IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION

Justice K.S. Puttaswamy (Retd) vs. Union of India

(2019) 1 SCC 1

Date of judgement – 26 September 2018

Judges – Chief Justice, A.K. Sikri, A.M. Khanwilkar, D.Y.

Chandrachud, Ashok Bhushan

- Yashika Balutia
INTRODUCTION
The primary question in Justice K.S. Puttaswamy (Retd) v. Union of India is whether the
Aadhaar Act, 2016, which mandated the collection of biometric data for various government
services, is constitutional. The primary contention was that this requirement violated the right
to privacy.
The main legal questions were whether the right to privacy guaranteed by the Indian
Constitution is a fundamental one and to what extent the government can mandate the
collection of biometric data.
In deciding in favor of the petitioners, the Supreme Court of India recognized that the right to
privacy is a fundamental right. This landmark decision set a precedent for future cases in
India involving privacy rights and government data collecting.
Additionally, the court established guidelines for the government's collection and use of
biometric data in order to further ensure the protection of private rights. With this ruling, the
digital age's privacy protection for citizens has evolved dramatically.

FACTS OF THE CASE

The lawsuit started when Justice K.S. Puttaswamy, a former member of the Karnataka High
Court, filed a petition about the Aadhaar project, which was managed by the Unique
Identification Authority of India (UIDAI). The UIDAI gave each Indian citizen an Aadhaar
number, which is a 12-digit unique number. The Aadhaar Act requires the collection of
biometric and demographic data to grant Indians a unique identity number. The petitioners
claim that their right to privacy is violated by this obligatory requirement.

ISSUES
 The issue before the Court was whether Right to Privacy was a fundamental right
despite it not being expressly provided for by the Constitution.
 The question that also arose was that since the Court had stopped short of declaring
the right to privacy an absolute fundamental right in some of the above-mentioned
judgments, the petitioner wanted the Court to clarify whether the view expressed in
these previous judgments was the correct constitutional position.

ARGUMENTS
PETITIONER’S ARGUMENTS: By its very nature, the petitioners said, the Aadhaar Act's
planning is probabilistic. The Act seeks to provide society with more benefits, subsidies, and
services. It's probable that this will exclude the intended recipients from receiving these
subsidies, benefits, and services rather than benefiting the intended segment of society.
The principal contentions were that the Act might deny the nation's citizens the freedoms and
rights that the Indian Constitution guarantees them. Strict application of the Aadhaar Act may
pose a major issue since it goes against the citizens' fundamental rights as outlined in the
Indian Constitution.
The implementation of Aadhaar was unconstitutional because it could have led to the creation
of a surveillance state, where the government could monitor the activities of its citizens by
gathering personal data from all citizens through the creation of a shared electronic mesh.
It was argued that there was a violation of the Right to privacy of citizens. Article 21 of the
Indian Constitution includes the right to privacy as a fundamental component. Any
restrictions that are imposed must adhere to the requirements outlined in Articles 14 and 19 of
the Indian Constitution. It's also important that the law enforcing this restriction be just, fair,
and reasonable.
In this instance, the limitations imposed by the government under the Aadhaar Act are
arbitrary and unjustified and therefore do not qualify as reasonable constraints. There is no
connection between the Act's goal and the classification of society that it makes, hence there
is no justifiable classification. The citizen’s integrity was damaged by the information that
was requested of them. The information that the citizens wanted to gather had nothing to do
with the Act's purpose. Additionally, the Act classified citizens according to their religion. In
addition to discriminating against citizens, religious classification also compelled them to
disclose their faith, in violation of Article 25 of the Indian Constitution. Additionally, the Act
mandated the use of Aadhaar Cards to get some benefits that the government provided to its
residents. The government will be able to monitor the populace through the mandatory
Aadhaar Card, which would be a violation of Article 21 of the Constitution's right to privacy.
Because it infringes upon people's lives and dignity—a fundamental right protected by the
Constitution—violating one's right to privacy is a grave breach of one's right to life.
RESPONDENTS ARGUMENTS: Within the affidavit, the respondents declared that the
purpose of the Act's introduction was to guarantee that all citizens who qualify for
government benefits and subsidies receive them and are not denied them.
The respondents refuted the claim that the Aadhaar Act did not request any information that
would infringe upon an individual's right to privacy. The respondents argued that the Act
hardly ever requests any personal information from residents, which could allow the State to
monitor them. The respondents went on to say that names, dates of birth, gender, addresses,
phone numbers, and email addresses of the residents are among the demographic data that the
Act requests from them.
It is up to the citizens to decide whether or not to provide the State access to their email
address and mobile number; they are only required in order to send relevant data to the AMH
and generate an OTP for their authentication. The information that the Act requires from
citizens is available in the public domain. The responders further asserted that the regulations
are clearly prohibited by Section 2(k) of the Act from asking people for sensitive information,
such as their race, religion, caste, tribe, ethnicity, language, income, entitlement records, or
medical history. Thus, this Act cannot be used to collect private information from citizens. As
noted in the previous Section, the Act's goal of gathering biometric data from the individuals
is limited to their fingerprint and iris scans, severely restricting the possibilities of obtaining
any more demographic data.

JUDGEMENT
It was decided that both state and non-state organizations may have privacy concerns in the
modern era of technology, and as a result, both can be sued for invasions of privacy.
The Court further held that in the era of the internet, the right to information privacy is not
absolute and that a person's freedom to exercise control over his data may result in a
significant breach of that person's privacy.
It was also established that Article 21's scope is constantly growing as a result of the Supreme
Court judges' agreement over time, which has led to the inclusion of several rights under
Article 21.
The Supreme Court also ruled that the right to privacy is not absolute and that any
infringement of one's privacy by state or non-state actors must pass the following three
requirements (triple test):
1. Legitimate Aim
2. Proportionality
3. Legality
The following was also decided by all nine judges:
The ruling in M.P. Sharma v Satish Chandra, which maintained that the Indian Constitution
does not safeguard the right to privacy is overturned.
The decision in Kharak Singh, was also overruled to the extent that it maintains that Part III
does not protect the right to privacy.
In addition to being protected by Article 21 of the Constitution, an individual's right to
privacy is an integral component of Part III's framework, which upholds fundamental rights.

Conclusion
Justice K.S. Puttaswamy, a retired Karnataka High Court judge, questioned the Aadhaar
scheme's constitutionality. He asserted that the scheme violated his right to privacy. A three-
judge panel concluded that the right to privacy was protected by the Indian Constitution and
that the matter should be heard by a higher court. In this instance, a panel of nine judges
reached a decision. In Justice K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India and many other cases, a
nine-judge Supreme Court bench unanimously decided on August 24, 2017, that every person
has a fundamental right to privacy.
REFERENCES
M.P. Sharma v Satish Chandra
Kharak Singh

Author Information:
[YASHIKA BALUTIA]
[B.B.A.LL.B(Hons)]
[5TH YEAR]
[LAW COLLEGE DEHRADUN, UTTARANCHAL UNIVERSITY]