification Scheme (UIS) was to provide a unique identity number which is unique in nature
and as everyone will have only one identity with no chance of duplication.
UIDAI has secured the enrolment of almost 1.1 billion people in this country.
The Aadhar project was challenged by the petitioners. Justice K.S. Puttaswamy (Retd.) and Mr.
Pravesh Khanna filed a writ petition when the Aadhaar scheme was not under legislative umbrella.
It was challenged on the challenged on the ground that it violates fundamental rights of the
innumerable citizens of India, namely, right to privacy falling under Article 21 of the Constitution of
India.
In 2016, when the Aadhar Act was passed, many other petitioners challenged the Aadhar Act by filing
writ petition. All the writ petitions with the same objective were clubbed together.
Issues Involved
Whether the Aadhaar Act violates the right to privacy and is unconstitutional on this ground?
What is the magnitude of protection that needs to be accorded to collection, storage and usage of
biometric data?
Whether the Aadhaar Project creates or tends to create surveillance state and is unconstitutional on this
ground?
Observation
A unanimous verdict by a nine judge Bench of the Supreme Court (SC) declared ‘privacy’ to be
constitutionally protected, as a facet of liberty, dignity and individual autonomy.
The SC held that the right of privacy is a fundamental right. It is a right which protects the inner
sphere of the individual from interference from both State and non-State actors and allows the
individuals to make autonomous life choices.
Right to privacy is a part of fundamental rights which can be traced to Articles 14, 19 and 21 of the
Constitution of India.
The fundamental right to privacy would cover at least three aspects:
intrusion with an individual’s physical body,
informational privacy, and
privacy of choice.
The SC stated that privacy is a concomitant of the right of the individual to exercise control over his
or her personality.
The Court has held, in no uncertain terms, that privacy has always been a natural right which gives
an individual freedom to exercise control over his or her personality.
Privacy is also recognized as a natural right which inheres in individuals and is, thus, inalienable.
The judgment further lays down that in the context of Article 21, the test to be applied while
examining a particular provision is the ‘just, fair and reasonable test’ thereby bringing notion of
proportionality (proportionality test).
https://www.drishtijudiciary.com/landmark-judgement/constitution-of-india/justice-ks-puttaswamy-retd-v-union-of-india-2019-1-scc-1?print=2 1/2
5/27/24, 1:11 PM drishtijudiciary.com/landmark-judgement/constitution-of-india/justice-ks-puttaswamy-retd-v-union-of-india-2019-1-scc-1?print=2
The Aadhaar Act creates a database of all Indian residents and citizens with their core biometric
information, demographic information and meta data. Such information can affect every aspect of an
individual’s personal, professional, religious and social life, such power is a threat to individual
freedoms.
The decision in M P Sharma v Satish Chandra, District Magistrate, Delhi (1954) and Kharak
Singh v. State of U.P. & Ors (1963) was over-ruled in this case by the SC.
What was the Decision in the Major Cases Cited in this Case?
M P Sharma v. Satish Chandra, District Magistrate, Delhi (1954):
In this case the offences under sections 406, 408, 409, 418, 420, 465, 467, 468, 471 and
477(a) of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) had been committed.
Offences were registered and search warrants were issued during which records were
seized.
Such search and seizure were challenged by the petitioners on the ground that it
violated the fundamental rights under Article 19(1)(f) and Article 20(3) of the
Constitution of India, 1950.
The SC held that a power of search and seizure is, in any system of jurisprudence, an
overriding power of the State for the protection of social security and that power is
necessarily regulated by law.
The SC stated when the Constitution makers have thought fit not to subject such
regulation to constitutional limitations by recognition of a fundamental right to privacy,
analogous to the Fourth Amendment, we have no justification to import it, into a totally
different fundamental right, by some process of strained construction.
Kharak Singh v. State of U.P. & Ors (1963):
The petitioner Kharak Singh was challenged in a case of dacoity in 1941 but he was
released as there was no evidence against him available.
After that history sheet was opened for the petitioner and he is therefore "under
surveillance."
Frequently the chaukidar of the village and sometimes police constables enter his house,
knock and shout at his door, wake him up during the night and thereby disturb his sleep.
The petitioner filed petition under Article 32 of the Constitution of India and challenges
these actions as it violates the right guaranteed to citizens by Articles 19(1)(d) and 21 of
the Constitution.
The SC held that the freedom to move freely throughout the territory of India, guaranteed
by Article 19(1)(d) of Constitution was not infringed by a midnight knock on the door of
the petitioner since “his locomotion is not impeded or prejudiced in any manner.
What is the Doctrine of Proportionality?
In this case SC applied the doctrine of proportionality.
Whenever challenge is laid to an action of the State on the ground that it violates the right to
privacy, the action of the State is to be tested on the following parameters:
The action must be sanctioned by law
The proposed action must be necessary in a democratic society for a legitimate aim
The extent of such interference must be proportionate to the need for such interference
There must be procedural guarantees against abuse of such interference.
https://www.drishtijudiciary.com/landmark-judgement/constitution-of-india/justice-ks-puttaswamy-retd-v-union-of-india-2019-1-scc-1?print=2 2/2
