Case summary: K.S Puttaswamy Vs Union of India
Title of the case: Justice K.S Puttaswamy Vs. Inion od India And Ors., 2017
Citation: WP(Civil) No. 494 of 2012, (2017) 10 SCC 1
Court: Supreme Court of India
Appellant: Justice K.S Puttaswamy
Respondent: Union of India and Others
Bench: Kishan Kaul, Dhananjaya Y. Chandrachud, RK Agrawal, JS Khehar, SA Bobde, J. Chelameswar, AA Sapre JJ, SA Nazeer.
Facts of the case:
Retired high court judge KS Puttaswamy filed a petition in the Indian Federation in 2012, and nine Supreme Court judges challenged Aadhaar’s constitution by violating the constitution’s privacy rights. The court’s recommendation was decided. According to the Supreme Court’s previous decision, privacy rights are guaranteed as independent basic rights under the Indian Constitution.
- Does the Indian Constitution have a basic right to privacy?
- The Court in M.P Sharma and Ors. vs. Satish Chandra, DM, Delhi and Ors. and also, Kharak Singh Vs. The state of U.P., Was the constitutional position correctly expressed in the State case?
- The petitioner of the court considered that privacy rights are an essential part of the right to life and personal liberty as set out in Article 21 and are part of the freedoms guaranteed by Part 3 of the Constitution. Protected by the Indian Constitution.
- Also, Karak Singh Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and M.P Sharma Sharma Vs. Satish Chandra, it was proposed to evaluate the accuracy of the judgment on violation of Article 21 of the Constitution.
- As the defendant believes that the Indian Constitution does not specifically protect the right to privacy, Article 21 of the Indian Constitution (MP Sharma v. Satish Chandra and Karak Singh v. State of UP) does not guarantee the right to privacy Does not apply.
Courts have discussed various issues related to privacy to facilitate clear analysis.
- Address privacy issues of state and non-state actors.
Some people believe that privacy protection can be directed to both national and non-state actors, as the dangers of the era of technology development can arise not only in countries, but also in non-state organizations.
- Right to privacy of information (not an absolute right).
Information privacy is believed to be an aspect of privacy. The exercise of the right for individuals to control their data and control their existence on the Internet and the unauthorized use of such information may violate these rights.
On August 24, 2017, a bench of nine judges of Supreme Court passed a ground breaking ruling while retaining the basic rights of privacy under Article 21 of the Indian Constitution.
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.”
The verdict pointed out that privacy will be part of the Third Constitution of India, which defines the basic rights of the people. The Supreme Court also pointed out that the state must balance privacy and legal purposes at any cost, because basic rights cannot be granted or deprived by law, and all laws and actions must comply with the Constitution. The court also declared that privacy rights are not absolute rights.
- Appropriate purpose
Here are the rulings that nine judges passed.
(I) M.P Sharma v. Satish Chandra’s decision ruled that privacy is not protected by the Indian Constitution.
(Ii) Kharak Singh v. UP State’s decision was also overturned to the extent that it believed that privacy rights were not protected by the Constitution.
(ii) The right to privacy is an essential part of the right to life and the freedom of the individual as provided for in Article 21 of the Indian Constitution and is part of the freedoms guaranteed in Part 3 of the Constitution.
The Supreme Court of India once again became the only guardian of the Constitution and established a legal framework for the protection of personal information in India. The ruling covers all matters and affirms that privacy is a basic, non-transferable right belonging to the dignity and freedom of individuals as set forth in Article 21 of the Indian Constitution. Judge Navtej Singh Johar v. Union of India provides a way to decriminalize homosexuality (2018), Joseph Shine v. Federation of India abolished adultery regulations (September 27, 2018).
Author: Prakalp Shrivastava,
3rd year, School of law, jagran lakecity university, bhopal (M.P)