JUSTICE K.S.PUTTASWAMY(RETD) Vs UNION OF INDIA
Bench: J. CHELAMESWAR,S.A. BOBDE,C. NAGAPPAN
Case number: W.P.(C) No.-000494-000494 / 2012
Diary number: 35071 / 2012
Advocates: ANISH KUMAR GUPTA Vs
Page 1
REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO.494 OF 2012
Justice K.S. Puttaswamy (Retd.) & Another … Petitioners
Versus
Union of India & Others … Respondents
WITH
TRANSFERRED CASE (CIVIL) NO.151 OF 2013
TRANSFERRED CASE (CIVIL) NO.152 OF 2013
WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO.829 OF 2013
WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO.833 OF 2013
WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO.932 OF 2013
TRANSFER PETITION (CIVIL) NO.312 OF 2014
TRANSFER PETITION (CIVIL) NO.313 OF 2014
WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO.37 OF 2015
WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO.220 OF 2015
TRANSFER PETITION (CIVIL) NO.921 OF 2015
CONTEMPT PETITION (CIVIL) NO.144 OF 2014 IN WP(C) 494/2012
CONTEMPT PETITION (CIVIL) NO.470 OF 2015 IN WP(C) 494/2012
O R D E R
1. In this batch of matters, a scheme propounded by the
Government of India popularly known as “Aadhaar Card Scheme” is
under attack on various counts. For the purpose of this order, it is
1
Page 2
not necessary for us to go into the details of the nature of the
scheme and the various counts on which the scheme is attacked.
Suffice it to say that under the said scheme the Government of
India is collecting and compiling both the demographic and
biometric data of the residents of this country to be used for various
purposes, the details of which are not relevant at present.
2. One of the grounds of attack on the scheme is that the very
collection of such biometric data is violative of the “right to privacy”.
Some of the petitioners assert that the right to privacy is implied
under Article 21 of the Constitution of India while other petitioners
assert that such a right emanates not only from Article 21 but also
from various other articles embodying the fundamental rights
guaranteed under Part-III of the Constitution of India.
3. When the matter was taken up for hearing, Shri Mukul
Rohatgi, learned Attorney General made a submission that in view
of the judgments of this Court in M.P. Sharma & Others v. Satish
Chandra & Others, AIR 1954 SC 300 and Kharak Singh v. State
of U.P. & Others, AIR 1963 SC 1295, (decided by Eight and Six
Judges respectively) the legal position regarding the existence of the
fundamental right to privacy is doubtful. Further, the learned
2
Page 3
Attorney General also submitted that in a catena of decisions of this
Court rendered subsequently, this Court referred to “right to
privacy”, contrary to the judgments in the abovementioned cases
which resulted in a jurisprudentially impermissible divergence of
judicial opinions.
“A power of search and seizure is in any system of jurisprudence an overriding power of the State for the protection of social security and that power is necessarily regulated by law. When the Constitution makers have thought fit not to subject such regulation to constitutional limitations by recognition of a fundamental right to privacy, analogous to the American Fourth Amendment, we have no justification to import it, into a totally different fundamental right, by some process of strained construction. [See: M.P. Singh & Others v. Satish Chandra & Others, AIR 1954 SC 300, page 306 para 18]
“… Nor do we consider that Art. 21 has any relevance in the context as was sought to be suggested by learned counsel for the petitioner. As already pointed out, the right of privacy is not a guaranteed right under our Constitution and therefore the attempt to ascertain the movement of an individual which is merely a manner in which privacy is invaded is not an infringement of a fundamental right guaranteed by Part III.” [See: Kharak Singh v. State of U.P. & Others, AIR 1963 SC 1295, page 1303 para 20]
[Emphasis supplied]
4. Learned Attorney General submitted that such impermissible
divergence of opinion commenced with the judgment of this Court
in Gobind v. State of M.P. & Another, (1975) 2 SCC 148, which
formed the basis for the subsequent decision of this Court wherein
the “right to privacy” is asserted or at least referred to. The most
important of such cases are R. Rajagopal & Another v. State of
3
Page 4
Tamil Nadu & Others, (1994) 6 SCC 632 (popularly known as
Auto Shanker’s case) and People’s Union for Civil Liberties
(PUCL) v. Union of India & Another, (1997) 1 SCC 301.
5. All the judgments referred to above were rendered by smaller
Benches of two or three Judges.
6. Shri K.K. Venugopal, learned senior counsel appearing for one
of the respondents submitted that the decision of this Court in
Gobind (supra) is not consistent with the decisions of this Court in
M.P. Sharma and Kharak Singh. He submitted that such
divergence is also noticed by the academicians, Shri F.S. Nariman,
Senior Advocate of this Court and Shri A.M. Bhattacharjee1, Former
Chief Justice, High Court at Calcutta and High Court at Bombay.
7. Therefore, it is submitted by the learned Attorney General and
Shri Venugopal that to settle the legal position, this batch of
matters is required to be heard by a larger Bench of this Court as
1
A.M. Bhattacharjee , Equality, Liberty & Property under the Constitution of India, (Eastern Law House, New Delhi, 1997)
4
Page 5
these matters throw up for debate important questions – (i) whether
there is any “right to privacy” guaranteed under our Constitution.
(ii) If such a right exists, what is the source and what are the
contours of such a right as there is no express provision in the
Constitution adumbrating the right to privacy. It is therefore
submitted that these batch of matters are required to be heard and
decided by a larger bench of at least five Judges in view of the
mandate contained under Article 145(3)2 of the Constitution of
India.
8. On behalf of the petitioners Shri Gopal Subramanium and
Shri Shyam Divan, learned senior counsel very vehemently opposed
the suggestion that this batch of matters is required to be heard by
a larger bench. According to them:
(i) The conclusions recorded by this Court in R. Rajagopal and
PUCL are legally tenable for the reason that the observations made
in M.P. Sharma regarding the absence of right to privacy under our
2 Article 145(3). The minimum number of Judges who are to sit for the purpose of deciding any case involving a substantial question of law as to the interpretation of this Constitution or for the purpose of hearing any reference under Article 143 shall be five:
Provided that, where the Court hearing an appeal under any of the provisions of this chapter other than Article 132 consists of less than five Judges and in the course of the hearing of the appeal the Court is satisfied that the appeal involves a substantial question of law as to the interpretation of this Constitution the determination of which is necessary for the disposal of the appeal, such Court shall refer the question for opinion to a Court constituted as required by this clause for the purpose of deciding any case involving such a question and shall on receipt of the opinion dispose of the appeal in conformity with such opinion
5
Page 6
Constitution are not part of ratio decidendi of that case and,
therefore, do not bind the subsequent smaller Benches.
(ii) Coming to the case of Kharak Singh, majority in Kharak
Singh did hold that the right of a person not to be disturbed at his
residence by the State and its officers is recognized to be a part of a
fundamental right guaranteed under Article 21 which is nothing
but an aspect of privacy. The observation in para 20 of the majority
judgment at best can be construed only to mean that there is no
fundamental right of privacy against the State’s authority to keep
surveillance on the activities of a person. Even such a conclusion
cannot be good law any more in view of the express declaration
made by a seven-Judge bench decision of this Court in Maneka
Gandhi v. Union of India & Another, (1978) 1 SCC 2483.
3 Para 5. .. It was in Kharak Singh v. State of U.P., AIR 1963 SC 1295 that the question as to the proper scope and meaning of the expression 'personal liberty' came up pointedly for consideration for the first time before this Court. The majority of the Judges took the view "that 'personal liberty' is used in the article as a compendious term to include within itself all the varieties of rights which go to make up the 'personal liberties' of man other than those- dealt with in the several clauses of Article 19(1). In other words, while Article 19(1) deals with particular species or attributes, of that freedom, 'personal liberty' in Article 21 takes in and comprises the residue". The minority judges, however, disagreed with this view taken by the majority and explained their position in the following words: "No doubt the expression 'personal liberty' is a comprehensive one and the right to move freely is an attribute of personal liberty. It is said that the freedom to move freely is carved out of personal liberty and, therefore, the expression 'personal liberty' in Article 21 excludes that attribute. In our view, this is not a correct approach. Both are independent fundamental rights, though there is overlapping. There is no question of one being carved out of another. The fundamental right of life and personal liberty has many attributes and some of them are found in Article 19. If a person's fundamental right under Article 21 is infringed, the State can rely upon a law to sustain the action, but that cannot be a complete answer unless the said law satisfies the test laid down in Article 19(2) so far as the attributes covered by Article 19(1) are concerned". There can be no doubt that in view of the decision of this Court in R. C. Cooper v. Union of India, (1970) 2 SCC 298 the minority view must be regarded as correct and the majority view must be held to have been overruled.
6
Page 7
(iii) They further argued that both M.P. Sharma (supra) and
Kharak Singh (supra) came to be decided on an interpretation of
the Constitution based on the principles expounded in A.K.
Gopalan v. State of Madras, AIR 1950 SC 27. Such principles
propounded by A.K. Gopalan themselves came to be declared
wrong by a larger Bench of this Court in Rustom Cavasjee Cooper
v. Union of India, (1970) 1 SCC 248. Therefore, there is no need
for the instant batch of matters to be heard by a larger Bench.
9. It is true that Gobind (supra) did not make a clear declaration
that there is a right to privacy flowing from any of the fundamental
rights guaranteed under Part-III of the Constitution of India, but
observed that “Therefore, even assuming that the right to personal liberty, the
right to move freely throughout the territory of India and the freedom of speech create
an independent right of privacy as an emanation from them which one can
characterize as a fundamental right, we do not think that the right is absolute”. This
Court proceeded to decide the case on such basis.
10. However, the subsequent decisions in R. Rajagopal (supra)
and PUCL (supra), the Benches were more categoric in asserting the
existence of “right to privacy”. While R. Rajagopal’s case4 held
that the “right to privacy” is implicit under Article 21 of the
4 Para 9. “Right to privacy is not enumerated as a fundamental right in our Constitution but has been inferred from Article 21.”
7
Page 8
Constitution, PUCL’s case held that the “right to privacy” insofar as
it pertains to speech is part of fundamental rights under Articles
19(1)(a) and 21 of the Constitution5.
11. Elaborate submissions are made at the bar by the learned
counsel for the petitioners to demonstrate that world over in all the
countries where Anglo-Saxon jurisprudence is followed, ‘privacy’ is
recognised as an important aspect of the liberty of human beings. It
is further submitted that it is too late in the day for the Union of
India to argue that the Constitution of India does not recognise
privacy as an aspect of the liberty under Article 21 of the
Constitution of India. At least to the extent that the right of a
person to be secure in his house and not to be disturbed
unreasonably by the State or its officers is expressly recognized and
protected in Kharak Singh (supra) though the majority did not
5 Para 18. “The right to privacy — by itself — has not been identified under the Constitution. As a concept it may be too broad and moralistic to define it judicially. Whether right to privacy can be claimed or has been infringed in a given case would depend on the facts of the said case. But the right to hold a telephone conversation in the privacy of one’s home or office without interference can certainly be claimed as “right to privacy”. Conversations on the telephone are often of an intimate and confidential character. Telephone conversation is a part of modern man’s life. It is considered so important that more and more people are carrying mobile telephone instruments in their pockets. Telephone conversation is an important facet of a man’s private life. Right to privacy would certainly include telephone conversation in the privacy of one’s home or office. Telephone-tapping would, thus, infract Article 21 of the Constitution of India unless it is permitted under the procedure established by law.
19. Right to freedom of speech and expression is guaranteed under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution. This freedom means the right to express one’s convictions and opinions freely by word of mouth, writing, printing, picture, or in any other manner. When a person is talking on telephone, he is exercising his right to freedom of speech and expression. Telephone-tapping unless it comes within the grounds of restrictions under Article 19(2) would infract Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution.”
8
Page 9
describe that aspect of the liberty as a right of privacy, it is nothing
but the right of privacy.
12. We are of the opinion that the cases on hand raise far reaching
questions of importance involving interpretation of the Constitution.
What is at stake is the amplitude of the fundamental rights
including that precious and inalienable right under Article 21. If
the observations made in M.P. Sharma (supra) and Kharak Singh
(supra) are to be read literally and accepted as the law of this
country, the fundamental rights guaranteed under the Constitution
of India and more particularly right to liberty under Article 21
would be denuded of vigour and vitality. At the same time, we are
also of the opinion that the institutional integrity and judicial
discipline require that pronouncement made by larger Benches of
this Court cannot be ignored by the smaller Benches without
appropriately explaining the reasons for not following the
pronouncements made by such larger Benches. With due respect
to all the learned Judges who rendered the subsequent judgments -
where right to privacy is asserted or referred to their Lordships
concern for the liberty of human beings, we are of the humble
opinion that there appears to be certain amount of apparent
unresolved contradiction in the law declared by this Court. 9
Page 10
13. Therefore, in our opinion to give a quietus to the kind of
controversy raised in this batch of cases once for all, it is better that
the ratio decidendi of M.P. Sharma (supra) and Kharak Singh
(supra) is scrutinized and the jurisprudential correctness of the
subsequent decisions of this Court where the right to privacy is
either asserted or referred be examined and authoritatively decided
by a Bench of appropriate strength.
14. We, therefore, direct the Registry to place these matters before
the Hon’ble the Chief Justice of India for appropriate orders.
………….…………………..J. (J. Chelameswar)
………….…………………..J. (S.A. Bobde)
………….…………………..J. (C. Nagappan) New Delhi August 11, 2015
10
Page 11
REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO.494 OF 2012
Justice K.S. Puttaswamy (Retd.) & Another … Petitioners
Versus
Union of India & Others … Respondents
WITH TRANSFERRED CASE (CIVIL) NO.151 OF 2013
TRANSFERRED CASE (CIVIL) NO.152 OF 2013
WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO.829 OF 2013
WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO.833 OF 2013
WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO.932 OF 2013
TRANSFER PETITION (CIVIL) NO.312 OF 2014
TRANSFER PETITION (CIVIL) NO.313 OF 2014
WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO.37 OF 2015
WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO.220 OF 2015
TRANSFER PETITION (CIVIL) NO.921 OF 2015
CONTEMPT PETITION (CIVIL) NO.144 OF 2014 IN WP(C) 494/2012
CONTEMPT PETITION (CIVIL) NO.470 OF 2015 IN WP(C) 494/2012
Page 12
-2-
O R D E R
Having regard to importance of the matter, it is desirable that the matter be heard at the earliest.
………….…………………..J. (J. Chelameswar)
………….…………………..J. (S.A. Bobde)
………….…………………..J. (C. Nagappan) New Delhi August 11, 2015
12
Page 13
REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO.494 OF 2012
Justice K.S. Puttaswamy (Retd.) & Another … Petitioners
Versus
Union of India & Others … Respondents
WITH
TRANSFERRED CASE (CIVIL) NO.151 OF 2013
TRANSFERRED CASE (CIVIL) NO.152 OF 2013
WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO.829 OF 2013
WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO.833 OF 2013
WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO.932 OF 2013
TRANSFER PETITION (CIVIL) NO.312 OF 2014
TRANSFER PETITION (CIVIL) NO.313 OF 2014
WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO.37 OF 2015
WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO.220 OF 2015
TRANSFER PETITION (CIVIL) NO.921 OF 2015
CONTEMPT PETITION (CIVIL) NO.144 OF 2014 IN WP(C) 494/2012
CONTEMPT PETITION (CIVIL) NO.470 OF 2015 IN WP(C) 494/2012
I N T E R I M O R D E R
After the matter was referred for decision by a larger Bench,
the learned counsel for the petitioners prayed for further interim
13
Page 14
orders. The last interim order in force is the order of this Court
dated 23.9.2013 which reads as follows:-
“....
