Case Commentary – K.S. Puttaswamy (Retd) V. Union Of India
Author: LawSphereX
Category: General Law
Published:
Updated:
CASE COMMENTARY – K.S. PUTTASWAMY (RETD) V.
UNION OF INDIA
Sonali Sharma V, Thanush Trivikram N & Vijay Krishna S, BBA LLB (Hons.), School of Excellence in Law, Tamilnadu Dr. Ambedkar Law University
INTRODUCTION
In an arena where one being surveilled digitally, every second personal information could be gained and could be sold upon. The Supreme Court’s judgment in K. S. Puttaswamy (Retd) v. Union of India (2017) represents a milestone towards privacy. The Judgment addresses the quarrel1; between personal freedom and the interest of the state with respect to digital arena. This decision comes at a time when the Indian government is under pressure regarding Aadhaar, a biometric system that promises to enhance healthcare and reduce fraud, but raises serious concerns about compromising privacy and enabling state surveillance. Puttaswamy is the case that understood that privacy is a fundamental right under Article 21 of the Indian Constitution2. It deals with monitoring and data records along with answering to the questions on privacy laws in India.
It was held that privacy is inherent in Right to life and personal liberty3 and must be guarded from excessive state intervention, regardless a person’s placement. The ruling made a paradigm shift in the Justice Reviving mechanism where privacy was not of a keen interest4. The decisions has made a profound impact due process of law, civil and personal rights, understanding the need for strict protections to ensure that personal information is not misused and that state laws are upheld5.
1 Puttaswamy v. Union of India II, Global Freedom of Expression (last visited [insert date]),
https://globalfreedomofexpression.columbia.edu/cases/puttaswamy-v-union-of-india-ii/.
2 Jainil, What Is Privacy? Protecting Your Personal Information, Hashnode (Jan. 10, 2023),
https://jainil.hashnode.dev/what-is-privacy-protecting-your-personal-information. 3 Privacy, Freedom GPT Wiki, https://freedom-gpt-wiki.vercel.app/wiki/privacy (last visited Sept. 22, 2024). 4 State Privacy: India, Privacy International (Feb. 16, 2022), https://privacyinternational.org/stateprivacy/1002/state-privacy-india. Global Biometric Regulatory Trends 2022: Prospects, Zakon.ru (Feb. 13, 2022), https://zakon.ru/blog/2022/02/13/global_biometric_regulatory_trends_2022_prospects.
BACKGROUND
In M. P. Sharma v. Satish Chandra 6(1954), the Supreme Court stated that privacy is not a fundamental right7, prioritizing state law over personal matters. Again, in 1964, the Court upheld state surveillance8, ruling that privacy was not a fundamental constitutional right9. However, in M. P. State 10(1975), the Court acknowledged privacy, albeit limited by national law and custom. Despite differing interpretations of privacy’s importance in these cases, they did not significantly alter the legal landscape, as personal privacy 11remained secondary to national interests12. In People’s Union for Civil Liberties v. Union of India 13(2004) and State of Maharashtra v. Bharat Shantilal Shah 14(2008), the Court continued to balance privacy with national security and law enforcement, notably allowing government agencies to intercept telephone conversations to prevent crime15.
The Puttaswamy decision, however, marked a departure from this trend. It came amid the debate over Aadhaar, which, while touted for reducing economic fraud, sparked fears of creating a surveillance state that could undermine the right to self-determination. In Puttaswamy, the Supreme Court revisited and reversed its earlier stance16, embracing a broad interpretation of privacy aligned with international standards and paving the way for monitoring and controlling technological advancements17
6 M.P. Sharma v. Satish Chandra, (1954) 1 SCR 1077, AIR 1954 SC 300.
Privacy as a Fundamental Right, Law Times Journal (last visited Sept. 22, 2024), https://lawtimesjournal.in/privacy-as-a-fundamental-right/. CCG on the Privacy Judgment, CCG NLUD (last visited Sept. 22, 2024), https://ccgnludelhi.wordpress.com/2017/09/11/ccg-on-the-privacy-judgment/. 9 M.P. Sharma vs. Satish Chandra, IIPRD (last visited Sept. 22, 2024), https://iiprd.wordpress.com/tag/mpsharma-vs-satish-chandra/.
