UNITEDWORLD SCHOOL OF LAW

Legal Methods
Topic: K.S.Puttaswamy v Union of India

Submitted To: Mr. Manthan Sharma (lecturer)

Submitted by: Hitanshi Mathur (202304020010)

Jayani Vijay Pokar (202304020025)

Palak Nohwal (202304020013)

Rao Himendrasingh (202304020016)

Seema (202304020018)

1
Ⅰ. Name of the Parties................................................................................. Error! Bookmark not defined.
Ⅱ. Name of the Judges ............................................................................... Error! Bookmark not defined.
Ⅲ. Names of the Advocates involved........................................................ Error! Bookmark not defined.
Ⅳ. Introduction.......................................................................................... Error! Bookmark not defined.
Ⅴ. Jurisdiction ........................................................................................................................................... 4
Ⅵ. Facts ..................................................................................................... Error! Bookmark not defined.
Ⅶ.Issues ................................................................................................... Error! Bookmark not defined.
VIII Arguments. ......................................................................................... Error! Bookmark not defined.
1X. Analysis............................................................................................... Error! Bookmark not defined.
X. Conclusion ............................................................................................ Error! Bookmark not defined.

2
 JUSTICE K.S. PUTTASWAMY (RETD.) v UNION OF INDIA
(2017)10 SCC 1

NAME OF THE PARTIES:

Petitioner Respondents
Justice K.S. Puttaswamy Union Of India
Centre for Civil Society Planning Commission
S.G. Vombatkere UIDAI
Mathew Thomas Maharashtra
Raghav Tankha Gujarat
Ram Prasad Misal Chhattisgarh
Kalyani Menon Sen Haryana
Shantha Sinha Other states

NAME OF THE JUDGES:

Justice D.Y. Chanrachud Justice Ashok Bhushan

Justice A.M Khanwilkar Justice A.K Sikri
CJI Dipak Misra -

NAME OF ADVOCATES

Petitioner Respondent
Shyam Divan Tushar Mehta
Kapil Sibal Rakesh Diwedi
Gopal Subramanium K.K Venugopal
K.V. Vishwanathan -
Arvind Datar -
P. Chidambaran, -

3
INTRODUCTION

Justice K.S. Puttaswamy (Retd.) v Union of India, 2017 is a landmark case, which is also known
as Aadhaar case and the judgment was given by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India. A writ
petition was filed by Puttaswamy challenging the constitutional validity of Aadhaar scheme,
introduced by Government of India. The Aadhaar program was initiated by the Indian government
in 2009, to provide a unique 12-digit identification number to every Indian citizen. It involved
collecting of biometric and demographic data, issuing an Aadhaar card, and linking it to various
government welfare schemes, and financial transactions. The Hon’ble Court upheld the Aadhaar
Act and struck down the Act's unlawful provisions. The Court ruled that Part III of the Indian
Constitution which talks about fundamental rights of an individual. It includes Article 21,
Protection of life and personal liberty; require that the right to privacy of all people should be
maintained. This act introduced by government was questioned on its mandate on aadhaar which
was breach of article 14, 19, 21.

The court gave its decision by recognizing right to privacy as a constitutionally protected
fundamental right under article 21. Also the previous landmark judgments given by the supreme
court in case of Kharak Singh v. State of UP and M.P Sharma v. Satish Chandra were overruled.

JURISDICTION

In the case of, "Justice K.S. Puttaswamy (Retd.) v Union of India," the jurisdiction of the Supreme
Court of India was invoked through a writ petition filed under Article 32 of the Indian Constitution.
This case primarily centered on the recognition of the right to privacy as a fundamental right under
Articles 21 and 19 of the Constitution. While the writ of mandamus was not directly employed in
this case, the Court's jurisdiction was crucial in addressing the constitutional and legal dimensions
of privacy rights, particularly in the context of the Aadhaar program. By asserting its jurisdiction,
the Court was able to evaluate the validity of government policies related to data protection and

4
privacy, laying the foundation for future cases where writs such as mandamus may be employed
to ensure the enforcement of privacy rights and adherence to constitutional principles.1

FACTS OF THE CASE

The government of India launched the Aadhaar scheme in January 2009, with the project titled
“Unique Identification for BPL Families.”

