KEY FACTS:
Justice K.S. Puttaswamy (Retd.), a retired judge of the Madras High Court, challenged the constitutional validity of the Aadhaar scheme. He argued that the scheme violated the right to privacy. A three-judge bench held that a larger bench should determine whether the Constitution of India guarantees a right to privacy. A nine-judge bench decided this case.
About Case
This case is the cornerstone of the ‘Right to Privacy’ jurisprudence in India. The nine Judge Bench in this case unanimously reaffirmed the right to privacy as a fundamental right under the Constitution of India. The Court held that the right to privacy was integral to freedoms guaranteed across fundamental rights, and was an intrinsic aspect of dignity, autonomy and liberty.
The case began with the question of whether the right to privacy was a fundamental right, which was raised in 2015 in the arguments concerning the legal validity of the Aadhaar database. The Attorney General appearing for the State argued that the existence of the right to privacy as a fundamental right was in doubt in view of the two decisions in the cases of M.P. Sharma vs. Satish Chandra, District Magistrate, Delhi ((1954) SCR 1077), rendered by an eight Judge Bench, and Kharak Singh vs. State of Uttar Pradesh ((1964) 1 SCR 332), rendered by a six Judge Bench. Both the cases, the State argued, contained observations that the Constitution did not specifically protect the right to privacy as a fundamental right. At the same time, several subsequent judgments over the years had recognised the right to privacy as a fundamental right. However, these subsequent decisions that affirmed the existence of the right to privacy were rendered by benches of a smaller strength than M.P. Sharma and Kharak Singh. Due to issues relating to the precedential value of judgments and noting the far-reaching importance of the right to privacy, this case was referred to a nine Judge Bench of the Supreme Court.
The Bench unanimously held that “the right to privacy is protected as an intrinsic part of the right to life and personal liberty under Article 21 and as a part of the freedoms guaranteed by Part III of the Constitution”. In doing so, it overruled previous judgments of the Supreme Court in M.P. Sharma and Kharak Singh, insofar as the latter held that the right to privacy was not recognised under the Indian Constitution.
In addition to cementing the place of the right to privacy as a fundamental right, this case also laid down the need for the implementation of a new law relating to data privacy, expanded the scope of privacy in personal spaces, and discussed privacy as an intrinsic value.
Protection
While India did not have a comprehensive law on privacy and data security, the Aadhaar Act, 2016 had some protection of its own. For example, it prohibits UIDAI and its officers from sharing a person’s information and authentication records with anyone. It also forbids a person authenticating another person’s identity from collecting or using their information without their consent. Other protections include prohibitions against publicly displaying a person’s Aadhaar number and sharing of a person’s fingerprints and iris scans with anyone. There are penalties prescribed for violation of these provisions for the same.
However, the Act permits information to be disclosed in the interest of national security if the order of a court is received.
On 26th September 2018, the Bench delivered its verdict on the issue of the Aadhaar Act being constitutional. The Aadhaar scheme has been challenged before the Supreme Court by Justice K.S. Puttaswamy, a retired judge of the Karnataka High Court. He claims that Aadhaar infringes upon fundamental rights guaranteed by the Constitution. Broadly, his objections include:
1. The government has not put in place adequate privacy safeguards. Any private entity may request authentication by Aadhaar for any reason subject to regulations by the UIDAI. There are no checks on the power of the government to use the biometric data collected.
2. Entitlements granted to the individuals by the State's social sector schemes are themselves a fundamental right. They cannot be limited for any reason, including the failure to produce an Aadhaar Card/Number when applying for benefits.
SIGNIFICANCE
This judgement was the first time that the Supreme Court recognised the rights of the LGBT community in India. The judgement included the right to determine the sexual orientation and the right to privacy. By linking the privacy to LGBTI issues, this judgment fuelled the fire for the challenge to Section 377 of the Indian Penal Code, which came in the form of Navtej Singh Johar v. State of India in 2017.
For Read More - Justice ks Puttaswamy vs Union of India
No comments:
Post a Comment