Written by Sameera Khan from Amity Law School, Noida

NAME OF THE CASE: – Justice K.S. Puttaswamy[retired] vs. Union of India and ors.2017

CITATION:– Writ Petition [Civil] NO. 494 Of 2012,[2017] 10 SCC 1

DATE OF THE CASE:– 24 August 2017

JURISDICTION:– The Supreme Court Of India

APPELLANT:– Justice K.S. Puttaswamy [retired]

RESPONDENT:– Union Of India And Others

BENCH/ JUDGE:– Chief justice Khehar, justice Sanjay kishan kaul, Dhananjaya y. Chandrachud , R.K agrawal , Jast Chamleshwar, S.A. bobde , S.A. Nazeer ,J. Chelameswar , A.M. Sapre

INTRODUCTION

The 2017 Supreme Court ruling in K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India marked a pivotal moment in Indian constitutional law. Central to this case was the question of whether the right to privacy is a fundamental right under the Indian Constitution. Retired Justice K.S. Puttaswamy challenged the government’s Aadhaar biometric identification system, arguing that it infringed on citizens’ privacy.

A nine-judge bench of the Supreme Court unanimously affirmed that the right to privacy is intrinsic to life and personal liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution. This landmark judgment not only addressed the immediate concerns about Aadhaar but also established a crucial precedent for the protection of individual rights in India.

This article examines the background, arguments, and key outcomes of the K.S. Puttaswamy case, highlighting its significant impact on Indian law and civil liberties.

Before this, the Government of India had established a committee to develop a unique identification system for Below Poverty Line (BPL) families. In January 2009, the Planning Commission issued a notification to create the Unique Identification Authority of India (UIDAI), and in 2010, the National Identification Authority of India Bill was passed.

In November 2012, retired Justice K.S. Puttaswamy and Mr. Parvesh Sharma filed a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) in the Supreme Court, challenging the constitutionality of the Aadhaar scheme. They argued that it violated fundamental rights, specifically the right to privacy under Article 21 of the Indian Constitution.

Following this, the Aadhaar Act was passed in 2016. The petitioners then filed another writ petition challenging the validity of this Act. Both petitions were subsequently combined. On August 24, 2017, the Supreme Court ruled that the right to privacy is a fundamental right under Article 21 of the Constitution. On April 25, 2018, the Supreme Court questioned the government’s decision to link Aadhaar with mobile numbers. On September 26, 2018, the Supreme Court upheld the validity of the Aadhaar card but struck down certain provisions, including the mandatory linking of Aadhaar with mobile numbers, bank accounts, and school admissions.

FACTS OF THE CASE

The Government of India initiated the Aadhaar project to provide a unique identification number to all residents, aiming to enhance the delivery of subsidies and services by ensuring they reach the correct recipients.

In January 2009, the Planning Commission of India issued a notification to establish the Unique Identification Authority of India (UIDAI).

In 2010, the National Identification Authority of India Bill was introduced to provide a legal framework for the UIDAI and the Aadhaar project.

“Aadhaar,” meaning “foundation” or “base,” was an initiative by the Indian government, with a high-level committee tasked with developing a unique identification system for Below Poverty Line (BPL) families. The Unique Identification Authority of India (UIDAI) was empowered to issue Aadhaar cards. UIDAI claimed that Aadhaar was a reliable means of identity verification and could serve as the sole document required for accessing government services and benefits, as well as conducting transactions without additional documentation.

In November 2012, retired Justice K.S. Puttaswamy and Mr. Parvesh Sharma filed a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) in the Supreme Court of India. They contended that the Aadhaar project violated citizens’ right to privacy, which they argued was implicit in Article 21 of the Indian Constitution.

Despite the ongoing legal challenges, the Indian Parliament passed the Aadhaar (Targeted Delivery of Financial and Other Subsidies, Benefits and Services) Act in 2016, providing a statutory basis for the Aadhaar project.

After the Aadhaar Act was passed, the petitioners filed another writ petition challenging its constitutionality. The Supreme Court combined this petition with the earlier one.

ISSUES RAISED

– Whether the Aadhaar Project had the potential to create a surveillance state, raising concerns about its constitutionality on these grounds.

– Whether the Aadhaar Act and Section 139AA of the Income Tax Act, 1961 violated the right to privacy, thereby questioning their constitutional validity.

– Whether Sections 7 and 8 of the Aadhaar Act could be applied to children, presenting a legal and constitutional query.

