The Puttaswamy case judgment was a landmark verdict in 2017 that established Right to Privacy as a fundamental right under Article 21 of the Indian Constitution.
Union Minister for Electronics and IT, Ashwini Vaishnaw, introduced the long-awaited Digital Personal Data Protection Bill 2023 in Lok Sabha. However, shortly after its presentation, Opposition MPs raised objections to the proposed legislation, citing the Puttaswamy judgment. They argued that the bill is of utmost importance and has significant implications for every citizen of the country, and therefore, it should be referred to the Parliamentary Standing Committee for further deliberation. In response, Ashwini Vaishnaw assured that the government is open to discussing all concerns, including those related to the alleged violation of the Puttaswamy judgment.
“The fact is that the Digital Personal Data Protection Bill (DPDPB) has to comply with the parameters given to the Puttaswamy case on privacy. Additionally, there were many gaps in the DPDPB draft 2022 that needed attention and we are yet to go through the final version of the 2023 draft. But the Puttaswamy case will have a direct impact on this kind of legislation and it is important that the government should ensure that the principals of Puttaswamy judgment should reflect in the new legislation,” he said.
What is the Puttaswamy Case?
In 2017, a significant legal case was brought before a nine-judge bench of the Supreme Court, which led to the establishment of the Right to Privacy as a fundamental right under the Indian Constitution. The case was initiated in response to concerns raised about the legal validity of the Aadhaar database, which brought into question whether the right to privacy was constitutionally protected. The petition was filed by Justice KS Puttaswamy and others.
The state’s Attorney General argued that the right to privacy was not explicitly recognized as a fundamental right in two earlier cases — MP Sharma vs Satish Chandra and Kharak Singh vs State of Uttar Pradesh. These cases, decided by an eight-judge Bench and a six-judge bench, respectively, did not explicitly affirm the right to privacy as a fundamental right. However, subsequent judgments by smaller benches recognized the right to privacy as a fundamental right, leading to ambiguity and the need for clarity on the matter. As a result, the nine-judge bench was convened to address and settle the issue definitively.
The nine-judge bench, after considering the precedents and the significance of the right to privacy, unanimously reaffirmed that the right to privacy is indeed protected as an integral part of the ‘Right to Life and Personal Liberty’ under Article 21 of the Indian Constitution.
It also noted that privacy is an intrinsic aspect of dignity, autonomy, and liberty, essential for preserving the various fundamental rights guaranteed in Part III of the Constitution.
The case not only established the right to privacy as a fundamental right but also overruled the previous judgments in MP Sharma and Kharak Singh cases that had held otherwise. This decision clarified and solidified the place of the right to privacy in Indian jurisprudence.
Furthermore, the case highlighted the need for a new law related to data privacy, recognising the importance of protecting individuals’ personal data. It also expanded the scope of privacy in personal spaces, acknowledging that privacy is not limited to physical boundaries but encompasses various aspects of an individual’s life. Additionally, the case discussed privacy as an intrinsic value, affirming its significance and relevance in contemporary society.
At that time, then Chief Justice of India Sharad Arvind Bobde said: “The right to privacy is inextricably bound up with all exercises of human liberty – both as it is specifically enumerated across Part III, and as it is guaranteed in the residue under Article 21. It is distributed across the various articles in Part III and, mutatis mutandis, takes the form of whichever of their enjoyment its violation curtails.”
