JUSTICE K.S. PUTTASWAMY (RETD.) & ANR. V. UNION OF INDIA & ORS.
(2017) 10 SCC 1
FACTS AND ISSUE
Nine judges of this Court assembled to determine whether privacy is a constitutionally protected value. The issue reaches out to the foundation of a constitutional culture based on the protection of human rights and enables this Court to revisit the basic principles on which our Constitution has been founded and their consequences for a way of life it seeks to protect. This case presents challenges for constitutional interpretation. If privacy is to be construed as a protected constitutional value, it would redefine in significant ways our concepts of liberty and the entitlements that flow out of its protection. It was observed that in the larger two benches earlier held, the existence of the right to privacy was denied. The claim for such a right against the aadhar card scheme was contested and reserved for a larger bench of the court.
JUDGEMENT AND ANALYSIS
- It was observed by this Hon'ble court that reasonable restrictions on any of the rights in Article 19(1) can be imposed only by law and not otherwise. any restriction imposed without the authority of flow shall be considered as unconstitutional.
- It was held by D.Y. Chandrachud J that “The danger of construing this as an exercise of 'substantive due process' is that it results in the incorporation of a concept from the American Constitution which was consciously not accepted when the Constitution was framed. Moreover, even in the country of its origin, substantive due process has led to vagaries of judicial interpretation.” Hence it was observed by the court that it is not permissible for this Court to declare a statute unconstitutional on the ground that it is 'arbitrary'. It was further observed that in due course, proportionality may control the arbitrariness of laws.
CASE LAWS REFERRED
- In MP Sharma v Satish Chandra, it was held that in the absence of a provision similar to the Fourth Amendment to the US Constitution, the right to privacy cannot be read into the provisions of Article 20 (3) of the Indian Constitution. The judgement does not specifically adjudicate on whether a right to privacy would arise from any of the other provisions of the rights guaranteed by Part III including Article 21 and Article 19. This specific observation that privacy is not a right guaranteed by the Indian Constitution is not reflective of the correct position. MP Sharma is overruled to the extent to which it indicates the contrary.
- In Kharak Singh v State of Uttar Pradesh, it was correctly held that the content of the expression ‘life’ under Article 21 means not merely the right to a person’s “animal existence” and that the expression ‘personal liberty’ is a guarantee against invasion into the sanctity of a person’s home or an intrusion into personal security. It also correctly laid down that he dignity of the individual must lend content to the meaning of ‘personal liberty.