This Case Commentary is written by Arghyadip Das, Second-Year Law Student of Haldia Law College

Name of the case:

Justice K.S.Puttaswamy (Retired). Vs Union of India and Others, 2017.

Citation:

Writ Petition (Civil) No. 494 of 2012, (2017) 10 SCC 1

Court:

Supreme Court of India

Petitioner:

Justice K S Puttaswamy (Retired)

Respondent:

Union of India and Others.

Bench:

Sanjay Kishan Kaul, Dhananjaya Y. Chandrachud, R. K. Agrawal, J. S. Khehar, S. A. Bobde, S. A. Nazeer, R. K. Agrawal, J. Chelameswar, A.M. Sapre JJ.

The Theme of the Case:

The right to Privacy is a fundamental Right

Laws dealt with by the Case:

Aadhar Act, Constitutional Law, and Rights

Date of Judgement:

24th August 2017

Introduction:

On August 24, 2017, a nine-judge seat of the High Court conveyed a milestone administering on account of Equity K.S. Puttaswamy versus Association of India, certifying the established right to protection. The Court perceived security as a central part of Part III of the Constitution of India, which includes fundamental privileges like uniformity (Articles 14 to 18), the right to speak freely of discourse and articulation (Article 19(1)(a)), an opportunity of development (Article 19(1)(d)), and the insurance of life and individual freedom (Article 21), among others. These essential privileges are sacred by regulation, requiring that all official and leader activities adjust to them.

By the by, the High Court explained that likened to other fundamental rights, the right to security is certainly not an "absolute right." It very well might be dependent upon restrictions in light of explicit tests and measures, considering the possible encroachment of a singular's protection for contending state and individual interests. This conversation will investigate the standards laid out by the High Court in the Puttaswamy case, which will act as a structure for assessing future security infringement. The examination demonstrates that a greater part of the judges agreed on the utilization of the European norm of proportionality to survey security encroachments pushing ahead. Be that as it may, the level of meticulousness and particularity in applying this principle will differ contingent on the idea of the clashing interests included and will be dependent upon the situation. At any rate, any challenged activity will keep on being thought about in contrast to the "equitable, fair, and sensible" standard verbalized under Article 21 of the Constitution. Before inspecting the norms set out by the Court, understanding the setting that required the High Court's assurance of the principal right to protection and the translation of its inevitable ruling is critical.

Facts:

In 2012, K.S. Puttaswamy, a resigned High Court Judge, presented a request to a nine-judge bench of the Supreme Court challenging the legality of Aadhaar. He contended that the program encroaches upon the right to privacy, a right that had been recently settled through references from the Constitution Bench. This inquiry aimed to ascertain whether the right to privacy is recognized as a distinct fundamental right under the Constitution of India, in light of earlier rulings from various Supreme Court benches.

Issues:
1. Whether there is any fundamental right of privacy under the Constitution of India?

2. Whether the decision made by the Court that there are no such fundamental rights in M.P. Sharma & Ors. vs. Satish Chandra,[i] DM, Delhi & Ors. and also, in Kharak Singh vs. The State of U.P, is that the correct expression of the constitutional position?

Petitioner’s Argument:

The petitioner battled under the watchful eye of the court that the right to security is on a very basic level connected to one side of life and individual freedom as cherished in Article 21 of the Constitution. This right is additionally enveloped inside the opportunities safeguarded by Part III of the Constitution, requiring its defence under Indian regulation. Besides, the petitioner tried to rethink the legitimacy of the decisions in Karak Singh vs The Province of Uttar Pradesh and M. P. Sharma vs Satish Chandra, affirming that these choices encroach upon the Right to Protection as expressed in Article 21.

Respondent’s Argument:

The respondent kept up with that the Indian Constitution doesn't unequivocally cherish the Right to Privacy. Subsequently, it was contended that since protection isn't ensured by the Constitution, Article 21, which relates to one side of life and individual freedom, is irrelevant with regards to both M. P. Sharma vs. Satish Chandra and Karak Singh vs. The State of Uttar Pradesh.

The court has engaged in a comprehensive examination of various privacy-related issues to facilitate a thorough understanding of the subject matter.

1. Privacy Issues Concerning State and Non-State Entities.

The court determined that the assertion of privacy protection applies to both state and non-state actors, recognizing that in the contemporary era of technological advancement, privacy threats can emanate from both governmental and non-governmental sources.

