Landmark Cases

A survey of landmark privacy cases in India — from M.P. Sharma to Puttaswamy — showing the evolution of privacy rights.

Early Cases: The Denial of Privacy

In the early decades after independence, the Supreme Court was reluctant to recognise privacy as a fundamental right. The following cases reflect this early skepticism:

M.P. Sharma v. Satish Chandra (1954)

In this case, the Court considered whether the power to search and seize documents violated Article 20(3) (protection against self-incrimination). The Court held that it did not, and noted that privacy was not a fundamental right. This view dominated for decades.

Kharak Singh v. State of U.P. (1964)

In this case, the Court considered whether police surveillance violated Article 21. The majority held that it did not, because Article 21 did not include privacy. However, Justice Subba Rao wrote a powerful dissent, arguing that privacy is part of personal liberty. This dissent became the foundation for later developments.

The Turning Point: Gobind

Gobind v. State of M.P. (1975) was a turning point. Justice Mathew recognised privacy as part of Article 21 for the first time. He held that privacy is essential to human dignity and cannot be deprived without a fair procedure.

Justice Mathew's Reasoning

Justice Mathew drew on American and international law to argue that privacy is a fundamental right. He recognised the "right to be let alone" and the importance of privacy for personal development. Though this was a concurring opinion, not the majority, it became highly influential.

Gobind was a turning point because it showed that privacy could be recognised under Article 21. Subsequent cases (like PUCL) built on this foundation.

Consolidation: PUCL and Beyond

The PUCL case (1997) consolidated privacy as an aspect of Article 21. Subsequent cases further developed privacy jurisprudence.

PUCL v. Union of India (1997)

The Court held that telephone tapping violates privacy unless done according to a fair procedure. This case applied privacy to communications and established that privacy is a fundamental right.

Shreya Singhal v. Union of India (2015)

The Court struck down Section 66A of the IT Act, which criminalized "offensive" online speech. While not directly about privacy, this case reinforced the importance of free expression and the limits of state surveillance.

Anuradha Bhasin v. Union of India (2020)

The Court held that internet shutdowns must be temporary, proportionate, and justified under the three-pronged test. This case applied the Puttaswamy framework to internet shutdowns.

The Culmination: Puttaswamy

The Puttaswamy judgment (2017) was the culmination of decades of litigation on privacy. The nine-judge bench unequivocally recognised privacy as a fundamental right and established the three-pronged test for privacy restrictions.

• • 1954: M.P. Sharma — Privacy denied as fundamental right
• • 1964: Kharak Singh — Privacy denied by majority, powerful dissent
• • 1975: Gobind — Privacy recognised by Justice Mathew (concurring)
• • 1997: PUCL — Privacy consolidated as Article 21 right
• • 2015: Shreya Singhal — Free expression reinforced
• • 2017: Puttaswamy — Privacy definitively recognised
• • 2018: Aadhaar — Three-pronged test applied

Understanding this evolution is essential for interpreting the DPDPA. The Act is built on decades of constitutional jurisprudence, and its provisions should be read in light of this history.