– Whether the Aadhaar Act could be legitimately passed as a ‘Money Bill’ under Article 110 of the Constitution, subject to interpretation and scrutiny.

– Challenges regarding the constitutionality of various other Aadhaar Act sections require legal examination and assessment.

– Was the decision in MP Sharma vs. Satish Chandra, District Magistrate, Delhi legally sound? Similarly, was the ruling in Kharak Singh vs. State of Uttar Pradesh correct under the law?

ARGUMENTS

PETITIONER

The petitioners’ arguments primarily focused on concerns related to privacy, surveillance, data protection, consent, and the legislative process regarding the Aadhaar project. They contended that the collection of information for Aadhaar involved third-party entities, raising issues of mishandling. Additionally, they asserted that Aadhaar could pave the way for a surveillance state. Regarding consent, petitioners argued that Aadhaar’s mandatory requirement for essential services like banking and phone connections undermined the practical ability to withhold consent, making the notion of consent illusory.

Furthermore, petitioners highlighted concerns that biometric authentication for subsidies led to exclusions from welfare benefits. They argued that the overarching goal of establishing a singular pervasive identification system overstepped legal bounds, rendering the Aadhaar Act potentially violative of Article 14. Moreover, they challenged the enactment of the Aadhaar Act as a Money Bill, contending that bypassing the Rajya Sabha was unlawful and thus invalidated the Act due to procedural irregularities.

RESPONDENT

In response, the respondents countered that Aadhaar’s data collection was limited to non-invasive identity information. They argued that the Aadhaar scheme prevented data profiling and negated possibilities of state surveillance. The respondents emphasized that the Central Identities Data Repository (CIDR), where identity information was stored, was beyond governmental and police control, thus minimizing surveillance concerns. They further asserted that adequate safeguards within the Aadhaar Act prevented data breaches. The respondents concluded by stating that the Aadhaar Act complied with the legal tests established in Puttaswamy I, affirming its constitutionality.

PROVISIONS RELATED TO THE CASE

Article 110 of the Indian Constitution –

Article 110(1) of the Indian Constitution specifies the criteria for classifying a bill as a money bill in Parliament. For a bill to be designated as such, it must exclusively pertain to matters including appropriation from the Consolidated Fund of India, custody of funds, or the contingency fund, as well as the imposition, alteration, or regulation of taxes. It also covers government regulations on borrowing funds or providing guarantees, and amendments to laws concerning past or future financial obligations.

Article 110(2) outlines conditions under which a bill cannot qualify as a money bill, while Article 110(3) vests the Speaker of the Lok Sabha with the authority to decide disputes regarding a bill’s classification as a money bill.

Article 21 of the Indian Constitution: Guarantees the fundamental right to life and personal liberty, subject only to procedures established by law.

Article 145(3) of the Indian Constitution: Empowers the judiciary with the authority to interpret the Constitution, requiring a minimum of five judges for decisions on substantial questions of law.

Article 19 of the Indian Constitution: Guarantees six freedoms including speech, assembly, association, movement, residence, and profession.

Article 14 of the Indian Constitution ensures equality before the law and prohibits discrimination based on religion, race, caste, sex, or place of birth. It mandates that all individuals receive equal protection under the law, aiming to promote fairness and prevent arbitrary actions by the State.

Article 25 of the Indian Constitution: Ensures freedom of religion, allowing individuals to freely profess, practice, and propagate religion, subject to public order, morality, and health, while not affecting existing laws or prohibiting the state from enacting new ones.

JUDGEMENT

The Supreme Court affirmed that the Aadhaar Act and its enactment as a Money Bill were constitutionally valid. It upheld the mandatory use of Aadhaar for identification in State welfare schemes funded by the Consolidated Fund of India.

Regarding concerns about whether the Aadhaar project could lead to a surveillance state, the Supreme Court ruled that neither the structure of Aadhaar nor its provisions within the Act were conducive to creating such a state. Drawing from arguments presented by UIDAI, the Court noted that the Aadhaar system collected only essential biometric data, operated without knowledge of the transaction’s purpose or location, stored data in isolated silos that could not be merged, conducted authentication processes offline to protect against internet threats, and mandated the use of registered devices for authentication requests. Consequently, the Court determined that profiling individuals based on their biometric and demographic data stored in CIDR was exceedingly challenging. The Court also enhanced data protection measures by ruling that authentication records could not be retained for more than six months, contrasting with the Act’s original provision allowing retention for up to five years.

