Model Answer
0 min readIntroduction
Fundamental Rights, enshrined in Part III of the Indian Constitution (Articles 12-35), are basic human rights guaranteed to all citizens. These rights, including the right to equality, freedom of speech and expression, and life and personal liberty, are considered inviolable, though subject to reasonable restrictions. However, the scope of these rights has been continuously evolving through judicial interpretation. The landmark judgment in *K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India* (2017), which declared the right to privacy a fundamental right under Article 21, has significantly broadened the understanding of FRs, particularly concerning personal autonomy and dignity, and its interplay with other existing rights.
Pre-Puttaswamy Understanding of Fundamental Rights
Prior to 2017, the right to privacy was not explicitly recognized as a fundamental right. While aspects of privacy were implicitly protected under Article 21 (right to life and personal liberty) and Article 19(1)(a) (freedom of speech and expression), its scope was limited. The Supreme Court, in cases like *Gobind v. State of Madhya Pradesh* (1975), acknowledged a ‘right to be let alone’ but didn’t elevate it to the status of a fundamental right. FRs were generally interpreted within the confines of established legal precedents, with reasonable restrictions permissible under Article 19(2) to (6) and Article 21.
The *K.S. Puttaswamy* Judgement and its Impact
The *K.S. Puttaswamy* judgment fundamentally altered this landscape. The nine-judge bench unequivocally declared privacy a constitutionally protected right, stemming from the right to life and personal liberty under Article 21. The court emphasized that privacy is not merely a physical concept but encompasses decisional, informational, and spatial privacy. This broadened the scope of Article 21, extending its protection to individual autonomy and dignity.
Impact on Specific Fundamental Rights
Article 14 (Equality before the Law)
The right to privacy now influences the application of Article 14. Discriminatory practices based on personal information, or those violating informational privacy, can be challenged as violating the right to equality. For example, data collection practices that disproportionately affect certain communities could be deemed discriminatory.
Article 19 (Freedom of Speech and Expression)
Privacy is now intrinsically linked to freedom of speech and expression. The judgment recognized that the freedom to express oneself includes the right to control one’s own narrative and information. Surveillance that chills speech or restricts the free flow of information can be challenged on privacy grounds. The recent concerns around the Pegasus spyware case exemplify this intersection.
Article 21 (Right to Life and Personal Liberty)
This is where the most significant impact is felt. The right to privacy, as an integral part of Article 21, now protects an individual’s bodily integrity, informational autonomy, and decisional independence. This has implications for areas like reproductive rights, healthcare choices, and personal data protection. The judgment also emphasized the principle of proportionality, requiring any state interference with privacy to be justified, necessary, and proportionate to the legitimate aim pursued.
Limitations and Balancing of Rights
The *Puttaswamy* judgment didn’t create an absolute right to privacy. The court acknowledged that privacy can be subject to reasonable restrictions, but these restrictions must meet the test of legality, necessity, proportionality, and legitimacy. The state can impose reasonable restrictions in the interests of national security, public order, preventing crime, or protecting the rights of others. However, these restrictions must be demonstrably justified and not excessive. The ongoing debate surrounding the Aadhaar scheme highlights this balancing act between privacy and state interests.
Post-Puttaswamy Developments
Following *Puttaswamy*, the Supreme Court has consistently invoked the right to privacy in subsequent cases. The decriminalization of Section 377 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) in *Navtej Singh Johar v. Union of India* (2018) relied heavily on the right to privacy and personal autonomy. The ongoing deliberations on the Personal Data Protection Bill (now the Digital Personal Data Protection Act, 2023) are a direct consequence of the *Puttaswamy* judgment, aiming to provide a legal framework for protecting personal data and ensuring informational privacy.
Conclusion
The *K.S. Puttaswamy* judgment represents a watershed moment in the evolution of Fundamental Rights in India. By recognizing privacy as a fundamental right, the Supreme Court has significantly broadened the scope of Articles 14, 19, and 21, enhancing the protection of individual autonomy and dignity. While the right to privacy is not absolute and is subject to reasonable restrictions, the principle of proportionality ensures that any state interference is justified and proportionate. The ongoing legislative efforts to enact a robust data protection law demonstrate the continuing relevance and impact of this landmark judgment.
Answer Length
This is a comprehensive model answer for learning purposes and may exceed the word limit. In the exam, always adhere to the prescribed word count.