In November 2012, K.S. Puttaswamy, a 91 year old retired judge from the High Court of Karnataka
and Mr. Pravesh Sharma filed a PIL in the Supreme Court challenging the constitutional validity
of Aadhaar on the basis of violation of article 21, right to privacy.

“A Bench of three judges of present Court, while considering the constitutional challenge to the
Aadhaar card scheme of the Union Government noted in its earlier order that the norms for and
compilation of demographic biometric data by government was questioned on the ground that it
violates the right to privacy. The Bench of three judges of present Court took note of several
decisions of present Court in which the right to privacy has been held to be a constitutionally
protected fundamental right. These subsequent decisions which affirmed the existence of a
constitutionally protected right of privacy, were rendered by Benches of a strength smaller than
those in M.P. Sharma and Kharak Singh cases. Faced with this predicament and having due regard
to the far-reaching questions of importance involving interpretation of the Constitution, it was felt
that institutional integrity and judicial discipline would require a reference to a larger Bench.
Hence the Bench of three judges observed in its order that to determine whether there was any
fundamental right of privacy under the Indian Constitution. The determination of this question
would essentially entail whether the decision recorded by present Court in M.P. Sharma and Ors.
v. Satish Chandra, District Magistrate, Delhi and Ors. by an eight-Judge Constitution Bench, and
in Kharak Singh v. The State of UP by a six-Judge Constitution Bench, that there was no such
fundamental right, was the correct expression of the constitutional position.” 1

The case was referred to a bench of five judges on 18th July 2017 to decide whether there the
scheme is breach of privacy or not. Later the case was passed on to a bench of nine judges to
determine the status of privacy.

1
K.S. Puttaswamy v Union of India (2017)10 SCC 1

5
ISSUES BEFORE THE COURT:

• Whether aadhaar card has tendency to create a survelliance state or not?

• Whether right to privacy was violated or not?
• Whether aadhaar act can be treated as a money bill or not?

ARGUMENTS

Petitioners:

J.Shyam Divan : He was the first who started with the petitioner’s arguments and challenged the
Aadhaar Act, 2016. He said that as per the Indian Constitution the State shall provide benefits to
its citizens by way of allowances and services and Aadhaar Act makes these benefits conditional
for the citizens which the State is bound to provide to its citizens. He challenged Section 7 of the
Aadhaar act.

Kapil Sibal: He argued that when Right to Privacy was a Fundamental Right under Article 21 of
the Constitution, then the personal information of the citizens should not be allowed to get seek by
the Act. As according to the Act it is mandatory for the citizens to disclose the information to the
state as it will help them furthermore in availing the benefits and allowances provided by the
government. Without the Aadhaar authentication the citizens will not provided the benefits. This
fact was violating their essential rights as it takes away the private information from the citizens
which have been recognized as Right to Privacy.

Arvind Datar: It was argued that linking of the bank accounts violates the essential rights of a
citizen as they have no choice and need to operate their bank account with the Aadhar card which
is a violation of article 14 and 21 of the constitution. According to the Aadhar act, having it will
give valid identity to a person and if anyone failed to have it then will not be considered to have a
valid identity. The Aadhar Act also violates the principle of proportionality under Article 14 of the
Constitution.

P Chidambaran: It was contended by him that the Aadhaar Act should not be treated as a money
bill. He stated that a bill needs to go through strict criteria to qualify as a money bill that have been

6
set and if the bill passes such criteria only then it can be treated as a money bill. He also argued
that a money bill must be passed in a Rajya Sabha and then goes in the hands of president for his
assent. If the president is not in favour of the bill he has the power to send it back to the Rajya
Sabha.

