Justice K. S. Puttaswamy (Retd.) v. Union of India (Summary)
The right to privacy is commonly regarded as one of the most fundamental human rights, and it is expressly mentioned in Article 12 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights of 1948:
“No one shall be subjected to arbitrary interference with his privacy, family, home or correspondence, nor to attacks upon his honor and reputation. Everyone has the right to the protection of the law against such interference or attacks.”
Most Western countries have a strong framework of privacy laws, and the necessity for such legislation in India has been acknowledged for a long time. The Supreme Court had already made strong statements on the subject in a number of decisions, including:
Satish Chandra vs. M.P. Sharma
Union of India vs. Maneka Gandhi
Peoples Union for Civil Liberties v Union of India and
Kharak Singh v State of Uttar Pradesh
The issuance of Aadhar Cards has once again pushed the right to privacy of an individual to the forefront. In a writ case to the Supreme Court, retired Justice Puttaswamy challenged the validity of Aadhar. The petitioner said that the Right to Privacy is a fundamental right under all previous highest court rulings, and that the Aadhar method breached this right.
Issues Involved
The Court had to decide whether the right to privacy constituted a fundamental right despite the fact that it was not explicitly stated in the Constitution.
The petitioner also sought the Court to clarify whether the opinion stated in these previous judgments was the correct constitutional stance, because the Court had stopped short of proclaiming the right to privacy an absolute basic right in some of the above-mentioned verdicts.
Judgement of the Case
The following points were highlighted by the Court in its decision:
It was decided that in this day and age of technology, privacy problems might arise from both state and non-state actors, and that a claim of privacy breach can be made against either of them.
The Court also found that, in the age of the internet, informational privacy is not an absolute right, and that when an individual exercises his right to control over his data, it may result in a significant breach of his privacy. It was also said that the scope of Article 21 is ever-expanding as a result of the Supreme Court justices' agreement over the years, which has resulted in a plethora of rights being included inside Article 21.
On the 24th of August 2017, a 9-judge bench of the Supreme Court laid down its decision in this landmark case, maintaining Article 21's basic right to privacy. The right to privacy is an inherent and intrinsic feature of Part III of the Constitution, which guarantees fundamental rights, according to the court.
The dispute in this area mostly emerges between an individual's right to privacy and the government's legitimate goal of enforcing its regulations, and a balance must be struck in doing so.
The Supreme Court further stated that the right to privacy is not an absolute right, and that any invasion of private by state or non-state entities must pass a three-part test:
Proportionality Legality is a legitimate goal.
The following was also included in the decision of all nine judges:
The ruling in M.P. Sharma v Satish Chandra, which concluded that the Indian Constitution does not safeguard the right to privacy, has been overturned.
The judgement in Kharak Singh, to the extent that it holds that Part III does not guarantee the right to privacy, is likewise overturned.
Individuals' right to privacy is safeguarded not just by Article 21 of the Constitution, but also by Part III of the Constitution, which guarantees fundamental rights.
Conclusion
The Supreme Court has once again risen to the occasion, this time by defending individual rights against invasions of privacy. The ruling protects individual privacy despite the fact that the country currently lacks a privacy law framework, despite massive technological advancements that pose a direct danger to the right to private. The decision also opened the door for major decisions such as Navtej Singh Johar v. Union of India (2018), which decriminalized homosexuality, and Joseph Shine v. Union of India, which ended the provisions of the crime of adultery (2018).
Comments
Post a Comment