2. Informational Privacy (Not an Absolute Right).

The court concluded that informational privacy constitutes a component of the broader right to privacy. An individual's ability to manage their data and to oversee their online presence, as well as the unauthorized utilization of such information, can potentially infringe upon this right.

3. The extent of Article 21 grows through the agreement of legal conclusions that have distinguished different privileges radiating from it, which incorporate the accompanying:

i. Dietary decisions and the issue of creature butcher - Hinsa Virodhak Sangh v. Mirzapur Moti Kuresh Jamat and Ors.

ii. Reproductive rights, specifically concerning medical termination of pregnancy – Suchita Srivastava & Anr vs. Chandigarh Administration.

iii. Safeguarding personal information, particularly the privacy of health records – Mr. X v Hospital Z, 1998.

iv. The entitlement to travel abroad – Satwant Singh Sawhney v D Ramarathnam APO, New Delhi.

v. The rights of prisoners regarding the use of bar fetters – Charles Sobraj v Supdt. Central Jail.

vi. The right to receive legal aid – M H Hoskot v State of Maharashtra.

vii. The right to a prompt trial – Hussainara Khatoon v Home Secretary, State of Bihar.

viii. The right to be free from handcuffing – Prem Shankar Shukla v Delhi Administration.

ix. The right to protection against custodial violence – Sheela Barse v State of Maharashtra.

x. The right to be free from public hanging – A G of India v Lachma Devi.[ii]

xi. The right to medical assistance in government hospitals – Paramanand Katara v Union of India.

xii. The right to adequate shelter – Shantistar Builders v N K Totame.

xiii. The right to a healthy environment – Virender Gaur v State of Haryana.

xiv. The right to compensation for wrongful arrest – Rudal Sah v State of Bihar.

xv. The right to be free from torture – Sunil Batra v Delhi Administration.

xvi. The right to maintain one’s reputation – Umesh Kumar v State of Andhra Pradesh.

xvii. The right to pursue a livelihood – Olga Tellis v Bombay Municipal Corporation.

On August 24, 2017, a significant ruling was delivered by a nine-judge bench of the Supreme Court of India, affirming the fundamental right to privacy as enshrined in Article 21 of the Indian Constitution.

Article 21 states:

“No person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty except according to procedure established by law.”[iii]

The ruling articulated that privacy constitutes a vital element of Part III of the Indian Constitution, which delineates the fundamental rights of citizens. The Supreme Court underscored the need for the state to sensibly adjust individual security against authentic targets, attesting that major privileges can't be prevented or renounced by regulation, and all regulations should adjust to sacred standards. Moreover, the Court explained that the right to privacy isn't outright; any infringement upon this right by one or the other state or non-state substances should meet a triple rule, which incorporates:

· Legitimate Aim

· Proportionality

· Legality

The unanimous decision of the nine judges includes the following points:

i The ruling in M P Sharma vs. Satish Chandra, which asserted that the right to privacy is not constitutionally protected, has been overruled;

ii The ruling in Kharak Singh vs. State of UP, to the extent that it claimed the right to privacy lacks constitutional protection, has also been overruled;

iii The right to privacy is recognized as an essential component of the right to life and personal liberty under Article 21 of the Indian Constitution, as well as a fundamental freedom guaranteed by Part III of the Constitution.

Conclusion:

The Supreme Court of India reaffirmed its part as the essential gatekeeper of the constitution by laying out a lawful structure for privacy rights inside the country. This milestone judgment resolves different relevant issues and states that protection comprises a principal and basic right, vital for human poise and freedom as revered in Article 21 of the Indian Constitution. Furthermore, this ruling paves the way for the decriminalization of homosexuality, as evidenced in the case of Navtej Singh Johar v. Union of India (2018),[iv] and the repeal of the adultery law, as determined in Joseph Shine v. Union of India (27 September 2018).

References:

[i] M.P. Sharma & Ors. vs. Satish Chandra M. P. Sharma And Others vs Satish Chandra, District ... on 15 March, 1954 (indiankanoon.org)

[ii] 35071_2012_Judgement_24-Aug-2017.pdf (sci.gov.in)

[iii] Art 21: 14th Amendment | U.S. Constitution | US Law | LII / Legal Information Institute (cornell.edu)

[iv] A History of LGBT Criminalisation | Human Dignity Trust