Right to Privacy & Constitutional Bench•2 min read•(2017) 10 SCC 1

Justice K.S. Puttaswamy (Retd.) and Another v. Union of India and Others

Bench: Nine-Judge Constitution Bench (J.S. Khehar, C.J., J. Chelameswar, S.A. Bobde, R.K. Agrawal, R.F. Nariman, A.M. Sapre, D.Y. Chandrachud, S.K. Kaul & S. Abdul Nazeer, JJ.)
Writ Petitions & Fundamental Rights (PIL & Writs)
Read the full judgment on Indian Kanoon
Core Legal Ratio Decidendi

"Privacy is a foundational fundamental right radiating from personal liberty, dignity, and autonomy under Article 21, subject only to permissible state restrictions meeting the strict standard of proportionality."

I
Step 1

Issues Before the Court

  1. (i)

    Whether the Right to Privacy is guaranteed as an independent fundamental right under Part III of the Constitution of India?

  2. (ii)

    Whether the earlier rulings in M.P. Sharma (1954, 8-judge bench) and Kharak Singh (1962, 6-judge bench) denying privacy as a fundamental right represent correct constitutional law?

R
Step 2

Law & Rules Applicable

  1. (i)

    Constitution of India, Article 21 (Protection of life and personal liberty).

  2. (ii)

    Constitution of India, Article 14 (Equality before law), Article 19 (Fundamental freedoms).

  3. (iii)

    Overruled: M.P. Sharma v. Satish Chandra and Kharak Singh v. State of U.P., to the extent they held that privacy is not a fundamental right.

A
Step 3

Application to Facts & Circumstances

The constitutional challenge arose out of writ petitions challenging the biometric Aadhaar identity framework as an unconstitutional intrusion into individual autonomy.

The 9-judge bench unanimously held that privacy is not a conceded gift of the state, but a natural, intrinsic facet of human dignity and liberty. It resides at the core of individual self-determination, bodily integrity, spatial freedom, and informational autonomy.

The Court formulated the Three-Fold Proportionality Test for state encroachments on privacy: (1) Legality (must have express legislative authority), (2) Legitimate State Aim (must serve a pressing public goal), and (3) Proportionality (the state must adopt the least restrictive measure having a rational nexus to the objective).

C
Step 4

Conclusion & Ruling

  1. (i)

    The Right to Privacy is an inalienable fundamental right protected under Article 21 and the overarching freedoms in Part III of the Constitution.

  2. (ii)

    M.P. Sharma and Kharak Singh were expressly overruled on this point.

  3. (iii)

    State surveillance, data collection, and biometric intrusions must strictly satisfy the tests of legality, legitimate aim, and proportionality.

Authorities Cited

Full texts open on Indian Kanoon in a new tab.

  1. Kharak Singh v. State of U.P., [1964] 1 SCR 332Full text of Kharak Singh v. State of U.P. on Indian Kanoon
  2. M.P. Sharma v. Satish Chandra, [1954] SCR 1077Full text of M.P. Sharma v. Satish Chandra on Indian Kanoon
← All case law briefs