TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Privacy: Fundamental Right Under Article 21 | Data Protection Laws | Personal Liberty</h1> <h3>Justice K.S. Puttaswamy (Retd.), And Another Versus Union of India And Others</h3> Justice K.S. Puttaswamy (Retd.), And Another Versus Union of India And Others - 2017 AIR 4161, 2017 (10) SCC 1, 2017 (9) JT 141, 2017 (10) SCALE 1 Issues Involved:1. Whether the right to privacy is a fundamental right under the Constitution of India.2. The correctness of the judgments in M.P. Sharma v. Satish Chandra and Kharak Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh regarding the right to privacy.Issue-wise Analysis:1. Fundamental Right to Privacy:The judgment establishes that the right to privacy is a fundamental right protected under Article 21 of the Constitution of India, which guarantees the right to life and personal liberty. This right is intrinsic to the freedoms guaranteed by Part III of the Constitution. The court emphasized that privacy is essential for the dignity and autonomy of the individual, enabling the development of personality and the exercise of liberty. Privacy includes the right to make personal decisions without interference, control over personal information, and protection from unwarranted intrusion.2. Correctness of M.P. Sharma and Kharak Singh Judgments:The court overruled the decisions in M.P. Sharma and Kharak Singh to the extent that they held that the right to privacy is not protected by the Constitution. The M.P. Sharma case was decided in the context of Article 20(3) and did not conclusively address the broader issue of privacy. The Kharak Singh judgment had contradictory observations, with the majority opinion not recognizing privacy as a fundamental right while simultaneously acknowledging unauthorized intrusion into a home as a violation of personal liberty under Article 21. The court clarified that these earlier judgments are not reflective of the correct position in law post the developments in constitutional jurisprudence.Detailed Analysis:Privacy as a Fundamental Right:- Privacy is viewed as an inalienable natural right inherent in every individual by virtue of being human. It is essential for the dignity and liberty of individuals and is protected under Article 21.- The judgment highlights that privacy encompasses various aspects, including physical privacy, informational privacy, and the privacy of choice. These aspects are integral to personal liberty and the autonomy of individuals.- The court recognized that technological advancements have increased the potential for privacy invasions, necessitating robust protections against both state and non-state actors. The right to privacy includes the right to control the dissemination of personal information and to be free from unwarranted surveillance and profiling.- The judgment also acknowledges the need for data protection laws to safeguard informational privacy and the right to be forgotten, allowing individuals to control their digital footprints.Overruling M.P. Sharma and Kharak Singh:- The court noted that M.P. Sharma's decision was based on the interpretation of Article 20(3) and did not comprehensively address the right to privacy. The judgment was delivered in the Gopalan era, which did not recognize the interrelationship between fundamental rights.- In Kharak Singh, the majority opinion's statement that privacy is not a guaranteed right under the Constitution was inconsistent with its acknowledgment that unauthorized intrusion into a home violates personal liberty under Article 21. The judgment failed to recognize the broader implications of privacy as part of the right to life and personal liberty.- The court affirmed that subsequent judgments recognizing privacy as a fundamental right correctly interpreted the Constitution, and the earlier decisions in M.P. Sharma and Kharak Singh are no longer good law.Conclusion:The right to privacy is a constitutionally protected fundamental right under Article 21 and other freedoms in Part III of the Constitution. The judgments in M.P. Sharma and Kharak Singh, to the extent they denied this right, are overruled. The court emphasized the need for a balanced approach to privacy, allowing reasonable restrictions in the interest of national security, public order, and other legitimate state interests, while ensuring robust protections against unwarranted intrusions.
TaxTMI 