10 Gobind v. State of M.P., (1975) 2 SCC 148.
11 Landmarks
Judgments of Supreme Court, Court Practice Notes (last visited Sept. 22, 2024), https://notes.courtpractice.com/2024/01/30-landmarks-judgments-of-supreme-court.html. 12 Privacy as a Fundamental Right, Law Times Journal (Apr. 12, 2022), https://lawtimesjournal.in/privacy-as-afundamental-right/
13 People’s Union for Civil Liberties v. Union of India, (1997) 1 SCC 301.
14 State of Maharashtra v. Bharat Shantilal Shah, (2008) 13 SCC 5.
Reasons Why Privacy Rights Are Important, Human Rights Careers (Mar. 5, 2021), https://www.humanrightscareers.com/issues/reasons-why-privacy-rights-are-important/. 16 M.P. Sharma and Kharak Singh's Case: Privacy Not a Fundamental Right, Supreme Court Had Held Decades Ago, Firstpost (last visited Sept. 22, 2024), https://www.firstpost.com/india/mp-sharma-and-kharak-singhs-caseprivacy-not-a-fundamental-right-supreme-court-had-held-decades-ago-3966467.html.
17 Jainil, What Is Privacy? Protecting Your Personal Information, Hashnode (Jan. 10, 2023),
https://jainil.hashnode.dev/what-is-privacy-protecting-your-personal-information.
ISSUES:
The issues discussed in this commentary are: Will the Aadhaar scheme make state surveillance redundant? Is the Aadhaar scheme illegal as it violates the privacy of citizens? Do Sections 7 and 8 of the Aadhaar Act apply to minors? Even though certain sections and provisions of the Aadhaar Act are void: Section 2(c) and 2(d) to be read with Section 32; Section 2(h) deals with the storage of personal information (CIDR Article 10 read with Article 32); Article 2(v), 3, 5, 6, 8, 9; Articles 11 to 23; Section 23 and 54; Section 23(2)(g) read Sections 6 and 7; Sections 29, 33, 47, 48, 57, 59.
1. Can Aadhaar be classified as an "Act" under Article 110 of the Constitution of India?
2. Does Section 139AA of the Income Tax Act, 1961, violate the right to privacy of
citizens under the Constitution of India?
3. Does Rule 9(a) of the Prevention of Money Laundering (Collection of Information)
Rules, 2005, and related notifications 18requiring the linking of Aadhaar with bank accounts comply with the Constitution of India?
4. Was the notification of the Ministry of Telecommunications on March 23, 2017, linking
18 Initial Analysis of the Indian Supreme Court Decision on Aadhaar, Privacy International (last visited Sept. 22, 2024), https://privacyinternational.org/long-read/2299/initial-analysis-indian-supreme-court-decision-aadhaar.
Aadhaar with mobile phones illegal?
5. Do certain actions taken by the accused affect the interim order of the court?
JUDGMENT:19
1. The Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of the Aadhaar Act, affirming its
validity.
2. Section 57 of the Act, which allowed private entities to access Aadhaar data, was
declared unconstitutional and struck down.
3. Aadhaar data cannot be shared with commercial entities such as payment banks and
e- wallet companies.
4. Telecom companies are prohibited from requiring Aadhaar for SIM card purchases.
5. Schools cannot mandate Aadhaar for board exams or admissions.
6. The right to privacy was affirmed as a fundamental right under Article 21 of
the Constitution.
