Introduction:
In Justice K.S. Puttuswamy v Union of India, a nine-judge panel of the Supreme Court, issued a landmark decision establishing the fundamental right to privacy. It defined privacy as an intrinsic part of Part III of the Indian Constitution, which lays out our fundamental rights, including everything from the right to life to the right to privacy. Articles 14 to 18 deal with equality; Article 19(1)(a) deals with freedom of speech and expression; Article 20 deals with freedom of movement. (Article 19(1)(d); life and personal liberty protection (Article 21); and others. These fundamental rights are inalienable. According to the Supreme Court, like most other fundamental rights, the right to privacy is not an “absolute right”. A person’s privacy interests can be trumped by conflicting governmental and individual interests if specific standards and benchmarks are met. This paper examines the standards established by the Supreme Court in the Puttuswamy case, which will be used to evaluate potential privacy violations.
CALL FOR PAPERS(No Fee)
Facts:
‘Unique Identification for BPL Families’ was an initiative that India started. A committee was set up for the aforementioned project. The committee recommended creating a Unique Identification database for the said project. The project was decided to be set up in three phases.
In 2009, the Planning Commission of India issued a notification regarding the Unique Identification Authority of India or UIDAI. Following this, in 2010, the National Identification Authority of India Bill was passed by the planning commission. Consequently, Retired Justice KS Puttuswamy and Mr Parvesh Sharma filed a Public Interest Litigation Writ Petition in 2012, challenging the constitutional validity of AADHAR. This was filed in the Hon’ble Supreme Court.
This scheme was challenged because it violated the Right to Privacy under Article 21 of the Indian Constitution. After this writ was filed, a series of orders were passed. One of the happenings was the passing of the Aadhar Act of 2016. The petitioners then filed another writ that challenged the Act and demanded it to be declared ultra vires to the Constitution of India.
.jpeg)
