Justice K.S. Puttaswamy (Retd.) v. Union of India — Privacy
(2017) 10 SCC 1 · Supreme Court of India · Decision date: 2017-08-24
Key issue
Is privacy a constitutionally protected fundamental right?
Facts
Aadhaar litigation raised an objection that larger-bench precedents foreclosed a fundamental right to privacy. Case number: W.P. (C) 494/2012 and connected matters
Holding
The Court unanimously recognised privacy as intrinsic to Article 21 and freedoms guaranteed by Part III. Privacy protects bodily integrity, personal choice and information. It is not absolute; Chandrachud's opinion explains legality, legitimate State aim and proportionality as requirements for intrusion. M.P. Sharma and Kharak Singh were overruled to the extent they denied constitutional privacy. The reference was answered. Six concurring opinions; Chandrachud wrote for four judges. Individual formulations should be attributed to their authors. Provisions considered at judgment date: Constitution: Articles 14, 19 and 21; Part III.
Pinpoints
PDF p. 254 — Privacy restrictions and proportionality; PDF p. 255 — Legality, need and proportionality; PDF p. 546 — Order of the Court; PDF p. 547 — Unanimous order continued. PDF page numbers are 1-based and may differ from printed reporter pages.
Verification status
Source checked
Source note
Original TLG research note based on the linked official judgment, not an official court summary. Source identity and selected holding passages checked on 4 November 2026. The SCC citation is also reproduced in the official Navtej Singh Johar judgment.
Current treatment
Relied on in Navtej Singh Johar, included here. A comprehensive review of subsequent privacy and data-protection law remains outstanding. Historical case note; exhaustive subsequent treatment and current statutory application have not been checked.