This all changed on August 24, 2017, with a historic decision by the Supreme Court of India. In the case of Justice K.S. Puttaswamy (Retd.) vs. Union of India, a nine-judge bench unanimously declared that the Right to Privacy is a fundamental right protected under the Indian Constitution.
This blog post will break down this complex legal judgment into simple, understandable language. We'll explore what the case was about, why it was needed, what the court actually said, and what it means for you, the ordinary Indian citizen.
The Big Question: Is Privacy a Fundamental Right in India?
The whole case started with a challenge to the Aadhaar card scheme, where the government collects biometric and demographic data (like fingerprints, iris scans, and address details) of all residents. The petitioners argued that collecting such intimate data without a robust privacy law was a violation of the citizen's right to privacy.
The government's lawyers, however, pointed out a big legal problem. They cited two old Supreme Court judgments:
1. M.P. Sharma Case (1954): An eight-judge bench had observed that the Indian Constitution does not contain a specific guarantee of the right to privacy, unlike the U.S. Constitution.
2. Kharak Singh Case (1964): A six-judge bench had similarly stated that the "right to privacy is not a guaranteed right under our Constitution."
These were big, old judgments from larger benches of judges. Since then, many smaller benches of the Supreme Court had actually recognized a right to privacy in various contexts. This created a contradiction in the law. To settle this once and for all, a special nine-judge bench was assembled not to decide on Aadhaar, but to answer one fundamental question: Is the Right to Privacy a fundamental right under the Indian Constitution?
Overturning the Past: Why the Old Cases Got It Wrong
The Supreme Court began by re-examining the two old cases that denied the right to privacy. It found that their reasoning was based on an outdated understanding of fundamental rights.
The "Water-Tight Compartment" Myth
Back in the 1950s and 60s, the Supreme Court viewed the different fundamental rights (like Freedom of Speech, Life and Personal Liberty, etc.) as separate, water-tight compartments. For instance, if a law affected personal liberty (Article 21), it would only be tested under that article and not against the freedom of speech (Article 19).
This narrow view was the foundation of the M.P. Sharma and Kharak Singh judgments. Since they were dealing with search warrants and police surveillance, they didn't see a direct link to a standalone "right to privacy."
However, in later years, the Supreme Court itself evolved. In landmark cases like R.C. Cooper (1970) and Maneka Gandhi (1978), the Court discarded this old approach. It held that fundamental rights are not isolated; they overlap and enrich each other. The right to life and personal liberty (Article 21) is the core, and many other freedoms flow from it. The old cases of M.P. Sharma and Kharak Singh were built on a foundation that had already been knocked down.
The Contradiction in Kharak Singh
The Court pointed out a major inconsistency in the Kharak Singh judgment itself. In that case, the police regulations allowed for "domiciliary visits" – meaning police could knock on your door in the middle of the night for surveillance.
a. The majority judges struck down this specific rule, calling it an "unauthorized intrusion into a person’s home" and a violation of "ordered liberty." They famously quoted the English saying, "Every man’s house is his castle."
b. But then, in the very same judgment, when looking at other surveillance rules, they said that the "right to privacy is not a guaranteed right."
The Court in 2017 found this illogical. How could you protect the sanctity of the home, which is a core aspect of privacy, and then say privacy itself is not a right? The Court concluded that the second part of the Kharak Singh judgment was incorrect.
The Verdict on the Past:
The Supreme Court explicitly overruled both M.P. Sharma and Kharak Singh to the extent that they said the Indian Constitution does not protect the right to privacy.
The Heart of the Matter: Why Privacy is a Fundamental Right
After clearing the historical confusion, the nine judges laid down a powerful and philosophical reasoning for why privacy is intrinsic to a life of freedom and dignity. While all nine judges agreed on the core outcome, they expressed their reasoning in separate but complementary opinions. Here are the key themes that emerged.
1. Privacy is the Foundation of Personal Liberty and Dignity
The Court powerfully linked privacy to the core values of the Indian Constitution.
a. Life with Dignity: The Court stated that the right to "life" under Article 21 is not just about animal existence. It is about "the right to live with dignity." Privacy is essential for this dignity. It allows us to make personal choices, develop our personalities, and have a space where we can be ourselves without unwanted scrutiny.
b. Intrinsic to Liberty: Privacy and liberty are two sides of the same coin. You cannot be truly free if every aspect of your life is open to public or state inspection. As one judge put it, privacy is the "necessary condition" for the enjoyment of all other freedoms.
2. Privacy is an "Inalienable" Natural Right
The judgment emphasized that the right to privacy is not a gift from the state. It is a natural right that inheres in every individual simply by virtue of being human.
a. It exists even before the Constitution was written.
b. The Constitution does not create this right; it merely recognizes and protects it.
c. This makes it an inalienable right—meaning it cannot be taken away or surrendered.
