Right To Privacy And Puttuswamy Case

On August 24, 2017, a nine-judge bench of the Supreme Court of India ruled that the right to privacy is a fundamental right that is "intrinsic to life and liberty" and is protected under Part III of the Indian Constitution. The judges discussed the scope of the right to privacy at length in a 547-page decision, overturning the decisions in MP Sharma (1954) and Kharak Singh (1954). (1963)

 

MP Sharma and Kharak Singh were overruled to the extent that the Court stated that privacy is not a right guaranteed by the Indian Constitution. A right to privacy could not be read into the Indian Constitution without a provision like the Fourth Amendment to the US Constitution, according to MP Sharma. In today's world, this position is both misleading and contradictory. In Puttaswamy, the Supreme Court held that the lack of an express constitutional guarantee of privacy does not imply that privacy is not protected under the framework of protected guarantees, such as those found in Articles 19 and 21. The Court in this case found that the Kharak Singh case had an internal inconsistency because it had held that the right to privacy is not guaranteed under the Constitution, and thus Article 21 did not apply.

A person's right to privacy allows them to be left alone. However, this right must be viewed in the context of the various social relationships that people have. The Puttaswamy decision reveals a constitutional understanding of where liberty situates an individual within a social order. It considers the privacy debate in the context of today's global, information-based society. 

 

The judges draw an analogy with current times and the basic need of every individual to live with dignity while tracing the definitions of privacy given by various philosophers. Given the rapid pace of development and technological change, which has made the public more vulnerable to personal data abuse, it is critical to protect privacy rights.

 

While determining the contours of privacy, the judgement makes an interesting reference to the fundamental notions of privacy depicted in an article titled "Typology of Privacy." The diagram below, which is based on the judgement, depicts a clear classification of privacy rights.

 

Informational privacy reflects an interest in preventing the dissemination of personal information and controlling the scope of access to information, as explained in the judgement. As a result, the Court recognised information privacy as a facet of the right to privacy and recommended that the Indian government examine and implement a robust data protection mechanism. This is a difficult exercise because it necessitates a fair balance between citizen and state rights.

 

In addition, the Puttaswamy decision established that privacy is a constitutionally protected right arising from Article 21 of the Indian Constitution (Right to life and personal liberty). Other freedom and dignity rights guaranteed by Part III of the Indian Constitution can be read to include elements of privacy.

 

The Court went on to say that, unlike other fundamental freedoms protected under Part III, privacy is not an absolute right. Justice Chandrachud writes on page 264 that a "law that infringes on privacy will have to pass the test of permissible restrictions on fundamental rights."

 

In the context of Article 21, an invasion of privacy must be carried out in accordance with a law that establishes a fair, just, and reasonable procedure.' He went on to say that an invasion of life or personal liberty must meet the following criteria: I legality, which presupposes the existence of law; (ii) necessity, which is defined in terms of a legitimate state goal; and (iii) proportionality, which ensures a rational relationship between the objects and the means used to achieve them.

 

In Indian constitutional history, the current judgement has reshaped the scope of fundamental rights. The Indian judiciary has been a true defender of freedom. It has provided an opportunity for the Indian government to reconsider its data protection mechanism, both in terms of individual privacy and the interests of the state.