Latest News
Back
Document:
Judgement Analysis: K S Puttaswamy and Ors v. Union of India (2017) 10 SCC 1
"Right to Privacy" which was long been contended before the Supreme Court in a long string of cases obtainment of the status of fundamental right under Indian constitution. The case brought by 91-year-old retired High Court Judge Puttaswamy against the Union of India before Supreme Court to come on a precedent which rightfully decides whether the 'right to privacy' could be guaranteed as an independent fundamental right following conflicting decisions from other benches.
The Attorney General for India contended the existence of privacy as a fundamental right based on two decisions; first being M P Sharma v Satish Chandra, District Magistrate, Delhi (1954) SCR 1077 (“M P Sharma”) was decided by an 8-Bench and the second, in Kharak Singh v State of Uttar Pradesh (1964) 1 SCR 332 (“Kharak Singh”) was decided by a 6-judges Bench and the similar pronouncement of the non-existence of right to privacy was corroborated. However, the Petitioners contended that M P Sharma and Kharak Singh was based on the principles propounded in the A K Gopalan v State of Madras AIR 1950 SC 27 (“Gopalan”) case. Gopalan, which construed each provision contained in the Chapter on fundamental rights as embodying distinct protection, was held not to be good law by an eleven-judge Bench in Rustom Cavasji Cooper v Union of India (1970) 1 SCC 248 (“Cooper”). The Petitioners, therefore, plead against the judgements as not being a good source of law and the same was also withheld by the bench. Moreover, it was also urged that the seven-judge Bench decision in Maneka Gandhi v Union of India (1978) 1 SCC 248 (“Maneka”) specifically approved of the minority judgment of Justice Subba Rao in Kharak Singh.
Hence it was contended that since the matter required much of the constitutional interpretations to it hence it should be referred to a constitutional bench Then a nine-judge bench was constituted headed by the Chief Justice of India.
The Attorney General in his submissions before the Supreme Court on behalf of Union of India, being deprecatory to a general right of privacy submitted the following:
(i) There is no established principle which directly or indirectly guarantees the fundamental 'right to privacy';
(ii) no blanket right to privacy can be read as part of the fundamental rights;
(iii) where specific species of privacy are governed by the protection of liberty in Part III of the Constitution, they are subject to reasonable restrictions;
(iv) privacy in itself is not an evolved right or has no specified extent or meaning; and
(v) there was no intention on part of draftsmen to include the 'right to privacy' in the ambit of Part III of the Constitution of India otherwise there had been an express mention of the same.
The decision in Kharak Singh was not much trusted by the majority since it construed this to be an unauthorized intrusion into a person’s home and a violation of ordered liberty. While arriving at this conclusion, the preponderance placed reliance on the privacy doctrine to invalidate domiciliary visits, the bench in Kharak Singh proceeded the 'right of privacy' is not guaranteed under the Constitution and did not consider the wider aspect underlying it. The Court in the present case ruled that “This part of the judgment in Kharak Singh is inconsistent with the earlier part of the decision… suffers from an internal inconsistency.” While the judgment in the M.P. Singh in itself never argued on the basis that whether the 'Right to Privacy' carried or protected down by the parts of the Article 19 or 21 of the Indian Constitution.
While addressing the ratio given in the M.P. Sharma case Court ruled out that “When the Constitution makers have thought fit not to subject such regulation to constitutional limitations by recognition of a fundamental right to privacy……Nor is it legitimate to assume that the constitutional protection under Article 20(3) would be defeated...” Such constitutional restrictions if imposed would defeat the very purpose for which it was placed.
By its order, the Court ruled in favour of Petitioners and ruled that the Right to Privacy is protected under the Right to Life and Fundamental Liberty under Article 21. Writing the plurality opinion, Chandrachud J., held in the judgment that the right to privacy is not independent of the other freedoms under Part III of the Constitution but coaxial to it. His focus was on the informational aspect of privacy, and upholding of human dignity and autonomy, and to reject the argument that privacy is an elitist construct.
The purpose behind the establishment of the Right to Privacy is concerning the protection of personal information shared on digital platform and since India doesn't have privacy law as such, the establishment of privacy as a right will protect it from being overpowered by others.
Right to privacy which was pronounced as "right to be let alone" by Justice Subba Rao while dissenting the majority judgment in the case of Kharak Singh v. the State of U.P., has been rightly decided as under the Indian constitution after so many deliberations in numerous cases over vital aspects of the Right to privacy.
Document:
