This document summarizes a journey regarding the right to privacy in India from 1954 to 2017. It discusses two early Supreme Court cases from 1954 and 1962 that did not find privacy to be a fundamental right. It then outlines a key 2012 case filed by a former judge challenging Aadhar on privacy grounds, necessitating a 9-judge bench. The bench hearings analyzed privacy definitions and precedents. In a unanimous 2017 ruling, the court overturned past judgments and declared privacy an intrinsic part of life and liberty under the constitution, recognizing it as a fundamental right. The decision was historic and could impact related issues like Aadhar, abortion, bans, and rights.

1. A JOURNEY FROM 1954 TO 2017
JOYDEV MAJUMDAR
PMRE C-103
17DJMC05
CUO
Presented to – Sujit Kumar Mohanty

2.  HISTORY OF THE CASE
 BACKGROUND
 REASON BEHIND 9 BENCH JUDGE
 PETETIONER’S ARGUMENT
 CENTRE’S ARGUMENT
 ABOUT PRIVACY ( ZONES OF PRIVACY)
 SC’s JUDGEMENT
 ITS IMPACT AND JUDGE’S VIEW
 CONCLUSION

3. CASE 01
M.P. Sharma Vs Satish Chandra 1954
 8 Bench Judge
 The power to search and seize documents from the
Dalmia Group
 Right to Privacy not a fundamental right.
CASE 02
Kharak Singh Vs State of U.P. 1962
 6 Bench Judge
 Subjected to surveillance and secret picketing of the
house, visits at nights, periodical inquiries and
verification of movements
 Right of Privacy not a fundamental right.

4.  Former Karnataka HC Judge, K.S. Puttaswamy
(91) filed PIL in 2012 against Union of India.
 Aadhar scheme was challenged saying it
violates fundamental rights to privacy and
equality
 According to him the collection of biometric
data by Govt. agencies without any suitable
legislation are contravention to privacy.
 Other petitioners were Bezwada Wilson, Aruna
Roy, Nikhil Dey and others.

5. The earlier judgments
related to privacy were
given by a highest 8 bench
judge in the case of M.P.
Sharma Vs Satish Chandra
in 1954. in those judgments
Privacy was not declared as
a Fundamental right. Hence
when this case was filed
Govt said only a 9 bench
Judge can reconsider and
alter the judgment.

6.  Right to life under Article 21 of the constitution
would include the right to privacy though it is
not expressly stated in the constitution.
 “Liberty is fundamental to democracy and
citizens cannot exist without privacy” said
Gopal Subramaniam, a senior advocate.
 “The freedom of the press has been derived
from Article 19 and similarly, the right
to privacy can be derived broadly from Article
21” said by Soli Sorabjee regarding the case.

7.  Both in M.P. Sharma Vs Satish Chandra and
Kharak Singh Vs State of U.P., Privacy was not
given fundamental status and was just given
statutory status. ( statutory means right given by
Act of Parliament and not by Constitution)
 Privacy is too vague to qualify as fundamental
right
 He said that in developing countries, something as
amorphous as privacy could not be a fundamental
right, that other fundamental rights such as food,
clothing, shelter etc. override the right to privacy.

8.  The Greek philosopher Aristotle spoke of a
division between the public sphere of life
(which he termed the polis) and the personal
sphere of human life (termed oikos).
 Privacy postulates the reservation of a
private space for the individual, described as
the right to be let alone.
 ‘Privacy’ is “[t]he condition or state of being free
from public attention to intrusion into or
interference with one’s acts or decisions”

9.  1st zone: It's concerning marriage,
sexuality, relationships.
 2nd zone: It involves imparting personal
data through credit card, social
networking sites, I-T declarations, etc.
 3rd zone: Here, the privacy protection
requires minimal regulation. The
individual will retain his privacy to body
& mind.

10.  J.S. Khehar :- If what you have, been asked to
disclose, bothers you, then it infringes to Right
to Privacy.
 R.F. Nariman :- Everything Right to Privacy is
not connected to Aadhar. As india is a part of
UN Declaration of Human Right, 1948 which
declares privacy as an inalienable right.
 D.Y. Chandrachud :- Essence of Human life is,
when I want to choose solitude, I can choose it.
And if I want to socially co-habit, I can do it.
Centre is wrong to say that Privacy is an elitist
concept. It also affects masses.

11.  S.A. Bobde :- If a man has to die with dignity,
he has to have some privacy.
 J. Chelameswar :- In a republic founded on a
written constitution, it is difficult to accept
there is no freedom to privacy. There is a
battery of judgment saying Privacy is
Fundamental Right, we couldn’t ignore them.
A right may not necessary confine itself to one
article in the constitution or an one
amendment.

12.  Centre’s argument was kicked off and the 9
bench judge headed by CJ J.S. Khehar gave an
unanimous judgement on 24th August 2017.
 The 547 page judgement is divided into 20
broad sections and many sub-sections.
 The judgement also included a two-page final
order, which states that MP Sharma and Kharak
Singh are overruled, and the right to privacy is
fundamental, that it is intrinsic to life and
liberty and thus comes under Article 21 and as
a part of freedom guaranteed by Part III of the
Indian constitution.

13.  Aadhaar and telemarketing
Possible impact: Sharing of biometric data, iris data and
mobile numbers may no longer be mandatory
Medical Termination of Pregnancy Act
Possible impact: Pregnant women may have another
avenue to seek permission for abortion
Beef ban
Possible impact: Could impact centre's decision to ban cow
meat
LGBTQ rights
Possible impact: Homosexual acts may no longer be
criminalised
Euthanasia
Possible impact: The fight for legalising assisted suicide
could get a boost

14.  In Oct 2015, a smaller bench headed by the then
CJ H.L. Dattu declared “Aadhar is purely
voluntary” and could not be made mandatory.
 In July 2017 a 5 bench judge was made to hear
it, but as the Right to Privacy case was to
judged by a 9 bench judge, it was stopped.
 Right to Privacy is a Fundamental Right.
 Now as the judgement has been delivered, the
hearing related to Aadhar will resume soon by
a 3 or 5 bench judge.

15. THANK YOU
COMMENTS..
SUGGESTIONS..
QUESTIONS???