- CJI J.S. KheharFavored (Authored concurring)
- Justice J. ChelameswarFavored (Authored concurring)
- Justice S.A. BobdeFavored (Authored concurring)
- Justice R.K. AgrawalFavored (Concurred with Khehar)
- Justice R.F. NarimanFavored (Authored concurring)
- Justice A.M. SapreFavored (Authored concurring)
- Justice D.Y. ChandrachudFavored (Authored lead concurring opinion)
- Justice S.K. KaulFavored (Authored concurring)
- Justice S. Abdul NazeerFavored (Concurred with Khehar)
- Constitution of India (Articles 14, 19, 21, Preamble)
- Aadhaar (Targeted Delivery of Financial and Other Subsidies, Benefits and Services) Act, 2016
- M.P. Sharma v. Satish Chandra (1954) (Overruled)
- Kharak Singh v. State of U.P. (1962) (Partially Overruled)
- Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India (1978) (Relied upon)
- NALSA v. Union of India (2014) (Relied upon for identity/dignity)
This case, often called the Right to Privacy Case, arose from petitions challenging the constitutional validity of the government's Aadhaar scheme, which collected biometric data. During the hearings, the government argued that the Constitution does not grant a specific fundamental right to privacy. They relied on two earlier judgments, M.P. Sharma (1954) and Kharak Singh (1962), which had held that privacy was not a fundamental right.
Due to the conflicting judgments that followed (which had read privacy into Article 21), a 5-judge bench referred this core question to a 9-judge bench to authoritatively determine whether privacy is a fundamental right under the Indian Constitution.
ARGUMENTS
Petitioners' Case (Puttaswamy & Others)
- The right to privacy is an inalienable natural right, essential for human dignity and autonomy.
- Privacy is not an elitist concept but a necessary component of individual liberty, protected implicitly under Article 21 (Right to Life and Personal Liberty).
- It is also essential for exercising other freedoms, such as freedom of speech (Article 19(1)(a)) and freedom of association (Article 19(1)(c)).
- The judgments in M.P. Sharma and Kharak Singh were incorrectly decided and based on a narrow, outdated interpretation of liberty (similar to A.K. Gopalan).
- International human rights covenants, which India has ratified, recognize privacy as a basic right.
Respondents' Case (Union of India)
- The framers of the Constitution debated and deliberately excluded a specific right to privacy.
- The judgments in M.P. Sharma (8-judge bench) and Kharak Singh (majority view) are binding precedents that hold privacy is not a fundamental right.
- Privacy is a vague, elitist concept and cannot be elevated to a fundamental right.
- Elevating privacy to a fundamental right would hinder the state's ability to govern, investigate crime, and deliver social welfare services (like Aadhaar).
- Privacy is, at best, a common law right, not a fundamental constitutional right.
Case Progression Timeline
M.P. Sharma v. Satish Chandra
An 8-judge bench, in the context of search and seizure, holds that there is no constitutional right to privacy.
1954Kharak Singh v. State of U.P.
A 6-judge bench majority holds privacy is not a fundamental right, though a minority dissent (by Justice Subba Rao) finds it is part of personal liberty.
1962Maneka Gandhi v. UOI & Others
SC expands Article 21 to include dignity, reading privacy implicitly into it in subsequent cases, creating conflicting precedents.
1978 onwardsAadhaar Petitions Filed
Petitions, including by Justice Puttaswamy, challenge the Aadhaar scheme, partly on grounds of privacy violation.
2012 onwardsReferral to 9-Judge Bench
A 5-judge bench refers the specific question of whether privacy is a fundamental right to a 9-judge bench to settle the law.
July 18, 2017Supreme Court Judgment
The 9-judge bench unanimously holds that the Right to Privacy is a fundamental right protected under the Constitution.
August 24, 2017In a historic, unanimous 9-0 judgment (with six separate concurring opinions), the Supreme Court held that the Right to Privacy is a fundamental right. The Court ruled that privacy is an intrinsic part of the Right to Life and Personal Liberty under Article 21 and is also inherent in the other fundamental freedoms guaranteed in Part III of the Constitution.
This judgment explicitly overruled the previous judgments in M.P. Sharma (1954) and Kharak Singh (1962) to the extent that they held privacy was not a fundamental right. The Court clarified that privacy is a natural right that is essential for human dignity and autonomy. However, it also stated that this right is not absolute and any state infringement upon it must pass a three-fold test: (i) it must be based on a valid law, (ii) it must be for a legitimate state aim, and (iii) it must be proportionate.
COURT'S ANALYSIS
The six concurring judgments, though arriving at the same conclusion, explored different facets of privacy. Justice D.Y. Chandrachud's lead opinion emphasized privacy as a right to "self-determination" and essential for one's identity. Justice Chelameswar linked privacy to the "pursuit of happiness." Justice Nariman confirmed the overruling of the previous cases and affirmed the link between privacy and dignity. Justice Kaul highlighted the implications for informational privacy in the digital age. Collectively, the judgments rejected the government's argument that privacy was an "elitist" concept, firmly establishing it as a universal right necessary for a meaningful life. This judgment reset the foundation of constitutional law in India, strengthening individual liberties against state intrusion.
FINAL VERDICT
- The Right to Privacy is a fundamental right.
- It is an intrinsic part of the Right to Life and Personal Liberty under Article 21 and is inherent in Part III of the Constitution.
- The decisions in M.P. Sharma v. Satish Chandra (1954) and Kharak Singh v. State of U.P. (1962) are overruled to the extent they held that privacy is not a fundamental right.
- The right to privacy is not absolute; any invasion must be based on a law, meet a legitimate state aim, and be proportional to that aim.
- The case was referred back to the smaller benches to decide the validity of the Aadhaar scheme based on this newly affirmed right.
RATIO DECIDENDI
The Right to Privacy is an inherent and inalienable right, essential for the autonomy and dignity of an individual. It is a fundamental right protected under Article 21 (as part of the right to life and personal liberty) and as an intrinsic component of the freedoms guaranteed in Part III of the Constitution. Any state intrusion upon this right must pass the test of "strict scrutiny" (i.e., it must be based on a valid law, serve a legitimate public interest, and be necessary and proportionate to that interest).