The recognition of the right to privacy as a fundamental right in India marked a watershed moment in constitutional jurisprudence. For decades, the status of privacy in India remained uncertain, oscillating between judicial reluctance and partial acknowledgment. The Supreme Court’s landmark nine-judge bench decision in Justice K.S. Puttaswamy (Retd.) v. Union of India (2017) settled the matter by holding, unequivocally, that privacy is a constitutionally protected right intrinsic to life and liberty under Article 21, as well as to the freedoms and equality enshrined in Part III of the Constitution. This judgment not only changed the trajectory of constitutional law but also created a new normative framework to balance individual autonomy with legitimate state interests in a digital era.
Before Puttaswamy, the Indian judiciary was ambivalent about privacy. In M.P. Sharma v. Satish Chandra (1954), an eight-judge bench denied the existence of a fundamental right to privacy while considering search and seizure powers. Similarly, in Kharak Singh v. State of U.P. (1962), the majority held that surveillance did not violate any fundamental right, though Justice Subba Rao’s dissent famously recognized privacy as part of personal liberty. Over the years, smaller benches began acknowledging privacy in specific contexts such as telephone tapping (PUCL v. Union of India, 1997), HIV status disclosure (Mr. X v. Hospital Z, 1998), and reproductive rights (Suchita Srivastava v. Chandigarh Administration, 2009). However, the absence of an authoritative pronouncement by a larger bench left ambiguity until Puttaswamy.
In Puttaswamy, the Court examined whether the Aadhaar scheme, which mandated biometric data collection, violated the right to privacy. The bench unanimously affirmed privacy as a fundamental right, overruling earlier precedents. The judgment, authored through multiple concurring opinions, emphasized that privacy is not merely about spatial seclusion but encompasses decisional autonomy, informational privacy, and dignity. Justice D.Y. Chandrachud, writing for the majority, held that privacy is an essential facet of human personality and a natural right, integral to liberty and democracy. The Court linked privacy to Articles 14, 19, and 21, underscoring its multidimensional nature.
The Puttaswamy judgment laid down a framework for testing state action infringing privacy through the principles of legality, necessity, and proportionality. First, any restriction must be backed by law. Second, it must pursue a legitimate state aim. Third, the measures adopted must be proportionate to the objective, ensuring minimal intrusion into individual rights. This doctrine of proportionality has since become central to adjudicating privacy claims, balancing individual freedoms with collective interests like national security, public health, and crime prevention.
Post-Puttaswamy, privacy jurisprudence has expanded across multiple domains. In Navtej Singh Johar v. Union of India (2018), the Court decriminalized consensual same-sex relations under Section 377 IPC, invoking privacy and dignity. In Joseph Shine v. Union of India (2018), striking down adultery as a crime, the Court emphasized decisional privacy in intimate relationships. In the Aadhaar judgment (2018), while upholding Aadhaar’s use for welfare schemes, the Court restricted its application in areas like private employment and bank accounts, citing proportionality concerns. Similarly, in Anuradha Bhasin v. Union of India (2020), dealing with internet shutdowns in Jammu & Kashmir, the Court linked the right to internet access to freedom of expression and indirectly to privacy and liberty.
Despite these advances, challenges remain in giving full effect to the right to privacy. India’s rapid digitalization has raised concerns about surveillance, data protection, and misuse of personal information. The absence of a comprehensive data protection law, despite repeated recommendations by committees, leaves citizens vulnerable. The recently enacted Digital Personal Data Protection Act, 2023, represents a step forward, but debates continue over state exemptions, adequacy of safeguards, and enforcement mechanisms. Another challenge lies in reconciling privacy with competing interests such as national security, counter-terrorism, and public order, where unchecked state power risks undermining individual rights.
The recognition of privacy as a fundamental right has also broadened its application to emerging contexts. Issues of reproductive rights, LGBTQ+ rights, marital choices, surveillance technologies like facial recognition, and artificial intelligence now fall within the purview of privacy jurisprudence. Courts have invoked privacy to protect interfaith and inter-caste marriages from societal hostility, reinforcing individual autonomy in personal decisions. Similarly, the right to informational self-determination is increasingly seen as critical in the age of big data and algorithmic governance.
In conclusion, the Puttaswamy judgment transformed the constitutional landscape by elevating privacy to the status of a fundamental right, thereby strengthening democracy, liberty, and dignity in India. Its prospects are far-reaching, extending into spheres of technology, health, sexuality, and personal relationships. Yet, the challenges of implementation, state overreach, and absence of robust data protection frameworks remain pressing concerns. The future of privacy in India will depend on how effectively the judiciary, legislature, and civil society uphold the delicate balance between individual freedoms and collective interests in an era of unprecedented technological change