Respondents:

• The respondents also rebutted the privacy contention stating that the data which is obtained
by the Act is secure as it is encrypted at its source and all the biometrics of the citizens are
stored by the Government in the Government of India’s servers.
• The Government of India’s servers has a security standard which is one of the best in the
world.
• The duplication of cards or fake cards for availing the benefits which are provided by the
Government can be avoided with the help of Aadhaar number which asked from the
citizens.
• Aadhaar will also be able to help in reducing the involvement of middlemen who try to
drain off a part of the Government’s subsidy which is made available for a particular
section of the society.
• The Government usually provides these goods and services at a lower price than the
market price. To make this initiative work efficiently Aadhaar can be used.
• Aadhaar can be used to ensure timely and direct payment to the sections of society for
which subsidies are made available by the Government and prevent leakage of money. This
step can save thousands of crores of rupees which are lost in leakage.

DISSENTING OPINION OF THE CASE:

This dissenting opinion of the case was delivered by Justice D.Y. Chandrachud.

He put forward many arguments supported with several critical points which challenged the
majority’s decision. His argument was for the recognition and the protection of privacy as
fundamental right embedded Article 21 of the constitution of India, also privacy should be
understood as a pillar that safeguards human dignity and freedom of an individual and a person’s
autonomy. Justice explained his concerns about collection of personal information on a massive

7
scale linking of demographic and biometric data. He also talked about the impact of this Aadhaar
program on vulnerable section of the society, by making Aadhaar mandate for essential services
and subsidies that government provide, for those who are unable to obtain the card would not be
able to receive these benefits.

He also opposed passing of Aadhaar bill as a money bill. This was unconstitutional step as for an
act to be passed as a money bill, act must consists of provisions that belongs to matters set out
under Article 110(1) clauses (a) – (g) of the Indian constitution. But the Aadhaar act has several
aspects none of which lies within the scope of Article 110(1). So the passing of Aadhaar act as a
money bill is a question. The linking of aadhaar to various bank accounts and mobile numbers was
a huge risk. As per his opinion people should not be forced to partake in the program and their
fundamental right should be protected.

COMPARISION OF DISSENTING OPINION WITH THE MAJORITY

OPINION:

A ratio of 4:1 majority was upheld the Aadhaar act, 2016. Majority opinion was delivered by J.AK
Sikri on behalf of CJI Dipak Misra and J.AM Khanwilkar.

The majority of the judges agreed on the fact that right to privacy under Article 21 is a
constitutionally recognized fundamental right. They also emphasized on the matter that privacy is
essence of a person’s dignity and individual autonomy and it should be respected unless there is a
compelling state interest justifying any intrusion. But the majority opinion did not strike down
section 7 of aadhaar act, which makes aadhaar a mandate for benefits and subsidies that
government provides. Several points were discussed by majority:

• Surveillance state: Majority said that Aadhaar does not create any surveillance state. He
stated that government possess minimal amount of data i.e. demographic and biometric.
• Unique identification: Aadhaar card provides citizens with a unique identification number
of 12 digits which “cannot” be duplicated. He also termed it as “empowering” tool for
distribution of subsidies and benefits that government provide to the citizens.
• Right to Privacy: the main argument made by petiotioner was that aadhaar infringe right
to privacy of citizens. justice sikri held that aadhaar act does not violate right to privacy as

8
 it successfully passes the three-fold test established in landmark privacy judgement . the
three fold or “strict scrutiny” test states that in order for any legislation to violate privacy
, it has to fail the following conditions [a] Legality, which demands the existence of law;
[b] Need, which is defined as legitimate state aim; [c] Proportionality, which ensures link
between objects and means that are adopted to achieve them.
• Right to Dignity: it was also stated that aadhaar helps citizens to lead a dignified life , also
there is a need to balance between two conceptions of dignity – right to personal autonomy
and right to live a dignified life.
• Striking/Reading down specific provisions: Section 2(d) which states, “authentication
record” means the record of the time of authentication and identity of the requesting entity
and the response provided by the Authority thereto;2 was struck down to refrain
government to store metadata of transactions; Section 7, “Proof of Aadhaar number
necessary for receipt of certain subsidies, benefits and services, etc.” 3was upheld as it made
aadhaar mandate for availing benefits that state provides; Section 33(1)&(2), Section 47, Section
57 were all read down.
• Linking of Aadhaar with PAN and Bank/SIM card: Linking of Aadhaar with PAN was
declared valid as it satisfies three – fold Puttaswamy test. But linking of Aadhaar with
Bank/SIM was struck down as it does not meet proportionality test.
• Enrollment of children: Majority judgement said that parent’s consent is necessary for
aadhaar enrollment.

