Justice K.S. Puttaswamy (Retd.) & Anr. v. Union of India & Others
Bench: Full Court — 9 Judges (J.S. Khehar CJ, J. Chelameswar, S.A. Bobde, R.K. Agrawal, R.F. Nariman, A.M. Sapre, D.Y. Chandrachud, S.K. Kaul & S. Abdul Nazeer JJ)
Parties
Facts of the Case
Justice K.S. Puttaswamy (Retd.), a former Karnataka High Court judge, challenged the Aadhaar biometric identity programme — specifically the mandatory collection of biometric data and linking of Aadhaar to all government benefits. The challenge raised the fundamental question: is privacy a fundamental right under the Constitution? The government argued that earlier Supreme Court precedents — M.P. Sharma (1954) and Kharak Singh (1962) — had held that privacy was not a fundamental right. The matter was referred to a nine-judge bench to conclusively resolve the question.
Legal Issues Before the Court
- 1Is the right to privacy a fundamental right under the Constitution of India?
- 2Were M.P. Sharma (1954) and Kharak Singh (1962) — which held privacy is not a fundamental right — correctly decided?
- 3What is the scope and content of the right to privacy — what aspects of life does it protect?
- 4What is the test for determining when State interference with privacy is constitutionally permissible?
The Judgment
The nine-judge Constitution Bench unanimously held that privacy is a fundamental right under the Constitution, protected by Article 21 and Articles 14 and 19. M.P. Sharma and Kharak Singh (to the extent they held privacy is not a fundamental right) were overruled. The Court held that privacy is not merely a liberty interest — it is an intrinsic part of human dignity and autonomy. Privacy encompasses: informational privacy, bodily integrity, personal identity, sexual orientation, and the right to be let alone. Any infringement of privacy must satisfy a three-part test: legality, legitimate aim, and proportionality.
Key Principles Laid Down
PRIVACY IS A FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT: The right to privacy is a fundamental right protected under Article 21 (right to life and personal liberty) and also under Articles 14 (equality) and 19 (freedoms). It is an intrinsic aspect of human dignity — not a derivative or implied right.
M.P. SHARMA AND KHARAK SINGH OVERRULED: Earlier eight-judge bench (M.P. Sharma, 1954) and five-judge bench (Kharak Singh, 1962) decisions holding that privacy is not a fundamental right were overruled by the nine-judge bench.
THREE-PART TEST FOR STATE INTERFERENCE WITH PRIVACY: Any State action interfering with privacy must satisfy: (1) Legality — the restriction must have a legal basis (a law); (2) Legitimate Aim — it must pursue a legitimate state purpose; (3) Proportionality — the restriction must be proportionate to the aim; the least restrictive means must be used.
SCOPE OF PRIVACY — MULTI-DIMENSIONAL: Privacy protects: (a) informational privacy (control over personal data); (b) bodily and physical integrity; (c) personal identity including sexual orientation and gender identity; (d) intimate relationships; (e) the right to be let alone; (f) autonomy over fundamental personal choices.
SEXUAL ORIENTATION AND GENDER IDENTITY PROTECTED: The Court (particularly Justice Chandrachud) held that sexual orientation is an essential component of identity protected under the right to privacy — effectively setting the stage for Navtej Johar (2018) which relied heavily on Puttaswamy to decriminalise consensual same-sex relations.
INFORMATIONAL PRIVACY AND DATA PROTECTION: The Court recognised informational privacy — the right of individuals to control information about themselves — as a component of the fundamental right to privacy. This was the foundation for subsequent data protection legislation discussions and the Digital Personal Data Protection Act, 2023.
DIGNITY AS THE FOUNDATION OF PRIVACY: The Court rooted the right to privacy in human dignity — privacy protects the individual's ability to develop their personality, make choices, and live a life of their choosing. A person without privacy cannot exercise other freedoms meaningfully.
Impact on Indian Law
Puttaswamy (2017) is the most significant constitutional ruling of the 21st century in India. Recognising privacy as a fundamental right has had sweeping implications: (1) it directly enabled Navtej Johar (2018) — decriminalising homosexuality; (2) it was relied upon in Joseph Shine (2018) — decriminalising adultery; (3) it set the constitutional framework for India's data protection legislation (DPDPA 2023); (4) it informed the constitutional scrutiny of Aadhaar in the subsequent Aadhaar five-judge bench ruling (2018); (5) it overruled two Constitutional Bench decisions — M.P. Sharma (8 judges) and Kharak Singh (5 judges) — making it the most powerful overruling in Indian constitutional history in terms of bench strength overcome. The three-part test (legality, legitimate aim, proportionality) is now the standard framework for rights adjudication across all fundamental rights challenges.
Frequently Asked Questions
What did the Puttaswamy judgment decide about the right to privacy?
The nine-judge Constitution Bench in K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India (2017) unanimously held that privacy is a fundamental right under Articles 14, 19, and 21 of the Constitution. M.P. Sharma (1954) and Kharak Singh (1962) — which had held privacy is not a fundamental right — were overruled. The right to privacy protects informational privacy, bodily integrity, personal identity, sexual orientation, and the right to make intimate choices free from State interference.
What is the three-part test for interfering with privacy from Puttaswamy?
Per Puttaswamy (2017), any State action interfering with the right to privacy must satisfy: (1) Legality — there must be a law authorising the interference; (2) Legitimate Aim — the interference must pursue a legitimate state purpose; (3) Proportionality — the interference must be proportionate to the aim, and the least restrictive means must be used. All three conditions must be cumulatively satisfied.
How does Puttaswamy relate to the Navtej Johar judgment on Section 377?
Puttaswamy (2017) was the foundational precedent for Navtej Johar (2018). Puttaswamy held that sexual orientation is an essential component of identity protected under the right to privacy under Article 21. Navtej Johar built directly on this to hold that criminalising consensual same-sex relations violates the constitutional rights of privacy, dignity, equality, and non-discrimination. Without Puttaswamy, Navtej Johar's constitutional reasoning would have been less secure.