All the matters require to be heard finally. List all matters for final hearing after the Constitution Bench is over.
In the meanwhile, no person should suffer for not getting the Aadhaar card inspite of the fact that some authority had issued a circular making it mandatory and when any person applies to get the Aadhaar card voluntarily, it may be checked whether that person is entitled for it under the law and it should not be given to any illegal immigrant.”
It was submitted by Shri Shyam Divan, learned counsel for the
petitioners that the petitioners having pointed out a serious breach
of privacy in their submissions, preceding the reference, this Court
may grant an injunction restraining the authorities from proceeding
further in the matter of obtaining biometrics etc. for an Aadhaar
card. Shri Shyam Divan submitted that the biometric information
of an individual can be circulated to other authorities or corporate
bodies which, in turn can be used by them for commercial
exploitation and, therefore, must be stopped.
The learned Attorney General pointed out, on the other hand,
that this Court has at no point of time, even while making the
interim order dated 23.9.2013 granted an injunction restraining the
Unique Identification Authority of India from going ahead and
14
Page 15
obtaining biometric or other information from a citizen for the
purpose of a Unique Identification Number, better known as
“Aadhaar card”. It was further submitted that the respondents
have gone ahead with the project and have issued Aadhaar cards to
about 90% of the population. Also that a large amount of money
has been spent by the Union Government on this project for issuing
Aadhaar cards and that in the circumstances, none of the
well-known consideration for grant of injunction are in favour of the
petitioners.
The learned Attorney General stated that the respondents do
not share any personal information of an Aadhaar card holder
through biometrics or otherwise with any other person or authority.
This statement allays the apprehension for now, that there is a
widespread breach of privacy of those to whom an Aadhaar card
has been issued. It was further contended on behalf of the
petitioners that there still is breach of privacy. This is a matter
which need not be gone into further at this stage.
The learned Attorney General has further submitted that the
Aadhaar card is of great benefit since it ensures an effective
implementation of several social benefit schemes of the Government
like MGNREGA, the distribution of food, ration and kerosene
through PDS system and grant of subsidies in the distribution of
LPG. It was, therefore, submitted that restraining the respondents
from issuing further Aadhaar cards or fully utilising the existing
15
Page 16
Aadhaar cards for the social schemes of the Government should be
allowed.
The learned Attorney General further stated that the
respondent Union of India would ensure that Aadhaar cards would
only be issued on a consensual basis after informing the public at
large about the fact that the preparation of Aadhaar card involving
the parting of biometric information of the individual, which shall
however not be used for any purpose other than a social benefit
schemes.
Having considered the matter, we are of the view that the
balance of interest would be best served, till the matter is finally
decided by a larger Bench if the Union of India or the UIDA proceed
in the following manner:-
1. The Union of India shall give wide publicity in the electronic
and print media including radio and television networks that it is
not mandatory for a citizen to obtain an Aadhaar card;
2. The production of an Aadhaar card will not be condition for
obtaining any benefits otherwise due to a citizen;
3. The Unique Identification Number or the Aadhaar card will not
be used by the respondents for any purpose other than the PDS
Scheme and in particular for the purpose of distribution of
foodgrains, etc. and cooking fuel, such as kerosene. The Aadhaar 16
Page 17
card may also be used for the purpose of the LPG Distribution
Scheme;
4. The information about an individual obtained by the Unique
Identification Authority of India while issuing an Aadhaar card shall
not be used for any other purpose, save as above, except as may be
directed by a Court for the purpose of criminal investigation.
Ordered accordingly.
………….…………………..J. (J. Chelameswar)
………….…………………..J. (S.A. Bobde)
………….…………………..J. (C. Nagappan) New Delhi August 11, 2015
17
Page 18
18