On the other hand dissenting opinion was delivered by Justice D.Y. Chandrachud on
constitutionality of Aadhaar act: He stated that due to the methodology utilized in passing the
law, the Aadhaar Act was unconstitutional from the moment it was enacted. He pointed out
that the Aadhaar Act could not have been approved as a money bill. Additionally, he addressed
the concerns raised in relation to various Act provisions, particularly those involving privacy,
dignity, and individual autonomy. He made some critical points against the majority those
were:

2
The Aadhaar (Targeted Delivery of Financial and Other Subsidies, Benefits and Services) Act, 2016

9
 • On Aadhaar as a Money Bill: For any act to be passed as a money bill it must adhere
to the provisions mentioned in Article 110(1) clauses (a) – (g) of the Constitution.
• On the question of Privacy, Dignity & violation of fundamental rights: Informed
consent was not addressed in the Aadhaar Act or the regulations made there, and no
method is specified for how an individual may access their information. In this regard,
the provision to Section 28(5), which prevents the person from accessing their own
data, is ineffective since it contravenes the basic tenet of personal data ownership.
• On linking Aadhaar card with bank/SIM card: Due to its failure to pass the
proportionality criteria established by the judge bench in Puttaswamy case, the
decision to link Aadhaar numbers with mobile SIM cards is neither valid nor
constitutional.
• Child enrollment: According to the majority verdict on Aadhaar and kid enrolment, a
parent's permission is required before a child can be enrolled in the Aadhaar program.
It was said that a youngster might decide not to participate in the program once they
reached maturity.

ANALYSIS

The Aadhaar bill being introduced as a money bill does not sits right with us as it clearly
undermines the authoritative and functional capacity of the Rajya Sabha. India being a
democratically Bi-cameral legislature, the said functionality of both houses is clearly mentioned
in the constitution which in this case seems to be misrepresented and somehow ambiguous. As
aadhaar bill does not meet the criteria mentioned in Article 110(1) clauses [a-g] for becoming a
money bill. The right to privacy and dignity which is constitutionally challenged in this case still
stands on the grounds mentioned in the triple fold test of privacy that was conducted by supreme
court to check whether the act’s “legality”, “need” and proportionality. Private information of an
individual should not be made accessible to non government organizations.

10
CONCLUSION:

Privacy is an important part of the case. On September 26, 2018, a five-judge panel of the Supreme
Court ruled in favor of the defendants. The validity of Aadhaar was upheld by the Court after
striking down various provisions and sections of the Act as unconstitutional and violative of the
rights of citizens. Justice A K Sik ri, writing for a majority of judges, declared the Aadhaar Act
effective after repealing Section 33(2) and Section 57 of the Act. Various questions were raised by
the petitioners on issues such as the privacy of citizens and the possibility of state surveillance as
well as the possibility of breach of information collected by the government for Aadhaar cards of
citizen. The petitioners' question puts to rest UIDAI's claim that its system is one of the best in the
world and secure enough to keep citizens' information safe. The Court held that the Aadhaar Act
was constitutionally valid as it was subject to the reasonable limitations of the Constitution.
A majority of the judges also held that a citizen's right to choose to use an Aadhaar card would not
be protected by compliance with the Aadhaar Act. Citizens will have no choice as Aadhaar will be
mandatory for receiving government subsidies and benefits and if a citizen is excluded from
receiving government subsidies and benefits due to lack of Aadhaar or any other any authentication
issue, this could lead to violation of citizens' dignity. The judge also held that the connection
between Aadhaar and PAN card is not important as there is no constitutional basis behind it.
Aadhaar compliance may lead to violation of privacy even after Section 33(2) and Section 57 of
the Act are nullified. To protect the privacy of citizens, the Court explicitly ruled out the possibility
of private entities using authentication mechanisms or requiring citizens to provide Aadhaar
details. The step taken by the Court was aimed at protecting the privacy of citizens and making it
clear that privacy is indeed a fundamental right.

11