![Sample our Social Sciences journals, sign in here to start your FREE access for 14 days]({"type":"image" , "src" : "/sda/110822/TOC-Subject-Sample-2021-Social-Sciences.jpg"})
ABSTRACT
In KS Puttaswamy v Union of India, a nine-judge bench of the Indian Supreme Court considered whether there is a fundamental right to privacy in India. The Court unanimously answered this question in the affirmative through six concurring opinions. The decision is likely to have a sweeping impact for public law in India in general, and for the right to privacy, in particular. This case note examines the implications of this decision for three specific privacy themes: the rationale for the right to privacy, standard(s) of judicial review and horizontal application. The note concludes that there is judicial convergence on the first theme, but unfortunately more questions are raised than answered in respect of the other two.
Notes
1 Nikhil Pahwa “‘Violation of privacy doesn’t mean anything because privacy is not a guaranteed right’ – GoI” Medianama (New Delhi, 6 August 2015) <www.medianama.com/2015/08/223-privacy-india-aadhaar/> accessed 21 September 2017.
2 KS Puttaswamy v Union of India 2017 (10) SCALE 1.
3 MP Sharma v Satish Chandra AIR 1954 SC 300.
4 338 US 25 (1949).
5 Referral order in KS Puttaswamy (Retd) v Union of India 2015 (8) SCALE 747 [13].
6 ADM Jabalpur v Shivkant Shukla (1976) 2 SCC 521. In this case, the Supreme Court accepted that the government could suspend the right to habeas corpus during an emergency.
7 Suresh Kumar Koushal v NAZ Foundation AIR 2014 SC 563. Here, the Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of a provision that criminalizes sex between men.
8 There is an allied, equally important question about the definition of privacy. For the purposes of this note however, I will confine myself to the question of rationale.
9 Puttaswamy (Footnote 2) [7].
10 See generally: Frederick Davis, “What do We Mean by ‘Right to Privacy’?” (1959) 4 South Dakota Law Review 1; Judith Jarvis Thomson, “The Right to Privacy” in Ferdinand David Schoeman (ed) Philosophical Dimensions of Privacy: An Anthology (CUP 1984).
11 Puttaswamy (Footnote 2) [140] (c).
12 For example, see, generally, Catharine A MacKinnon, Towards a Feminist Theory of the State (Harvard University Press 1989); Nadine Taub and Elizabeth M Schneider, “Women’s Subordination and the Role of Law” in David Kairys (ed) The Politics of Law: A Progressive Critique (3rd edn, Basic Books 1998).
13 Puttaswamy (Footnote 2) [140] (d).
14 See, generally, Ferdinand David Schoeman, Privacy and Social Freedom (CUP 1992) 16; Jeffery L Johnson, “Constitutional Privacy” (1994) 13 Law and Philosophy 161.
15 Schoeman (Footnote 14) 136.
16 See, generally, Jeffrey Reiman, “Privacy, Intimacy, and Personhood” (1976) 6 Philosophy and Public Affairs 26; Jean L Cohen, “Redescribing Privacy: Identity, Difference, and the Abortion Controversy” (1992–93) 3 Columbia Journal of Gender and Law 43.
17 Reiman (Footnote 16) 44.
18 Edward J Bloustein, “Privacy as an Aspect of Human Dignity: An Answer to Dean Prosser” (1964) 39 New York University Law Review 962.
19 William Prosser, “Privacy” (1960) 48 California Law Review 383.
20 For another example of a dignity based justification, see Anita Allen, Unpopular Privacy: What Must We Hide? (OUP 2011).
21 See, generally, Charles Fried, An Anatomy of Values: Problems of Personal and Social Choice (Harvard University Press 1970); Adam D Moore, “Privacy: Its Meaning and Value” (2003) 40 American Philosophical Quarterly 215; James Rachels, “Why Privacy Is Important” (1975) 4 Philosophy and Public Affairs 323.
22 Fried (Footnote 21) 142.
23 Beate Rössler, The Value of Privacy (Rupert DV Glasgow tr, Polity Press 2005).
24 ibid 72.
25 For an analogous example in the context of justification for freedom of speech and expression, see John Gardner, “Freedom of Expression” in Christopher McCrudden and Gerald Chambers (eds), Individual Rights and the Law in Britain (Clarendon Press 1994).
26 Annabelle Lever, A Democratic Conception of Privacy (AuthorHouse 2013) 107–108. See also, Lenese Herbert, “Othello Error: Facial Profiling, Privacy, and the Suppression of Dissent” (2007) 5 Ohio State Journal of Criminal Law 79, 130 (making the argument that facial screening at US airports will punish political dissent and therefore, breach privacy).