The Supreme Court, declaring privacy a fundamental right, ruled that any infringement must meet legality, necessity, and proportionality criteria. It found the Aadhaar Act justified under legality and necessity for delivering welfare benefits. The Act was deemed proportional for accurately identifying welfare scheme beneficiaries, balancing privacy with rights to food, shelter, and employment. While Aadhaar-PAN linkage under Section 139AA of the IT Act was upheld, mandatory linkage with bank accounts and mobile numbers was struck down as disproportionate.

Regarding the inclusion of children under Sections 7 and 8 of the Aadhaar Act, the Supreme Court ruled that parental consent is mandatory for enrolling a child in the Aadhaar program. It affirmed that individuals who enrolled as children have the right to opt-out upon reaching adulthood.

On the issue of whether the Aadhaar Act qualified as a Money Bill under Article 110 of the Constitution, the Court concluded that since the Act’s primary purpose is to establish a unique identification system to facilitate access to subsidies and services funded by the Consolidated Fund of India, it was appropriately passed as a Money Bill.

However, the Supreme Court invalidated several sections of the Aadhaar Act as unconstitutional. Section 57, which permitted private companies to use Aadhaar for authentication purposes, was struck down. The Court argued that the broad term ‘any purpose’ in Section 57 could lead to misuse and exploitation of private data, violating the right to privacy.

Additionally, Section 47 of the Act, which restricted the filing of complaints to only UIDAI in case of violations, was deemed unconstitutional. The Court directed that this provision should be amended to allow any individual or victim whose rights have been violated to file a complaint.

Furthermore, Regulation 27, which allowed the storage of Aadhaar data for up to five years, was also invalidated. The Court ruled that retaining data for longer than six months was impermissible under the principles of privacy protection.

The unanimous decision of all nine judges overturned the rulings in both M.P. Sharma v. Satish Chandra and Kharak Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh. These earlier decisions had held that the right to privacy is not explicitly protected by the Indian Constitution. The Supreme Court declared that the right to privacy is not only safeguarded under Article 21 of the Constitution, which guarantees the right to life and personal liberty, but is also an integral component of Part III. Part III of the Constitution ensures fundamental rights, emphasizing that privacy is inherently included within this framework.

CONCLUSION

The recent judgment marked the third longest hearing in Supreme Court history, spanning 38 days over four and a half months, following the Keshavananda Bharati and Ayodhya Ram Mandir cases. While not based explicitly on a majority opinion, it reflected a plurality of views among the nine judges, who signed an order to maintain consistency and set a precedent for future cases.

On August 24, 2017, the Supreme Court unanimously affirmed that the right to privacy is a fundamental right under Article 21 of the Indian Constitution, a pivotal ruling that laid the groundwork for assessing the constitutionality of the Aadhaar scheme.

On April 25, 2018, the Supreme Court scrutinized the government’s directive to link Aadhaar with mobile numbers and other services. Then, on September 26, 2018, while upholding the validity of the Aadhaar scheme, the Court struck down provisions mandating Aadhaar linkage with bank accounts, mobile numbers, and school admissions. Nevertheless, Aadhaar remained mandatory for PAN linking and accessing government subsidies and benefits.

This landmark decision underscored the fundamental right to privacy and established crucial precedents for data protection and individual liberties, significantly influencing government policies and enhancing personal information security in India.

Moreover, this judgment also marked the first time the Supreme Court acknowledged the rights of the LGBT community in India, including privacy rights related to sexual orientation. By linking privacy with LGBTI issues, the ruling laid a foundation for subsequent legal challenges, notably contributing to the landmark Navtej Singh Johar v. State of India case in 2018, which ultimately led to the decriminalization of Section 377 of the Indian Penal Code.

REFERENCES

K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India. (2024, February 26). A.K. Legal & Associates. https://aklegal.in/k-s-puttaswamy-v-union-of-india/

Justice K.S. Puttaswamy and Anr. vs. Union of India (UOI) and Ors. (n.d.). https://privacylibrary.ccgnlud.org/case/justice-ks-puttaswamy-and-ors-vs-union-of-india-uoi-and-ors

Admin. (2022, December 13). Puttaswamy vs Union of India (2017) – Important SC Judgements for UPSC. BYJUS. https://byjus.com/free-ias-prep/puttaswamy-case-2017-sc-judgements/

https://3fdef50c-add3-4615-a675-a91741bcb5c0.usrfiles.com/ugd/3fdef5_4abe093aacf74c00bf6f2c9e6de3dc07.pdf