Why this matters now
Puttaswamy is the foundational privacy case in Indian law. Every subsequent privacy/personal-data ruling rests on it — including Aadhaar (Puttaswamy II 2018), Navtej Johar (Section 377, 2018), Joseph Shine (adultery, 2018) and the DPDP Act 2023.
Facts: an Aadhaar challenge
Retired Justice K.S. Puttaswamy, an 80+ year-old former Karnataka HC judge, filed a writ petition in 2012 challenging Aadhaar enrolment as a violation of privacy. The Government argued that the right to privacy was not a Fundamental Right because of two pre-1975 cases: M.P. Sharma v. Satish Chandra (1954, 8 judges) and Kharak Singh v. State of UP (1962, 6 judges), which had held that privacy was not a discrete FR. To resolve the doctrinal cloud, a 9-judge Constitution Bench was assembled.
The unanimous verdict
On 24 August 2017, all 9 judges of the bench — CJI J.S. Khehar, J. Chelameswar, S.A. Bobde, R.K. Agrawal, R.F. Nariman, A.M. Sapre, D.Y. Chandrachud, S.K. Kaul, S. Abdul Nazeer — held by 6 concurring opinions (Justice Chandrachud authoring the main):
- Right to Privacy IS a Fundamental Right protected under Article 21 (life and personal liberty) and also under Articles 14 and 19.
- Overruled M.P. Sharma (1954) and Kharak Singh (1962) insofar as they held that privacy is not a FR.
- EXPRESSLY OVERRULED ADM Jabalpur (1976) — the “Habeas Corpus” Emergency-era judgment that had held FRs were extinguished in Emergency.
- Privacy includes informational autonomy, bodily autonomy, decisional autonomy and spatial autonomy.
- Justice Chandrachud’s judgment specifically overruled the 1976 majority that included his father (Justice Y.V. Chandrachud Sr.).
The Privacy Test (Proportionality)
Privacy is not absolute. State action restricting privacy must satisfy a four-fold test (the “Puttaswamy test”):
- Legality: there must be a law authorising the restriction.
- Legitimate State aim: the law must serve a legitimate public purpose.
- Proportionality: the means must be proportionate to the ends.
- Procedural safeguards: there must be procedures to prevent abuse.
Applied in Aadhaar (Puttaswamy II 2018), Navtej Johar 2018 (Section 377), Joseph Shine 2018 (adultery), Anuradha Bhasin 2020 (J&K internet shutdown), and DPDP 2023 framing.
UPSC angle
Know K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India 24 Aug 2017 — 9-judge bench, UNANIMOUS verdict (6 concurring opinions, Justice D.Y. Chandrachud authoring the main); writ by retd Justice K.S. Puttaswamy (Karnataka HC) since 2012 against Aadhaar; HELD RIGHT TO PRIVACY IS A FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT under Article 21 + Articles 14 & 19; OVERRULED M.P. Sharma v. Satish Chandra 1954 (8 judges) + Kharak Singh v. State of UP 1962 (6 judges); EXPRESSLY OVERRULED ADM Jabalpur v. Shivkant Shukla 1976; privacy = informational + bodily + decisional + spatial autonomy; PUTTASWAMY TEST = (1) legality (2) legitimate State aim (3) proportionality (4) procedural safeguards.
Frequently asked questions
Is the Right to Privacy a Fundamental Right in India?
Yes — per Puttaswamy 2017 (9-judge unanimous), it is protected under Article 21 (and also flows from Articles 14 and 19).
Which previous cases did Puttaswamy overrule?
M.P. Sharma (1954), Kharak Singh (1962), and expressly ADM Jabalpur (1976).
What is the Puttaswamy proportionality test?
A four-fold test for State restriction of privacy: (1) legality; (2) legitimate State aim; (3) proportionality; (4) procedural safeguards.
What are the dimensions of privacy under Puttaswamy?
Informational autonomy, bodily autonomy, decisional autonomy and spatial autonomy.