Right to Privacy: Post-Puttaswamy Jurisprudence and Its Expanding Horizons

Privacy and Individual Autonomy

Privacy is an integral part of a person’s life. Individual autonomy and privacy are closely related because privacy allows people the liberty to form their own decisions and choices, whether concerning relationships, bodies, or personal lives. Upholding human dignity is a fundamental value of a democratic country, and privacy is an essential element of human dignity. Legally, privacy acts as a shield, protecting people from public or governmental scrutiny. Various international conventions recognize privacy as a basic human right, such as Article 12 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and Article 17 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. Following the Puttaswamy ruling, privacy is now recognized as a basic or constitutional right in India.

Right to Privacy and Its Evolution in India

Before the Puttaswamy judgment, the position of the right to privacy as a fundamental right was unclear. The framers of the Constitution did not initially include this right under Part III. However, over time, the Supreme Court addressed numerous cases concerning the aspects of the right to privacy, which contributed to establishing it as part of the Right to Life and Liberty under Article 21.

1. M.P. Sharma vs. Satish Chandra: The Court observed that privacy, not explicitly guaranteed by the Constitution, could not be a fundamental right.
2. Kharak Singh vs. State of UP: The Court reiterated that privacy was not a fundamental right.
3. Govind vs. State of MP: The Court expanded the ambit of privacy under Art. 21 but noted that it would develop case-by-case.
4. ADM Jabalpur vs. Shivakant Shukla: The Court suggested that privacy may be implied through common law.
5. Maneka Gandhi Case: This expanded Art. 21’s scope, aiding in the incorporation of privacy within it.
6. R. Rajagopal vs. State of Tamil Nadu: Recognized privacy as linked to life and liberty under Art. 21.
7. PUCL vs. Union of India: Strengthened privacy as a fundamental right protected under Art. 21.

These cases show the gradual development and cementing of privacy as a fundamental right, which was fully affirmed in the Puttaswamy case.

The Puttaswamy Case and Its Impact on Right to Privacy

In this landmark case, the Supreme Court recognized privacy as a fundamental right and a vital component of personal liberty under Art. 21. This judgment, which overruled previous rulings in M.P. Sharma and Kharak Singh, affirmed privacy’s constitutional status.

The Court’s reasoning emphasized that any state action impacting privacy must adhere to standards of “justice, fairness, and reasonableness.” Additionally, under Art. 14, actions are subject to scrutiny for reasonableness, and under Art. 19, any limitations on privacy must align with the Constitution’s reasonable restrictions.

Justice S.K. Kaul introduced the “Proportionality and Legitimacy Test”, outlining that state actions limiting privacy must:

• Be authorized by law.
• Serve a justifiable goal.
• Balance interference’s degree and necessity.
• Include procedural safeguards against misuse.

The ruling stated that privacy is not absolute and may be restricted for legitimate state interests such as national security and public welfare.

Expanding Horizons: Post-Puttaswamy Jurisprudence

The Puttaswamy ruling necessitated transparency in surveillance laws and judicial review for privacy-related actions, demanding caution and sensitivity from authorities.

To further privacy laws, a committee was tasked with drafting a Data Protection Bill, which recommended:

• Restrictions on data collection.
• Establishment of a Data Protection Authority.
• “Right to be Forgotten” provisions.
• Requirements for express consent when handling sensitive data.

The “right to be forgotten” was acknowledged by the Kerala High Court in Sredharan T. vs. State of Kerala, where it was viewed as integral to the right to privacy. Courts have mandated that privacy violations pass the Puttaswamy test, ensuring state actions adhere to constitutional provisions.

Despite the ruling’s impact, privacy concerns persist, especially regarding:

• Mass surveillance programs justified by security concerns.
• Data management by big tech companies like Facebook, Google, and Amazon.
• AI technology, which raises questions of transparency and consent.

These concerns highlight the need for evolving privacy jurisprudence and strong legislative frameworks to address the challenges posed by modern technologies.

Conclusion

The Puttaswamy case marked a turning point in India’s privacy jurisprudence, establishing privacy as a fundamental right and paving the way for privacy legislation. However, there remains a need for comprehensive laws addressing privacy rights, government surveillance, and data protection. Collaborative efforts by the government, judiciary, and legislators are essential for creating a framework that protects the right to privacy in an increasingly digital world.

References

1. Sargam Thapa, “The Evolution of Right to Privacy in India,” International Journal of Humanities and Social Science Invention, Vol. 10, 53-58 (2021), https://www.ijhssi.org/papers/vol10(2)/Ser-1/J1002015358.pdf
2. Shivani Kumari, “Right to Privacy,” IPleaders, (Feb. 5, 2024), https://blog.ipleaders.in/different-aspects-of-right-to-privacy-under-article-21/#PUCL_v_Union_of_India_1997
3. “Privacy Judgment and the Aftermath,” Drishti IAS, (Aug. 26, 2019), https://www.drishtiias.com/daily-news-editorials/privacy-judgement-and-the-aftermath
4. Zubair Ahmed, “Right to be Forgotten,” Manupatra, (Aug. 23, 2022), https://articles.manupatra.com/article-details/Right-to-be-forgotten
5. Indrasish Majumder, “Exploring the Right to Privacy in India,” Lawoctopus, (May 3, 2024), https://lawctopus.com/clatalogue/clat-pg/right-to-privacy-in-india/

Case References

• AIR 1954 SC 300
• AIR 1963 SC 1295
• AIR 1976 SC 1207
• AIR 1975 SC 1378
• 1978 SCR (2) 621
• (2017) 10 SCC 1
• AIR 1995 SC 264
• AIR 1997 SC 568
• Writ Petition No. 9478 of 2016