By Sameera
Citation :Writ Petition (Civil) No. 494 of 2012. Bench: CJI Khehar, J. Chelameswar, J. S A Bobde, J. Rohinton Fali Nariman, J. Dr. D Y Chandrachud, J. Abhay Manohar Sapre, J. Sanjay Kishan Kaul, J. R K Agrawal, J. S Abdul Nazeer.
Court : Supreme Court of India
Introduction:
Justice K.S. Puttaswamy, a retired judge of the Karnataka High Court. He filled a writ petition against the Adhar Project, which was spearheaded by the Unique Identification Authority of India (UIDAI). This case challenged that Right to Privacy as a fundamental right under the Constitution of India. A three-judge bench decided that a Supreme Court should decide whether the Indian Constitution guaranteed the right to privacy. Then this case was decided by a nine-judge bench of Supreme Court. The puta Swami case served as a reminder that protecting privacy was essential in building a secure and inclusive Society.
Facts:
In 2012 a writ petition filed by Justice K.S. Puttaswamy, a retired judge of the Karnataka High Court in against to the Adhar Project, which was spearheaded by the Unique Identification Authority of India (UIDAI). The Adhar number was a 12-digit identification number issued by the UIDAI to the residents of India. The Adhar project was linked with several welfare schemes, with a view to streamline the process of service delivery and remove false beneficiaries. From this petition he challenging the Constitutional validity of the Adhar program which collected biometric and demographic data from Indian residents and right to privacy. The case reached the Supreme Court of India.
Issue:
1. Whether the right to privacy was a fundamental right under Part III of the Constitution of India?.
2. Whether the Adhar project affect the individual privacy?.
Arguments:
The Respondents mainly relied upon the judgments in the cases of M.P.Sharma v.Satish Chand as well as Kharak Singh v.Uttar Pradesh which had observed that the Constitution did not specifically protect the right to privacy further argued that the part III of the constitution didn’t recognise the right to privacy as a fundamental rights .
The Petitioners emphasize the fundamental right to privacy. They argue that the right to privacy of an individual was an intrinsic part of the right to life and personal liberty as guaranteed by Article 21 of the Constitution. Therefore, along with the other rights contained in Part III, the Court as the guardian of the rights of the people had a duty to safeguard this right.
Judgement:
The Supreme Court delivered its historic judgment on 24th August 2017. The court overruled the judgement in M.P.Sharma v.Satish Chand and Kharak Singh v. Uttar Pradesh. The court unanimously ruled that the right to privacy is a fundamental right protected under the Indian constitution in article 21 .The Adhar Act was held to be valid by the Supreme Court. The Court stated that sufficient security measures have been taken by the Government in order to keep the data safe which the citizens have been asked to reveal for Adhar .
Conclusion:
The Supreme Court’s decision in the Puttaswamy case established that the right to privacy is a fundamental right under the Indian Constitution. The court overturned previous judgments that had denied that privacy was not a fundamental right. While the Court upheld the Adhar Act, it also emphasized that the government must ensure strong protections for citizens’ personal data. This landmark judgment strengthened privacy rights and balanced technological progress with individual privacy.
Reference:
· SOUTH ASIAN TRANSLAW DATABASE.
· Global Freedom of Expression.
· Legal Service India .
· LawBhoomi.
Comments