3. Privacy is Essential for Making Core Personal Choices
The Court gave examples of the kind of personal decisions that are protected by the right to privacy. These are areas where the state has no business interfering. This includes:
a. Decisions about one's body, health, and reproduction.
b. The choice of a life partner.
c. The right to be left alone.
d. The protection of one's family life and home.
e.One's sexual orientation.
In a significant move, the Court used this reasoning to indirectly criticize the 2013 Suresh Kumar Koushal judgment which had recriminalized homosexuality. It stated that discriminating against an individual based on sexual orientation is "deeply offensive to the dignity and self-worth of the individual." This part of the Puttaswamy judgment paved the way for the eventual decriminalization of homosexuality in the Navtej Singh Johar case in 2018.
4. Privacy is Not an "Elitist" Concept
The government had argued that privacy is a concern only for the rich and elite, and that the masses are more worried about food and shelter. The Court firmly rejected this argument.
a. Privacy is for everyone. The poor are entitled to the same intimacy and autonomy as the rich.
b. The Court gave powerful examples: a poor woman is entitled to refuse forced sterilization; a daily-wage labourer has the right to protect his family life from intrusive surveillance. Privacy protects the weak from the powerful.
c. The Court warned that the argument that the poor don't need civil and political rights has been used throughout history to justify the worst human rights violations.
5. Privacy in the Digital Age: Informational Privacy
The Court showed a remarkable understanding of modern challenges. It recognized that in today's information economy, one of the most important facets of privacy is informational privacy—the ability to control our personal data.
a. Dangers from State and Companies: The dangers to our privacy now come not just from the government but also from non-state actors like big tech companies that collect, store, and process our personal data.
b. The Need for a Data Protection Law: The Court directed the Union Government to enact a strong and comprehensive data protection law to regulate the collection and use of personal data. It emphasized the need to balance individual privacy with legitimate state interests like national security and preventing fraud in welfare schemes.
What Does the Right to Privacy Actually Include?
The Court explained that privacy is a complex right with many facets. It's not just about being left alone in your bedroom. Drawing from international scholarship, the judgment outlined several types of privacy:
1. Bodily Privacy: Protection from physical intrusion, like forced medical procedures or bodily searches.
2. Spatial Privacy: The privacy of your home, your personal space, and your family life.
3. Communicational Privacy: The privacy of your conversations, letters, emails, and phone calls.
4. Informational Privacy: The right to control your personal data—how it is collected, used, and shared.
5. Decisional Privacy: The freedom to make intimate personal choices without interference, such as choices about marriage, procreation, and healthcare.
Is the Right to Privacy Absolute?
No, and this is a crucial part of the judgment. Like other fundamental rights, the right to privacy is not absolute. The state can impose restrictions, but it must pass a strict test. Any law that infringes on privacy must satisfy a three-fold requirement:
1. Legality: There must be a law passed by the parliament or state legislature that authorizes the invasion of privacy. It cannot be done arbitrarily by a government officer.
2. Legitimate Aim: The law must serve a legitimate state purpose. For example, national security, preventing crime, protecting public health, or preventing the dissipation of welfare benefits.
3. Proportionality: This is the most important check. The method used by the state to achieve its goal must be proportional to the need. The invasion of privacy must not be greater than what is strictly necessary. For instance, mass surveillance of all citizens would likely be a disproportionate way to catch a few criminals.
This framework ensures that while the state can act in public interest, it cannot ride roughshod over individual rights without a very good reason and a carefully tailored law.
Conclusion: A New Dawn for Liberty in India
The Justice K.S. Puttaswamy judgment is far more than a legal technicality. It is a transformative moment in Indian constitutional history. It reaffirmed the Indian Constitution as a living, breathing document that protects the individual against the overwhelming power of the state.
In simple terms, here is what the Supreme Court decided:
- YES, Privacy is a Fundamental Right: It is an intrinsic part of the Right to Life and Personal Liberty (Article 21) and the freedoms guaranteed by Part III of the Constitution.
- The Old Cases are Wrong: The judgments in M.P. Sharma and Kharak Singh, to the extent they denied privacy, stand overruled.
- It's a Natural Right: Privacy is an inalienable right, inherent to human dignity.
- It's Not Absolute: The right is subject to reasonable restrictions based on a clear, proportionate law for a legitimate state aim.
- Protect Our Data: The government must put in place a robust data protection regime.
- Decriminalizing homosexuality (Navtej Singh Johar v. Union of India).
- Strengthening the rights of women, including their reproductive choices and bodily autonomy.
- Pushing the government to draft the Digital Personal Data Protection Act, 2023.
- Empowering citizens to question unwarranted surveillance and data collection.
The Right to Privacy is the right to be you. It is the right to think your own thoughts, love whom you choose, practice your faith, and live your life in your own way, free from the constant, watchful eye of the state or society. The Puttaswamy judgment is the constitutional shield that protects this sacred, personal space. It ensures that in the world's largest democracy, the individual citizen remains at the heart of the constitutional framework
0 Comments