Justice K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India: Right to Privacy and its Constitutional Impact

INTRODUCTION

The evolution of fundamental rights jurisprudence in India has undergone a transformative shift in the last decade, particularly through judicial decisions that directly address the interface between individual liberty and state power. The landmark judgment of Justice K.S. Puttaswamy v. UOI (2017) plays a vital role in constitutional transformation. The K.S. Puttaswamy decision redefined the conceptual foundations of the right to privacy and elevated it to a constitutionally protected, intrinsic fundamental right under Article 21. 

BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE

Justice K.S. Puttaswamy v. UOI (2017) is a landmark judgment by the Supreme Court of India that established the right to privacy as a Fundamental Right under the Indian Constitution. The case originated from a challenge to the government’s Aadhaar scheme, which collected mandatory biometrics data and compulsory linkage and potential surveillance concerns, with petitioners arguing it violated privacy. The Supreme Court established that privacy is an intrinsic part of personal liberty under Article 21 and can only be restricted if the State action is backed by law, serves a legitimate purpose, and is proportionate.

KEY ISSUES:

1. Does any fundamental right to privacy exist under the Constitution of India?
2. Is Privacy an independent fundamental right, or derived from existing rights?
3. What is the doctrinal foundation of the privacy claim?^[1]
4. What is the content of privacy, and what does it protect?
5. What is the permissible scope of state regulation on privacy?

CONTENTIONS OF PARTIES:

Petitoner’s Argument

• The Petitioner argued that privacy is a natural and fundamental human right, inherent in the Preamble’s commitment to liberty and dignity, and protected by Articles 14, 19, and 21 of the Indian Constitution.
• The Petitioner Claimed that the compulsory nature of the Aadhar scheme was a direct and unconstitutional infringement on the right to privacy, dignity, and liberty.
• The petitioner also argued that the scheme granted the state excessive authority, reversing the power dynamic and potentially leading to a totalitarian state by collecting vast amounts of personal information.
• The petitioner questioned the validity of the Aadhar Act, 2016 arguing that passing it as a “money bill” was an unlawful way to bypass the Rajya Sabha.
• The petitioner contended that Aadhar violated other rights, such as the right to equality and freedom of speech, by creating discriminatory classifications and forcing individuals to reveal personal information like religion.^[2]

Respondent’s Argument

• Argued that the Indian Constitution does not provide for a specific, explicit right to privacy.
• Contended that the information collected for Aadhar was non-invasive and non-intrusive identity information, not subject to state
• Argued that enough safeguards were in place in the Aadhar Act, 2016 to avoid any data breaches.

COURT JUDGEMENT AND REASONING:

1) Right of privacy and fundamental rights under the Constitution: the court held that privacy is a fundamental right implicit in the Indian Constitution. It is not merely derivative, but deeply rooted in Article 21 and also implicates other rights (e.g., freedom of expression, dignity) etc.

2) Nature of Privacy: The Court delineated multiple dimensions of privacy:

• Privacy of the person: protection of the physical body and personal autonomy.
• Information privacy: control over personal data, especially with the rise of digital technologies.
• Privacy of choice: autonomy in making personal life decisions, including in areas of family, marriage, procreation, and sexual orientation.

The court emphasized that privacy protects the core of human personality, the ability to make deeply personal decisions without State intrusion. At the same time, the right is not absolute; the State may limit it in pursuit of legitimate aims, subject to due process, proportionality, and the rule of law.

3) Regulatory Power of the State: The court held that State regulation is permissible; it must be justified, any intrusion on privacy must serve a legitimate State purpose, like national security, crime prevention, or social welfare. Such regulation must also respect due process, procedural safeguards, transparency, and non-arbitrary application. The Court emphasised equality; arbitrary invasions of privacy violate guarantees of non-discrimination and equal treatment. The State’s power to intrude upon personal data must be balanced against individual dignity, autonomy, and identity.

4) Doctrinal Foundations & Jurisprudence Analysis: The court critically examined earlier SC precedents on constitutional values, such as dignity, autonomy, and equality, to ground the right to privacy within the broader structure of fundamental rights. The court rejected the idea that privacy is an elitist right: it held that even economically disadvantaged sections require protection for their personal, informational, and bodily autonomy. Importantly, the court underscored that the Constitution is a living document: its meaning evolves with time, technology, and societal changes. On informational privacy, the Court noted how modern life (digital communication, the internet, data trails) amplifies the need to protect personal data in a networked age.

5) Rights of Vulnerable Groups: The judgment addressed gender identity explicitly: it affirmed that transgender persons have a right to privacy, self-identity, and personal autonomy, protected under Article 14,15, 19(1)(a) and 21. The court recognized that decisions around family, marriage, procreation, and sexual orientation lie at the heart of personal choice and dignity, protected by the right to privacy. By highlighting these dimensions, the court strengthened the constitutional protection for marginalized and marginalized identities, making privacy a crucial pillar of individual dignity and freedom.

6) Limits and States’ Legitimate Interests: The court did not render privacy absolute: it clarified that the State retains regulatory power, but subject to strict constitutional checks. Legitimate State aims include national security, preventing crime, protecting public welfare, and managing social policy. However, any intrusion must satisfy due process: laws and procedures must be fair. Transparent, proportional, and not arbitrary. The court stressed that violations of privacy must be subject to judicial review to prevent abuse of power.

CONCLUSION

The judgment in Justice K.S. Puttaswamy v. UOI marks a transformative phase in India’s fundamental rights jurisprudence. Puttaswamy’s case firmly established privacy as a constitutionally protected, intrinsic right forming the basis of personal liberty, autonomy, and dignity.  

Author: Priyanshi Tiwari, Student of Prestige Institute Of Management And Research, Gwalior

---

^[1] https://www.manupatracademy.com/legalpost/manu-sc-1044-2017

^[2] https://privacylibrary.ccgnlud.org/case/justice-ks-puttaswamy-and-ors-vs-union-of-india-uoi-and-ors#:~:text=The%20Petitioners%20submitted%20that%20the,Aadhaar%20Act%20was%20not%20unconstitutional.

Link to similar articles: https://jpassociates.co.in/urgent-interim-relief-u-s-12a/