Remembering Justice KS Puttaswamy: The Man Who Fought For Our Privacy

The Puttaswamy case reaffirmed the judiciary’s role in protecting individual liberties against state overreach.

On 28 October, India lost one of its most significant figures, Justice KS Puttaswamy, who passed away at the age of 98.

(File Photo)

“The destruction by the state of a sanctified personal space whether of the body or of the mind is violative of the guarantee against arbitrary state action. Privacy of the body entitles an individual to the integrity of the physical aspects of personhood.”

– KS Puttaswamy (Retd) v Union of India  

On 28 October, India lost one of its most significant legal figures, Justice KS Puttaswamy, who passed away at the age of 98. His legacy is etched in Indian legal history, most notably through his relentless pursuit of privacy rights, culminating in the landmark Supreme Court judgment that recognised privacy as a fundamental right under the Indian Constitution.  

He was usually seen in his study with a magnifying glass, a couple of books and his iconic table lamp. A retired judge of the Karnataka High Court, he will be remembered not only for his judicial contributions but also for his courage to challenge the state in his post-retirement years, leading to a watershed moment in constitutional law. 

Born in Kolar District, he studied at the Maharaja’s College, Mysore and pursued law at the Government Law College, Bangalore. He was enrolled as an advocate just after Independence – in 1952 – when Indian law was at its initial stages.

In 1977, he was appointed as a judge at the Karnataka High Court. He was also the first Vice Chairman of the Central Administrative Tribunal in Bangalore.

In the administrative and political sphere, Andhra Pradesh Chief Minister Kotla Vijayabhaskara Reddy constituted the Backward Classes Commission under the Chairmanship of Justice KS Puttaswamy. in 1994.

Back in 2012, Justice Puttaswamy decided to file a writ petition before the Supreme Court of India, challenging the constitutional validity of the Aadhar Scheme which was brought about by the Government of India.

The petition resulted in the formation of a nine-judge bench of the Supreme Court to determine whether the right to privacy was a constitutionally protected right.

On 24 August 2017, in a unanimous judgment delivered in Justice K.S. Puttaswamy (Retd.) v. Union of India, the Supreme Court held that the right to privacy is intrinsic to the right to life and personal liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution and is, therefore, a fundamental right. The decision significantly expanded the scope of individual liberties, placing limitations on the state's actions that could infringe upon privacy. 

One of the major arguments in this case was that there was no ‘safeguard’ for a citizen’s private sphere. On the other hand, the government argued that there is no fundamental right with respect to privacy under Part III of the Indian Constitution.  

The Court held that the sanctity of privacy lies in its functional relationship with dignity and that the Right to Privacy is inalienable to human existence. Accordingly, the Bench recognised the Right to Privacy as a fundamental right under Article 21 of the Constitution.  

Further, it was held that the State is duty-bound to protect the privacy of an individual and directed the Central government to establish a robust regime to ensure the protection of this right, i.e., all restraints on privacy must be lawful and reasonable. The decisions of MP Sharma and Kharak Singh were overruled. 

Justice DY Chandrachud (the present Chief Justice of India), in his opinion in KS Puttaswamy (Retd) v Union of India, held that privacy must be held to be an intrinsic element of the right to life and personal liberty under Article 21 and as a constitutional value which is embodied in the fundamental freedoms embedded in Part III of the Constitution.

Like the right to life and liberty, privacy is not absolute. The limitations which operate on the right to life and personal liberty would operate on the right to privacy. Any curtailment or deprivation of that right would have to take place under a regime of law and the procedure established by law must be fair, just and reasonable. The law which provides for the curtailment of this right must also be subject to constitutional safeguards. 

The KS Puttaswamy case acted as a grundnorm for other issues too. For instance, in 2018, a Constitutional bench in Navtej Singh Johar v Union of India, de-criminalised consensual sex between persons belonging to the same sex, by striking down certain parts of Section 377 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.  

Justice Chandrachud noted that the state cannot intrude into the choice of partner, desire for personal intimacy and yearning for love . In his judgment, he stated that the LGBT community is entitled to the benefit of equal citizenship  and equal protection by the law without any discrimination.  He further invoked the Supreme Court’s judgment holding the right to privacy as a fundamental right, and concluded that  the right to sexual orientation is an intrinsic part of this right.  

Following the privacy case ruling, the Aadhaar case was heard by a five-judge bench, which delivered a mixed verdict in 2018. The Court upheld the constitutionality of the Aadhaar Act but placed several restrictions on its use, particularly in contexts involving private sector transactions and mandatory requirements for certain welfare schemes. 

Justice Puttaswamy’s petition is widely regarded as a landmark case in Indian constitutional law which opened up a larger discourse on data protection, surveillance, and the need for legislation governing privacy in India. His contribution, thus, transcends his tenure as a judge, placing him as a figure instrumental in advancing civil liberties in contemporary Indian law.

Rest in power, sir.  

(Areeb Uddin Ahmed is an advocate practicing at the Allahabad High Court. He writes on various legal developments. This is an opinion piece and the views expressed above are the author’s own. The Quint neither endorses nor is responsible for them.)