Justice K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India (2017)
The Right to Privacy Judgment

• 2010 onwards
  Launch of Aadhaar programme

  The Union government began the Aadhaar project to assign a unique identity number to residents, based on biometric and demographic data such as fingerprints and iris scans.

• 2015
  Privacy concerns reach Supreme Court

  Several petitions were filed before the Supreme Court questioning the legality and constitutionality of Aadhaar, especially the compulsory nature of data collection and the risk of misuse of personal information.

• Earlier case law
  Reliance on M.P. Sharma and Kharak Singh

  The Attorney General argued that two earlier decisions – M.P. Sharma (8-judge bench) and Kharak Singh (6-judge bench) – had clearly held that privacy is not a fundamental right because the word is not mentioned in the Constitution.

• 2015–2017
  Reference to larger bench

  Because the challenge to Aadhaar depended on whether privacy itself is a fundamental right, a five-judge bench referred the issue to an even larger nine-judge Constitution bench.

• 24 August 2017
  Historic judgment delivered

  The nine-judge bench delivered a unanimous judgment holding that the right to privacy is a fundamental right under Part III, overruling earlier contrary views and laying down a detailed framework for privacy in India.

• Constitutional turning point: The case firmly shifted India from a narrow to a liberal and dignity-based reading of fundamental rights.
• Foundation for Aadhaar cases: Later judgments on Aadhaar and data collection heavily relied on the privacy principles laid down in this decision.
• Supports LGBTQ+ and bodily autonomy cases: The stress on decisional privacy and autonomy helped in later decisions on sexual orientation, reproductive rights and bodily integrity.
• Push for data protection: The Court’s call for a data protection law directly influenced policy debates and legislation on digital privacy in India.

• Guidance for future restrictions: Any law or scheme that collects or uses personal data now has to satisfy the three-fold test, which gives courts a clear tool for review.
• Daily life relevance: The case is not only about Aadhaar; it covers phone tracking, CCTV surveillance, app-based data collection and more.
• Exam favourite: This judgment is a “must-quote” case in topics related to Article 21, privacy, data protection, LGBTQ+ rights and even criminal procedure.
• Theory plus practicality: The Court used philosophy, international law and Indian precedents together, making the judgment rich for both jurisprudence and constitutional law.

• Privacy is now a fundamental right, not just a moral or statutory right.
• It is rooted in Articles 14, 19 and 21, with strong focus on dignity and autonomy.
• The Court recognised physical, informational and decisional privacy.
• The three-fold test (legality, legitimate aim, proportionality) controls any State intrusion.
• M.P. Sharma and Kharak Singh are overruled to the extent they denied privacy as a fundamental right.

• Privacy is both negative (freedom from interference) and positive (State duty to protect).
• The judgment directly affects Aadhaar, surveillance and data protection debates.
• It links Indian law with international human rights discussions on privacy.
• Always cite this case in questions on Article 21, dignity, autonomy, data privacy and modern use of technology by the State.

I – Issue

Whether the right to privacy is a fundamental right under the Indian Constitution and, if so, what its scope is and how far the State can restrict it.

R – Rule

• Privacy is a natural, inalienable right recognised and protected by the Constitution.
• It flows mainly from Articles 14, 19 and 21.
• Any restriction on privacy must meet the three-fold test: legality, legitimate State aim and proportionality.

A – Application

The Court studied earlier precedents and found that the narrow view in M.P. Sharma and Kharak Singh could not be reconciled with later decisions that had expanded personal liberty. It explained how privacy covers the body (physical privacy), personal data (informational privacy) and life choices (decisional privacy). At the same time, it recognised the State’s interest in security and welfare, but insisted that any intrusion must be backed by law, pursue a legitimate purpose and use methods that are not excessive or arbitrary.

C – Conclusion

The Court concluded that the right to privacy is a fundamental right under Part III of the Constitution. It overruled earlier decisions which had denied such a right and laid down a clear test to judge any future law or State action that interferes with privacy, including schemes such as Aadhaar and other data-based projects.

Fundamental Right: A right guaranteed by the Constitution that the State must respect; can be enforced directly in the Supreme Court or High Courts.

Natural Right: A right that a person has simply by being human, independent of any law or Constitution.

Informational Privacy: Control over how your personal data – such as biometrics, phone records or location – is collected, stored and used.

Decisional Privacy: Freedom to make intimate life choices (family, food, faith, relationships) without unjust State interference.

Proportionality: A test that checks whether the method chosen by the State is suitable, necessary and not excessively harsh for the purpose it claims to serve.

Legitimate State Aim: A genuine public interest objective like national security, prevention of crime or distribution of welfare benefits.

Strict Scrutiny: A high level of judicial review applied where core aspects of privacy, such as bodily autonomy or sexual orientation, are restricted.

Data Protection Law: A law designed to regulate how governments and private actors handle personal data, giving individuals rights and remedies over their information.