This Case Commentary is written by Bhaumik Pratap Singh, a First Year Law Student of Maharashtra National Law University, Nagpur

Case Details:

· BENCH – 9 judges Chief Justice, A.K. Sikri, A.M. Khanwilkar, D.Y. Chandrachud, Ashok Bhushan

· CITATION - AIR 2018 SC (SUPP) 1841

· LAW INVOLVED- Aadhar Act, article 21 of the Indian constitution

1. FACTS-

Petitioners, namely, Justice K.S. Puttaswamy (Retd.) and Mr. Pravesh Khanna, by filing Writ Petition (Civil) No. 494 of 2012. At that time, the Aadhaar scheme was not under a legislative umbrella and was violating the right to privacy by collecting and storing personal biometric data of citizens Which was previously granted by the court in various cases the petition argued that privacy is a fundamental right guaranteed under the Indian Constitution, though not explicitly mentioned. The government defended the Aadhaar scheme by arguing that the right to privacy is not a fundamental right under the Constitution and that the scheme was essential for efficient governance, public welfare, and preventing leakages in government welfare programs.

2. ISSUES RAISED-

Whether the right to privacy is a fundamental right under the Indian Constitution? Whether the Aadhaar scheme's collection and usage of biometric data is violative of the right to privacy? To what extent the state can intrude upon individual privacy in the interest of legitimate state goals such as national security, public order, or welfare programs?

3. ARGUMENTS PRESENTED

PETITIONER’S ARGUMENTS:

1. The petitioners said that Article 21 of the Constitution, which protects the right to life and personal liberty, inherently includes the right to privacy. They further argued that the practice of other fundamental rights, human dignity, and autonomy depend on privacy.

2. Prior rulings: The petitioners cited other rulings from the Supreme Court, including People's Union for Civil Liberties v. Union of India and Gobind v. State of Madhya Pradesh, which acknowledged certain aspects of privacy.

3. Aadhaar's effects the petitioners claimed that Aadhaar's required biometric data gathering was an infringement on their right to personal autonomy, which includes the ability to manage their identity and personal data.

RESPONDENT’S ARGUMENTS (UNION OF INDIA):

1. Absence of Explicit Right: According to the government, privacy is not expressly recognized as a basic right in the Constitution.

2. Legitimate State Interest: The national security and benefit distribution aspects of the Aadhaar project are legitimate state interests. Any invasion of privacy was justified and kept within the bounds of the Constitution.

3. The government referred to past case law from the Supreme Court's rulings in M.P. Sharma v. Satish Chandra and Kharak Singh v. State of UP., which concluded that privacy was not a fundamental right.

4. ANALYSIS

The court in various cases such as

i) M.P. Sharma v Satish Chandra

ii) Maneka Gandhi v Union of India

iii) Kharak Singh v State of UP, and

iv) Peoples Union for Civil Liberties v Union of India.

Had discussed the right to privacy but had not declared it to be a fundamental right. The watershed decision in the judicial history of India recognized the right to privacy as a distinguished fundamental right under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. The decision of this case laid the foundation for the identification and protection of other liberties in India such as the decriminalization of adultery in Joseph Shine v. Union of India (2018), decriminalization of consensual same-sex relationships in Navtej Singh Johar v. Union of India (2018), etc. The Supreme Court of India observed that the concept of privacy entails the natural right of a person to have autonomy in the choices made by him regarding core aspects of life.

The contemporary age of technological advancements has been regarded as the “era of ubiquitous dataveillance, the systemic monitoring of the communications and actions of individuals through information technology.” the petitioner challenged the policy on the ground that mandatory collection of biometric data by the government so that the individual can avail of government services is a violation of the right to privacy under Article 21 of India. It is against democratic values and may lead to a surveillance state. The Union of India and UIDAI, in its counter-affidavit, stated that the right to privacy is not a fundamental right, relying on the Judgment of the Eight Judges’ Bench of the Supreme Court in the M.P. Sharma case.

The SUPREME COURT, THROUGH AN ORDER DATED AUGUST 24, 2017, passed the following orders:

The decisions in the cases of MP Sharma and Kharak Singh stand overruled, which held that the right to privacy is not protected under the Constitution of India Which is untrue otherwise. The right to privacy is an intrinsic part of the right to life and personal liberty under Article 21 and a part of freedoms guaranteed by Part III of the Constitution of India. It was held that the right to privacy is a concomitant right to life and personal liberty protected under Article 21. It is a natural right that is inalienable to human existence and is not a boon granted by the state.

Tests for the incursion of privacy by state were laid down allowing the individual to have some control over their privacy in public-related matters. Which are listed below. Although the right is not absolute, it does not amount to the usurpation of legislative function.

It also had the opinion that the time has come for India’s commitments under international law [Article 12 UDHR] to fulfill duties under Article 51 of the Constitution, which forms part of the Directive Principles, requires the State to endeavor to “foster respect for international law and treaty obligations in the dealings of organized peoples with one another”.

The conflict in this area mainly arises between an individual’s right to privacy and the legitimate aim of the government to implement its policies and a balance needs to be maintained while doing the same.

SIGNIFICANCE IN DATA PRIVACY

When privacy legislation was missing in India cases such as this have stood out to confer the fundamental rights of individuals amidst the It was held that privacy concerns in this day and age of technology can arise from both the state as well as non-state entities and as such, a claim of violation of privacy lies against both of them.

The Court also held that informational privacy in the age of the internet is not an absolute right and when an individual exercises his right to control over his data, it may lead to the violation of his privacy to a considerable extent.

And the test laid down by SC ensures that privacy is maintained to maximum efficiency and that the right to privacy is not an absolute right and any incursion of privacy by state or nonstate actors must satisfy the following triple test:

i) Legitimate Aim

ii) Proportionality

iii) Legality

The decision given in M.P. Sharma v Satish Chandra, which held that the Right to Privacy is not protected by the Constitution of India, stands overruled. The decision in Kharak Singh, to the degree it holds that the Right to Privacy is not guaranteed by Part III, also stands overruled. The right to privacy of an individual is not only protected by the Constitution under Article 21 but is also an intrinsic part of the scheme of Part III which guarantees fundamental rights.

5. CONCLUSION

The right to privacy in India was established by the historic decision in K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India, which recognized the right as a basic one guaranteed by the Indian Constitution. It proved how crucial privacy is to individual freedom and self-determination. Despite the Aadhaar scheme's independent upholding in a subsequent ruling, the Puttaswamy ruling opened the door for a more comprehensive discussion on digital era privacy, data protection, and individual rights. It also emphasized how important it is for the government to strike a reasonable and proportionate balance between citizens' rights and legitimate governmental interests.