The constitutional legitimacy of the Aadhaar scheme was contested in a writ case filed in 2012 by Justice K. S. Puttaswamy, a retired judge of the High Court. The decisions of the eight judges bench in M. P. Sharma v. Satish Chandra, District Magistrate, Delhi, 1954, and the six judges bench in Kharak Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh, 1964, pertaining to the validity of the “right to privacy,” were called into question by a three-judge bench on August 11th, 2015.
Thus, the matter was at first referred to a five-judge bench and was subsequently put before a nine-judge bench headed by Chief Justice Khehar on July 18, 2017.
Constitutional mandate on the right to privacy
The landmark judgement in the instant case bestowed on the populace a “fundamental right to privacy” under the ambit of Article 21 and Part III of the Constitution. The nine-judge bench unanimously recognised “privacy as intrinsic to the notion of the right to life with dignity,” consequently overruling the verdict in the M.P. Sharma and Kharak Singh case. Conversely, the doctrine encapsulating the “right to privacy” has been given due regard in the prospective judgements of Navtej Johar and Joseph Shine at a later stage.
Also read: The case that gave transgenders the due recognition that they rightfully deserve
Factual Background: Justice K.S. Puttaswamy vs. UOI
The case arose out of a petition filed by Justice K.S. Puttaswamy, who questioned the legality of the Aadhaar scheme. Under the programme, the UIDAI was issuing a personal identifying code in the form of a ‘12-digit Aadhaar number’ after collecting the biometric details of the citizens. Thus, the government integrated Aadhar with a variety of welfare programmes and made it mandatory to use the benefits provided by such government policies.
Thereby, questions were raised about the constitutionality of the Aadhaar program, which was allegedly causing privacy violations by making it mandatory for the citizens to furnish their biometric details. Therefore, keeping in mind the threats of “data privacy” and “data protection,” the prominent question posed before the Bench for consideration was whether privacy is a fundamental right or not.
Dictum of the Apex Court
The Constitutional Bench of the Apex Court furnished a progressive judgement in the instant case. Justice Chandrachud, in his plurality opinion, held that “the right to privacy is not independent of the other freedoms guaranteed by Part III of the Constitution.”
Further, rejecting the “claim that privacy is an aristocratic construct,” the Hon’able Judge emphasised the “informational aspect of privacy’, ‘its relationship to human dignity and autonomy,’ and the ‘negative and positive sides’ of policy with respect to the dangers of data mining, positive obligations on the state, and the need for a data protection law. More interestingly, he puts an embargo on the state from “unfairly interfering in the privacy of individuals” and also puts in place “a legislative framework to restrict others” from doing the same.
On similar lines, Justice Chelameswar opined ‘the right to privacy to endow three facets’, namely, repose that is ‘freedom from unwarranted stimuli’, ‘sanctuary’ signifying ‘protection from intrusive observation’ and ‘intimate decision’ referring to ‘autonomy to make personal life decisions.’
Also read: Anvar P.V. vs P.K.Basheer & Ors : The case that let guidelines for the Evidence Act
Privacy as opposed to unauthorised state invasion
Justice Nariman had too endorsed the ‘Gary Bostwick’s conceptual understanding of privacy’ incorporated by Justice Chelameshwar. The Hon’ble Justice further built upon the constructs of privacy, encapsulating the ‘content to the right by classifying it into three categories of unauthorized state invasion, threat to personal information and individual autonomy over fundamental personal choices’ respectively.
Conversely, Justice Bobde pointed out two aspects of the right to privacy that is to restrict legislative powers and secondly, to provide the conditions for the development and dignity of individuals. Evidently, pointing out the precaution of privacy to fall squarely on the State. On the other hand, Justice Kaul, highlighted the ‘impact of technology’ raising privacy concerns and the need for data protection without having a chilling impact on ‘free speech and expression’.
Also read: Jallikattu is legally and morally the right of Tamils
Lastly, Justice Sapre focused his opinion on the significance of the constitutional principles of liberty, dignity, and fraternity enshrined in the Constitution for the purpose of suggesting “standard tests for evaluating an infringement of privacy.”
Thus, the judgement can be said to have laid the foundation stone of the “Right to Privacy” jurisprudence in India. Thus, setting aside the two previous landmark judgements on the subject, the nine-judge bench in this case unanimously reaffirmed the right to privacy as a fundamental right under the Constitution of India.
Support TFI:
Support us to strengthen the ‘Right’ ideology of cultural nationalism by purchasing the best quality garments from TFI-STORE.COM
Also Watch:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ViTiCn4ddoY
