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

FACTS AND ISSUE

Nine judges of this Court assembled to determine whether privacy is a constitutionally protected value and if it constitutes a Fundamental Right. The issue reached out to the foundation of a constitutional culture based on the protection of human rights. This case required the Court to revisit the basic principles on which our Constitution has been founded. The claim for the right to privacy, initially contested against the Aadhar card scheme, necessitated a larger bench to overrule earlier judgments that denied its existence.

JUDGEMENT AND ANALYSIS

• Right to Privacy as a Fundamental Right (Unanimous Decision): The nine-judge bench unanimously affirmed that the Right to Privacy is an intrinsic part of the right to life and personal liberty guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution. It is also an integral facet of the freedoms guaranteed in Part III of the Constitution.

• Limitations on Rights: It was observed that reasonable restrictions on any of the rights in Article 19(1) can be imposed only by law and not otherwise. Any restriction imposed without the authority of law shall be considered as unconstitutional.

• Substantive Due Process and Arbitrariness: Justice D.Y. Chandrachud observed that:

  “The danger of construing this as an exercise of 'substantive due process' is that it results in the incorporation of a concept from the American Constitution which was consciously not accepted when the Constitution was framed... Moreover, even in the country of its origin, substantive due process has led to vagaries of judicial interpretation.” He noted that declaring a statute unconstitutional on the sole ground that it is 'arbitrary' is not permissible for the Court. However, it was further observed that in due course, the principle of proportionality may control the arbitrariness of laws.

CASE LAWS REFERRED AND OVERRULED

• M.P. Sharma v. Satish Chandra:

  • The earlier observation in M.P. Sharma that the right to privacy cannot be read into the Constitution (due to the absence of a Fourth Amendment-like provision) was deemed not reflective of the correct position.

  • M.P. Sharma was overruled to the extent to which it indicated the contrary view.

• Kharak Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh:

  • The Court correctly held that the content of the expression ‘life’ under Article 21 means not merely the right to a person’s “animal existence” and that the expression ‘personal liberty’ is a guarantee against invasion into the sanctity of a person’s home or an intrusion into personal security.

  • It also correctly laid down that the dignity of the individual must lend content to the meaning of ‘personal liberty’. However, any observations in Kharak Singh suggesting that privacy is not a protected right under the Constitution were also implicitly set aside.

{pg 126, 205, 212, Indian Constitutional Law by VN Shukla}