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> The court held that the right to privacy is a fundamental right protected under Article 21 of the Constitution of India, essential for individual dignity ... Whether there is any fundamental right of privacy under the Indian Constitution - Held Yes. Life and personal liberty are inalienable rights. These are rights which are inseparable from a dignified human existence. The dignity of the individual, equality between human beings and the quest for liberty are the foundational pillars of the Indian Constitution; Life and personal liberty are not creations of the Constitution. These rights are recognised by the Constitution as inhering in each individual as an intrinsic and inseparable part of the human element which dwells within; Privacy is a constitutionally protected right which emerges primarily from the guarantee of life and personal liberty in Article 21 of the Constitution. Elements of privacy also arise in varying contexts from the other facets of freedom and dignity recognised and guaranteed by the fundamental rights contained in Part III; Like other rights which form part of the fundamental freedoms protected by Part III, including the right to life and personal liberty under Article 21, privacy is not an absolute right. A law which encroaches upon privacy will have to withstand the touchstone of permissible restrictions on fundamental rights. An invasion of life or personal liberty must meet the three-fold requirement of (i) legality, which postulates the existence of law; (ii) need, defined in terms of a legitimate state aim; and (iii) proportionality which ensures a rational nexus between the objects and the means adopted to achieve them; and Privacy has both positive and negative content. The negative content restrains the state from committing an intrusion upon the life and personal liberty of a citizen. Its positive content imposes an obligation on the state to take all necessary measures to protect the privacy of the individual. 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 
TaxTMI 
