JUSTICE K. S. PUTTASWAMY (RETD.) AND ANR. VS UNION OF INDIA AND ORS (2017) 10 SCC 1

BENCH: Chief Justice J.S. Khehar, Justice J. Chelameswar, Justice R.K. Agrawal, Justice S.A. Bobde, Justice D.Y. Chandrachud, Justice S. Abdul Nazeer, Justice R. Banumathi, Justice A.M. Sapre & Justice Bhushan R. Gavai

FACTS: 

Filed by K.S. Puttaswamy, a retired judge, the petition challenged the government's implementation of Aadhaar, a system that linked biometric and demographic data to a national database. The petitioners argued that Aadhaar violated the right to privacy under Article 21 of the Constitution, fearing the potential misuse of personal data and arguing that the scheme lacked adequate safeguards.

The central government defended the scheme, asserting that Aadhaar was essential for efficient targeting of government welfare programs and reducing fraud. The petitioners also argued that Aadhaar’s mandatory linking to services and subsidies infringed on personal liberties and lacked proper legislative backing. The case was heard by a nine-judge bench, which, on August 24, 2017, ruled that the right to privacy is a fundamental right under the Constitution. The Court's judgment also addressed the constitutionality of Aadhaar, setting a landmark precedent in balancing individual privacy rights with the state's interests.

ISSUES:

The Supreme Court addressed several critical issues. First, it examined whether the right to privacy is a fundamental right under the Indian Constitution, with petitioners arguing it is an essential part of personal liberty under Article 21. The Court also considered the constitutionality of the Aadhaar scheme, focusing on whether it violated privacy rights by collecting biometric and demographic data. Additionally, the Court assessed whether the scheme had adequate legislative backing, as the petitioners claimed it lacked proper authorization. The impact of Aadhaar on fundamental rights, such as freedom and equality, was another key issue, along with whether its implementation was proportionate to the government's objectives of improving public welfare and reducing fraud. 

JUDGEMENT WITH REASONING:

In its judgment, the Supreme Court recognized the right to privacy as a fundamental right under Article 21 of the Indian Constitution. The Court held that privacy is intrinsic to the dignity of the individual and forms a part of the right to life and personal liberty. The judgment was based on the reasoning that individual autonomy, including the right to control personal information, is crucial to the exercise of other fundamental rights and freedoms. The Court further ruled that while privacy is fundamental, it is not an absolute right and can be restricted under certain conditions if it meets the test of necessity, proportionality, and reasonableness.

Regarding Aadhaar, the Court upheld its constitutionality but with significant restrictions. It ruled that Aadhaar could not be made mandatory for services like mobile phone connections and bank accounts, as it infringed upon the right to privacy. However, it allowed the continued use of Aadhaar for welfare schemes, such as subsidies and benefits, where it served a legitimate state interest in improving the targeting of public welfare programs. The Court also emphasized that the government must ensure adequate safeguards to protect personal data and prevent misuse. The judgment set strict guidelines for the collection and storage of biometric data and required legislative backing for the Aadhaar scheme to ensure transparency and accountability.

ANALYSIS:

The Supreme Court's decision is a landmark judgment that balanced individual privacy rights with the state's interest in implementing public welfare programs. By recognizing the right to privacy as a fundamental right under Article 21, the Court reinforced the notion of personal autonomy and dignity, ensuring that citizens' private information is protected from undue surveillance and misuse. The Court's ruling placed reasonable limits on the right to privacy, allowing restrictions only when necessary, proportional, and backed by law.

In the context of Aadhaar, the Court upheld its constitutionality but imposed critical restrictions. While it allowed Aadhaar to be used for welfare schemes aimed at reducing fraud and improving targeting, it ruled that Aadhaar could not be made mandatory for services like mobile connections and bank accounts due to privacy concerns. The Court emphasized the need for robust safeguards to protect citizens' data and mandated legislative backing for the scheme. This judgment is crucial as it ensures the protection of privacy while acknowledging the state’s role in promoting efficient public services, setting a precedent for future cases involving data protection and individual rights.