7. Children cannot be denied government benefits due to the absence of an Aadhaar card.
8. The national security exception under the Aadhaar Act was invalidated.
CASE
ANALYSIS
Central Issue of Privacy: The central issue in this case is whether the requirement to collect biometric and demographic information under the Aadhaar Act violates the fundamental right to privacy granted under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. The Supreme Court has recognized that privacy is a fundamental right of personal liberty and life. The ruling reversed earlier judgments in M.P. Sharma 20and Kharak Singh21, which had rejected the idea that
19 Justice K.S. Puttaswamy (Retd) v. Union of India, (2018) 10 SCC 1.
20 M.P. Sharma v. Satish Chandra, (1954) 1 SCR 1077; AIR 1954 SC 300.
21 Kharak Singh v. State of U.P., AIR 1963 SC 1295.
privacy is a fundamental right, and instead, aligned with the principles established in Maneka Gandhi v Union of India22. The petitioners raised concerns that extensive data collection could lead to state surveillance and potential misuse. They argued that state surveillance poses a significant threat to personal privacy. In contrast, the defense argued that the biometric data collected, such as fingerprints and iris scans, is limited and subject to international practices, with appropriate safeguards to prevent the inclusion of sensitive information such as race or ethnicity. Proportionality Test: The Supreme Court assessed the Aadhaar Act using the proportionality test, which examines legality, necessity, and proportionality. The Court examined whether the Act was in accordance with the law in terms of legality.
In terms of necessity, it was considered whether the collection of biometric and demographic information was essential to achieve the objectives of the Act, such as preventing fraud and increasing the efficiency of grant distribution. Regarding proportionality, the Court evaluated whether the approach adopted was reasonable and did not unduly affect the desired results. While the right to privacy may be limited to legitimate state objectives, the objectives of the Aadhaar Act, such as reducing fraud and increasing grant distribution, are considered legitimate. However, the Court emphasized that these objectives must be achieved without compromising individual privacy. Any restrictions on privacy must be reasonable and lawful.
The Court's interpretation is flexible and reflects changes in today's society and technological advances, highlighting the need for an improved interpretation of the law. The decision seeks to balance the country's objectives with the protection of human rights to ensure that privacy is not unlawfully intruded upon and that the effect of the Act remains valid. Balancing State and Individual Interests: While acknowledging that privacy is a fundamental right, the Court recognized that it may be limited for valid state interests. The Aadhaar Act’s goals, such as reducing fraud and ensuring proper subsidy distribution, were seen as legitimate. However, the Court ensured that the implementation of these goals did not excessively infringe on individual privacy.
Dynamic Constitutional Interpretation: The Court emphasized that privacy is essential for upholding individual dignity and autonomy, encompassing various forms such as physical,
22 Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India, (1978) 1 SCC 248.
spatial, communicational, and decisional privacy. Restrictions on privacy must be reasonable and align with constitutional values. The Court’s interpretation was adaptive, reflecting contemporary societal changes and technological advancements, underscoring the need for evolving constitutional perspectives. Implications for Rights and Access: The requirement to link Aadhaar with numerous services and benefits raised concerns about potential restrictions on citizens' rights. The Court’s judgment aimed to ensure that the state's objectives were balanced with the protection of individual rights, preventing undue limitations on privacy and ensuring proportionality in its impact.
CONCLUSION
In agreeing with the Supreme Court's ruling in K. S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India23, I find that the decision profoundly upholds the essence of privacy as a fundamental right. By anchoring privacy in the core principles of dignity and personal liberty under Article 21 of the Indian Constitution24, the Court has made a significant statement about protecting personal freedoms against unwarranted state interference. The Court's approach, which allows for reasonable restrictions on privacy, thoughtfully balances individual rights with state needs. This nuanced perspective is vital in a democratic society, where it's essential that state actions are both justified and proportionate to their intended goals. Moreover, the Court’s detailed examination of the Aadhaar Act and its insistence on stringent privacy protections underscore the importance of safeguarding personal data.
As technology evolves, it's crucial to ensure that our fundamental rights remain secure. This judgment marks an important step forward in aligning constitutional principles with the realities of the digital age, reflecting a commitment to adapting our legal frameworks to contemporary challenges25.
23 Justice K.S. Puttaswamy (Retd) and Anr. v. Union of India and Ors., (2017) 10 SCC 1.
Article of the Indian Constitution, Century Law Firm (Nov. 23, 2021), https://www.centurylawfirm.in/blog/article-21-of-the-indian-constitution/. Global Biometric Regulatory Trends 2022: Prospects, Zakon.ru (Feb. 13, 2022), https://zakon.ru/blog/2022/02/13/global_biometric_regulatory_trends_2022_prospects.