Case Brief: Justice K. S. Puttaswamy (Retd.) and Anothers. vs Union of India and Ors | Important Acts and Laws for Judiciary Exams PDF Download

Case Background

• In 2009, the Indian Planning Commission initiated the Unique Identification Database (UIDAI) project.
• The National Identification Authority of India bill was introduced in Parliament in 2010.
• In November 2012, a petition challenging the Aadhaar's validity was filed in the Supreme Court.

Legal Challenge

• The petition argued that Aadhaar violated citizens' fundamental right to privacy under Article 21 of the Indian Constitution.
• Multiple orders were issued regarding the petition.

Legislative Developments

• The Aadhaar Act was enacted in 2016, prompting a new petition challenging its validity.
• All petitions related to Aadhaar were consolidated.
• In 2017, former Union Minister Jairam Ramesh contested Aadhaar's classification as a money bill.
• In August 2017, the Supreme Court recognized the right to privacy as a fundamental right under Article 21.
• The Aadhaar case hearings began in January 2018, with subsequent discussions on mobile Aadhaar seeding.
• On September 26, 2018, the Supreme Court upheld the constitutional validity of the Aadhaar Act while striking down certain provisions.

Issues in Justice K. S. Puttaswamy (Retd.) and Others vs Union of India and Ors

• Whether the Aadhaar Project has the potential to lead to a surveillance state, rendering it unconstitutional?
• Does the Aadhaar Project infringe on people's right to privacy, thereby being unconstitutional?
• Does the Aadhaar Act cover children under Sections 7 and 8?
• Do various provisions of the Aadhaar Act and Regulations suffer from unconstitutionality, including Sections 2(c) and 2(d) read with Section 32, Section 2(h) read with Section 10 of CIDR, and others?
• Does the Aadhaar Act go against the notions of Limited Government, Good Governance, and Constitutional Trust?
• Can the Aadhaar Act be classified as a 'Money Bill' under Article 110 of the Indian Constitution?
• Is Section 139AA of the Income Tax Act, 1961 violative of the right to privacy and hence unconstitutional?
• Are rules mandating the linking of Aadhaar with bank accounts, such as Rule 9(a)(17) of the Prevention of Money Laundering Rules, unconstitutional?
• Is the circular mandating the linking of mobile numbers with Aadhaar issued by the Department of Telecommunications illegal and unconstitutional?
• Are certain actions of the respondents in violation of interim court orders, and if so, what are the repercussions?

Contentions of Both Parties

On behalf of Petitioner

• Shyam Divan raised concerns about the conditional nature of benefits under the Aadhaar Act, questioning its compliance with the Indian Constitution.
• Kapil Sibal argued that the Act infringes on the right to privacy enshrined in Article 21 of the Constitution.
• Arvind Datar contended that the Act's provisions, including linking bank accounts with Aadhaar, violate citizens' rights under Articles 14 and 21.
• P. Chidambaram asserted that the Aadhaar Act does not meet the criteria to be classified as a Money Bill.

On behalf of Respondents

• Respondents aimed to ensure that government benefits reach all eligible individuals without compromising privacy rights.
• They argued that the Aadhaar Act does not intrude on personal privacy beyond necessary demographic information.
• Respondents highlighted the security measures in place to protect biometric data collected under Aadhaar.
• They emphasized the benefits of Aadhaar in preventing duplication and fraud in accessing government services.

These contentions and issues raised shed light on the complex legal and constitutional debates surrounding the Aadhaar Project in India.

Judgment Overview

• Number of Opinions: The judgment in the case of Justice K. S. Puttaswamy (Retd.) vs Union of India and Others consists of six opinions spread across 547 pages.
• Verdict Details: There is no single majority verdict in the case. Justice D.Y. Chandrachud, along with three other judges, wrote the leading judgment. Other judges on the bench delivered separate judgments, showing a lack of shared participation.
• Right to Privacy: The nine-judge bench unanimously ruled that the right to privacy is an integral part of an individual's integrity and a fundamental right under Article 21 of the Indian Constitution.

Justice Chandrachud's Perspective

• Privacy Aspects: Justice Chandrachud emphasizes the negative and positive aspects of privacy, highlighting the need for legal mechanisms to protect individuals from unwarranted intrusions.
• Inherent Rights: He asserts that certain rights, including life and personal rights, are inherent and integral to human dignity according to the Constitution.
• Tests for Privacy Violations: Justice Chandrachud lays down a threefold test involving legality, need, and proportionality to assess privacy infringements. He also mentions legitimate state interests related to privacy.

Issues with Aadhaar System

• Various sections of the Aadhaar Act were deemed problematic:
• Section 29(4) grants broad discretion to UIDAI regarding biometric information.
• Sections 2(g), 2(j), 2(k), and 2(t) have an overreaching influence.
• Proviso to Section 28(5) violates the principle of data ownership.
• Sections 47 and 57 are critiqued for being arbitrary and overreaching.

