JUSTICE K.S PUTTASWAMY [RETD.] VS UNION OF INDIA,2017

CASE NUMBER /CASE TITLE: JUSTICE K.S. PUTTASWAMY [RETD.] VS UNION OF INDIA WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO 494 OF 2012

CITATION: (JUSTICE K.S. PUTTASWAMY [RETD.] VS UNION OF INDIA , 2017)               (2017) 10 SCC 1

PETITIONER: JUSTICE K.S. PUTTASWAMY [RETD.]&ORS.                                          RESPONDENT: UNION OF INDIA & ORS.

DATE OF JUDGMENT: AUGUST 24, 2017

CASE TYPE: WRIT PETITION

BENCH: JUSTICE J.S. KHEHAR (CJI), J. CHELAMESWAR, D.Y. CHANDRACHUD, ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN, R.K. AGARWAL, SANJAY KISHAN KAUL, S.A. NAZEER, S.A. BOBDE, A.M. SAPRE

Introduction:

Justice K.S. Puttaswamy & Anr. Vs Union Of India & Ors., Commonly Known As The Right To Privacy Verdict, Was A Landmark Decision Of The Supreme Court Of India, Which Held That The Right To Privacy Is Protected As A Fundamental Right Under Articles 14, 19 & 21 Of The Constitution Of India.

Facts:

In 2012, Justice K.S. Puttaswamy, A Retired Judge Of the Karnataka High Court, Filed A Writ Petition In The Supreme Court Challenging The Constitutional Validity Of The Aadhar Scheme Introduced By The UPA government.

Issues:

Is The Right To Privacy a Fundamental Right Guaranteed By Part III of The Indian Constitution?

• Is The Decision In Kharak Singh Vs State Of Uttar Pradesh And M.P. Sharma Vs Satish Chandra, District Magistrate , Delhi Is Correct In Law?

Cases That Casted Doubts On The Right To Privacy:

The Union Of India And Uidai, In Its Counter – Affidavit Stated That The Right To Privacy Is Not A Fundamental Right, Relying On The Judgement Of The Eight Judges Bench Of The Supreme Court In The M.P. Sharma Case.

Why A Nine Judges Bench In Justice K.S. Puttaswamy (Retd.) Vs Union Of India (2017)?

Earlier, The Matter Was Heard By The Bench Of The S.C., Consisting Of Three Judges. The Bench Observed That Though The Eight-Judge Bench Of M.P. Sharma’s Case And The Six-Judge Bench Of Kharak Singh’s Case Had Decided That The Right To Privacy Is Not A Fundamental Right In India, The Decision Of The Smaller Benches In Govind Vs State Of M.P., R. Rajagopal Vs State Of Tamil Nadu And People Union Of Civil Liberties Vs The Union Of India Has Identified Privacy As A Constitutionally Protected Right Following The Decisions In A.K. Gopalan’s Case, Maneka Gandhi’s Case, And R.C. Cooper’s Case. Therefore, There Is A State Of Confusion About Whether Privacy Is A Fundamental Right Or Not Under The Constitution Of India. The Issue Needed To Be Authoritatively Decided By A Bench Of Appropriate Strength.

The Matter Was Referred To The Constitutional Bench Of Nine Judges To Authoritatively Resolve It.

The Nine-Judge Bench, Comprising The Then Cji, J.S. Kehar, Justice D.Y. Chandrachud, R.K. Agarwal, S.A. Nazeer, J. Chelamerwar, S.A. Bobde, R.F. Narima, A.M. Sapre, And S.K. Kaul, Jj. Delivered Six Concurring Yet Unanimous Judgements And Decided That The Right Of Privacy Is A Fundamental Right And Can Be Traced To Articles 14, 19, And 21 Of The Constitution Of India.

Judgment of The Case:                                                           

The Supreme Court, Through An Order Dated August 24, 2017, Passed The Following Orders:-

• The Decision in M.P. Sharm, a Which Holds That The Right To Privacy Is Not Protected By The Constitution, Stands Overruled.
• The Decision In Kharak Singh To The Extent That It Holds That The Right To Privacy Is Not Protected By The Constitution Stands Over-Ruled;
• The Right To Privacy Is Protected As 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.

Conclusion:

The Watershed Decision In The Judicial History Of India Recognised The Right To Privacy As A Distinguished Fundamental Right Under Article 21 Of The Constitution Of India. The Decision Of This Case Laid The Foundation For The Identification & Protection Of Other Liberties In India.

Also Read:
Rights of undertrial prisoners in India
How To Send A Legal Notice In India