RIGHT TO PRIVACY POST PUTTASWAMY: EVOLVING JURISPRUDENCE IN INDIA
THE LAWWAY WITH LAWYERS JOURNAL VOLUME:-25 ISSUE NO:- 25 ,JULY 10, 2025 ISSN (ONLINE):- 2584-1106 Website: www.the lawway with lawyers.com Email: thelawwaywithelawyers@gmail.com Authored By :- Apoorva Sharma RIGHT TO PRIVACY POST PUTTASWAMY: EVOLVING JURISPRUDENCE IN INDIA “The right to privacy of any individual is essentially a natural right, which inheres in every human being by birth. Such right remains with human till he/she breathes last. It is indeed inseparable and inalienable from human being.” Justice Abhay Manohar Sapre, Puttaswamy judgment. ABSTRACT Privacy in layman’s terms refers to having an autonomous control over your body (such as reproductive choices), territory, to sharing and keeping information, make personal choices (such as sexual orientation and religion), and live a dignified life. The right to privacy is not explicitly a part of fundamental rights; however, the Supreme Court of India has recognized the right to privacy as a fundamental component of dignified life and personal liberty. In 2017, the landmark decision of Justice K.S Puttaswamy vs. Union of India, changed the lens through which privacy was understood and protected under the Indian Constitution. Earlier, privacy was seen from the view of luxury, but with changing dynamics of society, it became a necessity. The current status of privacy is that it is now it is recognized as a fundamental right under Article 21 of the Indian Constitution. The right to privacy protects individuals from unnecessary intervention either by the government or private companies. In today’s world, where it is often said that ‘data is the new currency’, where constant exchange of data takes place or collected through online surveys. Protecting privacy is of paramount importance in today’s surveillance- driven world. This article will explore the concept of how the concept of privacy has evolved from a marginal right to a fundamental right and how the Indian Judiciary has expanded and interpreted the scope of privacy after the Puttaswamy judgment. Keywords: Privacy, Article 21, fundamental right, Supreme Court. INTRODUCTION According to Black’s Law Dictionary, ‘Right to Privacy’ means “the right to be let alone; the right of a person to be free from any unwarranted publicity; the right to live without any unwarranted interference by the public in matters with which the public is not necessarily concerned.” Article 21 of the Constitution of India states, “No person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty except by the procedure established by law.” The right to life includes 2 rights: Right to life Life to personal liberty “Life” in Article 21 does not merely connote mere animal life existence or not being dead; it includes living with dignity, safety, and necessities, and “personal liberty” means freedom to move, speak, express, work, and make personal choices as long as it does not violate the law. This right is available to both citizens and non-citizens under the Constitution of India. In a democratic country like India, the operation of the legal system depends heavily on individual liberties. The right to Privacy plays an indispensable role. Despite the fact that the word “privacy” is not specifically mentioned in the Indian Constitution, the Supreme Court has over the years construed a number of its provisions, particularly Article 21, to include the right to privacy as a necessary part of the right to life and personal liberty. Every human being is born with some basic rights, like the right to life, liberty, equality etc. and they are known as “natural rights.” And one of these natural rights includes the right to privacy. It exists naturally because every individual need personal space, control over their personal information, and freedom to choose, and an absence of privacy would curtail a person’s life to live with freedom, independence, and dignity. Even though the right to privacy is a natural right and a fundamental right (under Article 21 of the Indian Constitution after 2017), this right is not absolute, and the state, under certain conditions, can curtail it, for instance, for national security, public order, etc. However, these restrictions follow strict rules and are ‘reasonable’ in nature to avoid misuse RECOGNITION OF PRIVACY AT INTERNATIONAL LEVEL In international law, Privacy is widely recognized as a fundamental human right; it safeguards individuals from arbitrary interference by the government or other individuals meddling in others private lives, decisions, or conversations. Various international conventions, treaties, declarations, and human rights organizations not only recognize but also protect privacy throughout the world. A few are discussed below: – Article 12 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR),1948, states: “No one shall be subjected to arbitrary interference with his privacy, family, home, or correspondence, nor to attacks upon his honor and reputation. Everyone has the right to the protection of the law against such interference or attacks.” However, it is not legally binding; the UDHR forms the bedrock of many binding national laws and treaties. Another is Article 17 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR),1996, states: No one shall be subjected to arbitrary or unlawful interference with his privacy, family, home, or correspondence, nor to unlawful attacks on his honor and reputation. Everyone has the right to the protection of the law against such interference or attacks. ICCPR is legally binding on the ratifying countries, and India is a member of this covenant. Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), 1950 states: “Everyone has the right to respect for his private and family life, his home, and his correspondence.” However, restrictions are allowed, but they must be lawful, proportionate to the need, and aim to achieve a legitimate purpose such as public safety or national security. PRE-PUTTASWAMY PRIVACY LANDSCAPE In India, prior to the historic Puttaswamy ruling in 2017, the right to privacy was not explicitly recognized as a fundamental right. Court’s view on privacy were ambiguous and incoherent. While some previous rulings recognized it as a component of personal liberty, others rejected its constitutionality. The courts opted for a case-by-case strategy. Under Article 21, privacy was regarded as