Concerns about Surveillance and Aadhaar

• Surveillance State: The Aadhaar system's architecture raises concerns about tracking operations and potential breaches of biometric data.
• Aadhaar and SIM Cards: Linking biometric details with SIM cards poses threats to individual privacy and autonomy.

Justice Chelameswar's Viewpoint

• Elements of Privacy: Chelameswar delineates privacy into facets like repose, sanctuary, and intimate decision, emphasizing the need for state interests in privacy infringements.
• Privacy Infringement Tests: He proposes a two-fold test based on compelling state interest and just, fair, and reasonable grounds under Article 21.

Justice Nariman's Insights

• Privacy Rights Classification: Nariman categorizes privacy rights into three groups, including protection from state intrusion and control over personal choices.
• Right to Privacy: He asserts that privacy rights are inherent human rights essential for human dignity.

Justice Bobde's Perspective

• Role of Fundamental Rights: Bobde recognizes the dual nature of fundamental rights in restricting regulation and fostering individual development and dignity.
• Data Consent: He stresses the importance of consent in sharing personal data like health records.

Justice Kaul's Stand

• Privacy Assertion: Kaul argues for individuals' right to privacy against both state and non-state actors, highlighting the risks associated with profiling and surveillance.
• Technology Impact: He discusses the impact of technology on behavior and the need to protect sensitive information from state and non-state entities.

Justice Sapre's Emphasis

• Importance of Preamble: Sapre focuses on combining the right to privacy with the principles of freedom, dignity, and fraternity enshrined in the Constitution's Preamble.

Key Points from the Case

• The Supreme Court's nine-judge bench unanimously recognized the right to privacy as an essential aspect of the right to life and personal liberties under Article 21 of the Constitution.
• Privacy is considered a constitutional right, but it has limitations as it is not absolute.
• The Aadhar scheme's validity was upheld by the Supreme Court, emphasizing the need for data protection while also striking down certain provisions of the Aadhar Act.
• The court distinguished the Aadhaar scheme from other forms of identification, highlighting its uniqueness in preventing duplication. The Aadhar Card's design ensures that it cannot be replicated, thereby providing a distinct identity to marginalized communities.

Explanation

• The Supreme Court's ruling affirmed that the right to privacy is a crucial component of an individual's rights, ensuring protection and autonomy in personal matters.
• While privacy is recognized as a fundamental right, it must be balanced with the needs of society and national security.
• The Aadhar scheme's endorsement signifies the government's commitment to secure citizens' data while streamlining welfare services.
• By invalidating certain provisions of the Aadhar Act, the court aimed to refine the legislation for better data protection practices.
• The uniqueness of the Aadhar Card lies in its inability to be duplicated, ensuring the integrity of the identification system and empowering disadvantaged groups with a distinct identity.

Examples

• For instance, in the digital age, protecting personal information such as financial data or health records is crucial for individuals' security and privacy.
• Consider a scenario where a marginalized individual without proper identification faces challenges accessing essential services. The Aadhar Card serves as a means to bridge this gap and provide them with necessary support.

Present Status of the Judgement

• Puttaswamy's 2017 ruling reinforced the significance of the 'right to privacy' within Indian legal frameworks.
• Post-August 2017, several cases in both the Supreme Court and High Courts have leveraged the Puttaswamy judgment to elucidate the extent of the right to privacy in India.

Navtej Singh Johar and Ors Vs. Union of India (UOI) and Ors., 2018 (Supreme Court)

• The Supreme Court unanimously declared Section 377 of the Indian Penal Code 1860 unconstitutional when applied to consensual same-sex relationships.
• By referencing the Puttaswamy v. Union of India judgment, the court argued that denying the LGBT community privacy rights based on minority status violates fundamental rights.

Vinit Kumar Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation and Ors., 2019 (Bombay High Court)

• This case addressed the balance between public safety concerns and the right to privacy in the context of telephone tapping under the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885.
• The Bombay High Court applied the legitimacy and proportionality tests from Puttaswamy, ruling that interception orders must adhere to these criteria to be justified.

Central Public Information Officer, Supreme Court of India vs. Subhash Chandra Agarwal, 2019 (Supreme Court)

• The Supreme Court determined that the Chief Justice's office is a 'public authority' under the Right to Information Act, 2005, allowing for the disclosure of information such as judges' personal assets.
• The court emphasized the need to balance the right to know and the right to privacy, using the proportionality test outlined in Puttaswamy.

Conclusion

• The Aadhaar project aimed to provide unique identification to marginalized groups, empowering them within the legal framework of Article 21 of the Constitution.
• Following this judgment, the right to privacy gained prominence as a vital safeguard for individual rights.

Important Note

• The Aadhaar's validity was upheld by the court after striking down unconstitutional clauses that infringed on citizens' rights.