27 Puttaswamy (Footnote 2) [113].
28 ibid [169].
29 ibid.
30 ibid [113].
31 ibid [188] (A).
32 ibid [248].
33 ibid [261].
34 ibid [267].
35 ibid [266].
36 ibid [331].
37 ibid [364].
38 ibid (emphasis added).
39 ibid (emphasis added).
40 Daniel Solove, “A Taxonomy of Privacy” (2006) 154 University of Pennsylvania Law Review 477. However, the argument that different categories of privacy protect different interests is best explained by Bostwick in the context of his privacy of repose, sanctuary and intimate decision: see Gary Bostwick, “A Taxonomy of Privacy: Repose, Sanctuary, and Intimate Decision” (1976) 64 California Law Review 1447.
41 Puttaswamy (Footnote 2 [402] (emphasis in original).
42 ibid [411].
43 ibid [221].
44 ibid [231].
45 ibid [497] (emphasis added).
46 ibid.
47 For a brief account of systemic rationale for privacy in general, see Footnote 26 above.
48 Puttaswamy (Footnote 2) [438].
49 ibid [472].
50 ibid [169].
51 Maneka Gandhi v Union of India (1978) 1 SCC 248.
52 Puttaswamy (Footnote 2) [183].
53 ibid [236].
54 ibid [281].
55 ibid [369].
56 ibid [282].
57 ibid [235].
58 Constitution of Indian 1950, Art 19(2) reads “Nothing in sub clause (a) of clause (1) shall affect the operation of any existing law, or prevent the State from making any law, in so far as such law imposes reasonable restrictions on the exercise of the right conferred by the said sub clause in the interests of the sovereignty and integrity of India, the security of the State, friendly relations with foreign States, public order, decency or morality or in relation to contempt of court, defamation or incitement to an offence.”
59 For an example of a case that hints this possibility, see Anuj Garg v Hotel Association of India AIR 2008 SC 663.
60 See, for instance, District Registrar & Collector, Hyderabad v Canara Bank AIR 2005 SC 186; PR Metrani v Commissioner of Income Tax, Bangalore AIR 2007 SC 386.
61 See, for instance, Selvi v State of Karnataka AIR 2010 SC 1974; Suchita Srivastava v Chandigarh Administration AIR 2010 SC 235.
62 Juliette G Duara, Gender Justice and Proportionality in India: Comparative Perspectives (Routledge 2017) ch 7.
63 Puttaswamy (Footnote 2) [236].
64 ibid.
65 Timothy Endicott, “Proportionality and Incommensurability” in Grant Huscroft and Bradley W Miller (eds), Proportionality and the Rule of Law: Rights, Justification, Reasoning (CUP 2014).
66 Duara (Footnote 62) ch 4.
67 Tarunabh Khaitan, “Beyond Reasonableness – A Rigorous Standard of Review for Article 15 Infringement” (2008) 50 Journal of the Indian Law Institute 177, 184–185.
68 Puttaswamy (Footnote 2) [492].
69 ibid [180] (emphasis added).
70 ibid “Conclusions” [188] (H).
71 With the exception of Art 15(2), Art 17 and Arts 23 and 24.
72 P D Shamdasani v Central Bank of India AIR 1952 SC 59; Vidya Verma v Shiv Narain Verma AIR 1956 SC 108.
73 For an example of a claim of this kind, see R Rajagopal v State of Tamil Nadu AIR 1995 SC 254.
74 Karmanya Singh Sareen v WhatsApp Inc, Facebook Inc SLP(C) No 000804 of 2017 (pending).
75 Puttaswamy (Footnote 2) [190].
76 ibid [223].
77 ibid.
78 ibid [253].
79 ibid.
80 ibid.
81 ibid [431].
82 ibid [496] (emphasis added).
83 For a discussion of indirect horizontal application in India, see Ashish Chugh, “Fundamental Rights – Vertical or Horizontal?” (2005) 7 Supreme Court Cases Journal 9; Sudhir Krishnaswamy, “Horizontal Application of Fundamental Rights and State Action in India” in C Raj Kumar and K Chockalingam (eds), Human Rights, Justice and Constitutional Empowerment (2nd edn, Oxford University Press 2010).
84 Nicholas Bamforth, “The Application of the Human Rights Act 1998 to Public Authorities and Private Bodies” (1999) 58 Cambridge Law Journal 159, 168–170.
85 Zoroastrian Co-operative Housing Society v District Registrar, Co-operative Societies AIR 2005 SC 2306 [29].