Scribd
Upload
5 views2 pages

Brief Facts

A retired High Court Judge, K.S. Puttaswamy, filed a petition in 2012 challenging the constitutionality of Aadhaar, arguing that it violates the right to privacy, which he claims is a fundamental right under Article 21 of the Indian Constitution. The Supreme Court ruled on August 24, 2017, that the right to privacy is indeed a fundamental right, integral to the Constitution, but not absolute, requiring a balance between individual privacy and legitimate state interests. The Court established a triple test for any invasion of privacy, emphasizing the need for legitimate aim, proportionality, and legality.

Uploaded by

saniya
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
5 views2 pages

Brief Facts

A retired High Court Judge, K.S. Puttaswamy, filed a petition in 2012 challenging the constitutionality of Aadhaar, arguing that it violates the right to privacy, which he claims is a fundamental right under Article 21 of the Indian Constitution. The Supreme Court ruled on August 24, 2017, that the right to privacy is indeed a fundamental right, integral to the Constitution, but not absolute, requiring a balance between individual privacy and legitimate state interests. The Court established a triple test for any invasion of privacy, emphasizing the need for legitimate aim, proportionality, and legality.

Uploaded by

saniya
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 2

Brief facts: A retired High Court Judge K.S.

Puttaswamy filed a petition in 2012 against the Union of


India before a nine-judge bench of the Supreme Court challenging the constitutionality of Aadhaar
because it is violating the right to privacy which had been established on reference from the
Constitution Bench to determine whether or not the right to privacy was guaranteed as an
independent fundamental right under the constitution of India following past decisions from
Supreme Court benches.

Issues:

1. Whether or not there is any fundamental right of privacy under the Constitution of India?

2. Whether or not the decision made by the Court that there are no such fundamental rights in
M.P. Sharma & Ors. vs. Satish Chandra, 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: • It was argued from the side of the petitioner before the court is that the
right to privacy is an intrinsic part of the right to life and personal liberty under Article 21 and as a
part of the freedoms guaranteed by Part III of the Constitution and same is to be protected by the
constitution of India. • It was also put forward to evaluate the correctness of the decision noted in
Karak Singh vs. The state of Uttar Pradesh and M. P. Sharma vs. Satish Chandra on the ground that it
violates the Right to Privacy under Article 21 of the constitution.

Respondent’s Argument: • It was argued from the side of the defendant that the constitution of India
does not specifically protect the Right to privacy and on this ground that the right of privacy was not
guaranteed under the Constitution, and hence Article 21 of the Indian Constitution (the right to life
and personal liberty) had no application in the case of both M. P. Sharma vs Satish Chandra and Karak
Singh vs. State of UP.

The court has discussed various issues regarding privacy to felicitate the clear analysis

1. Privacy Concerns Against state and Non-State Actors. It was held that the claim of protection
of privacy can be against both state and non- state actors as the danger in the age of
technological development can originate not only from the state but from the non-state
entities as well.

2. Informational Privacy (Not an absolute right). It was held that Informational privacy is an
aspect of the right to privacy. The right of an individual to exercise control over his data and
to be able to control his/her existence on the internet and unauthorized use of such
information

3. The ambit of Article 21 broadens by agreeing on opinions of the judges which recognized
that rights which have been held to flow out include the following:

i. Food preferences and animal slaughter – Hinsa Virodhak Sangh v. Mirzapur Moti Kuresh
Jamat & Ors.
ii. Reproductive rights – medical termination of pregnancy – Suchita Srivastava & Anr vs.
Chandigarh Administration.
iii. Protection of personal information – privacy of health records – Mr. X v Hospital Z,1998
iv. The right to go abroad – Satwant Singh Sawhney v D Ramarathnam APO New Delhi
v. The right of prisoners against bar fetters – Charles Sobraj v Supdt. Central Jail.
vi. The right to legal aid – M H Hoskot v State of Maharashtra.
vii. The right to a speedy trial – Hussainara Khatoon v Home Secretary, State of Bihar.
viii. The right against handcuffing – Prem Shankar Shukla v Delhi Administration.
ix. The right against custodial violence – Sheela Barse v State of Maharashtra.
x. The right against public hanging – A G of India v Lachma Devi.
xi. Right to doctor’s assistance at government hospitals – Paramanand Katara v Union of
India.
xii. Right to shelter – Shantistar Builders v N K Totame.
xiii. Right to a healthy environment – Virender Gaur v State of Haryana.
xiv. Right to compensation for unlawful arrest – Rudal Sah v State of Bihar.
xv. Right to freedom from torture – Sunil Batra v Delhi Administration.
xvi. Right to reputation – Umesh Kumar v State of Andhra Pradesh.
xvii. Right to earn a livelihood – Olga Tellis v Bombay Municipal Corporation.

Judgment:

A nine-judge bench of the Supreme Court of India passed a landmark judgment on 24th August 2017,
upholding the fundamental right to privacy under Article 21 of the constitution of India.

Article 21 of the Constitution reads as: “No person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty
except according to procedure established by law”.

It is stated in the judgment that the privacy is to be an integral component of Part III of the Indian
Constitution, which lays down the fundamental rights of the citizens. The Supreme Court also stated
that the state must carefully balance the individual privacy and the legitimate aim, at any cost as
fundamental rights cannot be given or taken away by law, and all laws and acts must abide by the
constitution. The Court also declared that the right to privacy is not an absolute right and any
invasion of privacy by state or non-state actor must satisfy the triple test i.e.

1. Legitimate Aim

2. Proportionality

3. Legality

You might also like

pFad - Phonifier reborn

Pfad - The Proxy pFad of © 2024 Garber Painting. All rights reserved.

Note: This service is not intended for secure transactions such as banking, social media, email, or purchasing. Use at your own risk. We assume no liability whatsoever for broken pages.


Alternative Proxies:

Alternative Proxy

pFad Proxy

pFad v3 Proxy

pFad v4 Proxy