{"id":3777,"date":"2024-11-03T12:07:33","date_gmt":"2024-11-03T06:37:33","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/lawjurist.com\/?p=3777"},"modified":"2024-11-03T12:13:44","modified_gmt":"2024-11-03T06:43:44","slug":"right-to-privacy-post-puttaswamy-jurisprudence-and-its-expanding-horizons","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/lawjurist.com\/index.php\/2024\/11\/03\/right-to-privacy-post-puttaswamy-jurisprudence-and-its-expanding-horizons\/","title":{"rendered":"Right to Privacy: Post-Puttaswamy Jurisprudence and Its Expanding Horizons"},"content":{"rendered":"\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\n

Ananya Singh<\/p>\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t

\n\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t

Privacy and Individual Autonomy<\/strong><\/h4>\n

Privacy is an integral part of a person\u2019s 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.<\/p>\n

\n

Right to Privacy and Its Evolution in India<\/strong><\/h4>\n

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.<\/p>\n

    \n
  1. M.P. Sharma vs. Satish Chandra<\/strong>: The Court observed that privacy, not explicitly guaranteed by the Constitution, could not be a fundamental right.<\/li>\n
  2. Kharak Singh vs. State of UP<\/strong>: The Court reiterated that privacy was not a fundamental right.<\/li>\n
  3. Govind vs. State of MP<\/strong>: The Court expanded the ambit of privacy under Art. 21 but noted that it would develop case-by-case.<\/li>\n
  4. ADM Jabalpur vs. Shivakant Shukla<\/strong>: The Court suggested that privacy may be implied through common law.<\/li>\n
  5. Maneka Gandhi Case<\/strong>: This expanded Art. 21\u2019s scope, aiding in the incorporation of privacy within it.<\/li>\n
  6. R. Rajagopal vs. State of Tamil Nadu<\/strong>: Recognized privacy as linked to life and liberty under Art. 21.<\/li>\n
  7. PUCL vs. Union of India<\/strong>: Strengthened privacy as a fundamental right protected under Art. 21.<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n

    These cases show the gradual development and cementing of privacy as a fundamental right, which was fully affirmed in the Puttaswamy case<\/strong>.<\/p>\n

    \n

    The Puttaswamy Case and Its Impact on Right to Privacy<\/strong><\/h4>\n

    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\u2019s constitutional status.<\/p>\n

    The Court\u2019s reasoning emphasized that any state action impacting privacy must adhere to standards of \u201cjustice, fairness, and reasonableness.\u201d Additionally, under Art. 14, actions are subject to scrutiny for reasonableness, and under Art. 19, any limitations on privacy must align with the Constitution\u2019s reasonable restrictions.<\/p>\n

    Justice S.K. Kaul introduced the \u201cProportionality and Legitimacy Test\u201d<\/strong>, outlining that state actions limiting privacy must:<\/p>\n