The Evolution of the Right to Privacy under Article 21:

I. Introduction: Article 21 and the Quest for Privacy

Article 21 of the Constitution of India, enshrined in Part III guaranteeing Fundamental Rights, stands as a cornerstone of individual liberty. Its text, concise yet profound, declares: “No person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty except according to procedure established by law”.¹ This provision, seemingly straightforward, has been the crucible for one of the most dynamic and significant jurisprudential developments in Indian constitutional history – the recognition and evolution of the Right to Privacy. Initially interpreted narrowly, the scope of ‘life’ and ‘personal liberty’ under Article 21 underwent a remarkable transformation through decades of judicial interpretation. This journey, marked by landmark pronouncements from the Supreme Court of India, saw the judiciary grapple with the balance between individual freedom, state power, and the changing needs of society.

The very placement of Article 21 within the chapter on Fundamental Rights underscores its paramount importance. These rights represent foundational values cherished by the people, acting as limitations on state action.⁴ However, the phrase “procedure established by law,” chosen deliberately by the Constituent Assembly over the American “due process of law” ¹, became a focal point of interpretive debate. This textual choice, perhaps intended to provide legislative certainty and limit judicial review of substantive law, paradoxically fuelled decades of judicial engagement. The courts were compelled to define the contours of “procedure,” “law,” “life,” and “personal liberty,” navigating complex questions about legislative supremacy, judicial oversight, and the fundamental attributes of a dignified human existence.

This report aims to meticulously trace the evolutionary trajectory of the Right to Privacy within the framework of Article 21. It will analyze the initial restrictive interpretations, exemplified by the A.K. Gopalan case, the pivotal shift ushered in by Maneka Gandhi, the nascent acknowledgments of privacy in cases like Kharak Singh and Govind, and culminate in a detailed examination of the landmark K.S. Puttaswamy judgment, which unequivocally affirmed privacy as a fundamental right.⁵ Furthermore, the report will explore the impact and application of Puttaswamy in subsequent jurisprudence. This evolution unfolds against the backdrop of a modernizing India, grappling with the complexities of governance, technological advancement, and the increasing importance of individual autonomy and dignity in a democratic society.⁷ The journey of Article 21, particularly concerning privacy, mirrors a broader transformation in Indian constitutionalism itself – a gradual but definitive shift from an early emphasis on state authority towards a more robust affirmation of individual rights and human dignity as the constitution matured and the judiciary embraced its role as the sentinel on the qui vive.

II. The Genesis: Article 21’s Text and Early Judicial Restraint

A. Constitutional Text and Drafting Intent

The genesis of the right to privacy’s complex relationship with Article 21 lies in the text itself and the intentions debated during its drafting. Article 21 states: “No person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty except according to procedure established by law”.¹ This formulation was not accidental. The Constituent Assembly engaged in significant debate regarding the phrasing, specifically considering the alternative “due process of law” found in the American Constitution.¹

The adoption of “procedure established by law” was a conscious decision, reflecting a preference for the British model and an intention to limit the scope of judicial review compared to the American “due process” clause.¹ Proponents of “procedure established by law” argued that “due process” could empower unelected judges to invalidate duly enacted legislation based on subjective notions of fairness, potentially undermining legislative authority.¹ Conversely, those favouring “due process” feared that “procedure established by law” might allow legislatures to enact laws that, while procedurally correct, could arbitrarily infringe upon civil liberties.¹ Ultimately, the Assembly opted for “procedure established by law,” signalling an initial emphasis on legislative competence and procedural regularity.¹

The immediate consequence of this choice was an understanding that Article 21 primarily offered protection against arbitrary executive action. If the executive deprived someone of life or liberty without the backing of a law, Article 21 could be invoked. However, if the deprivation was sanctioned by a law passed by a competent legislature following the correct procedure, the judiciary’s role was seen as limited.⁵ The courts were initially expected to verify the existence of a valid law and adherence to the prescribed procedure, rather than inquire into the inherent fairness, justice, or reasonableness of the law itself.¹² This interpretation placed significant faith in the legislature as the guarantor of liberty, subject only to the procedural constraints it established for itself.

B. A.K. Gopalan: The Era of Literal Interpretation and Mutual Exclusivity

The first major judicial test of Article 21 came in the landmark case of A.K. Gopalan vs. State of Madras (1950).⁵ A.K. Gopalan, a prominent communist leader, was detained under the Preventive Detention Act, 1950.¹³ He challenged his detention, arguing it violated his fundamental rights under Articles 19 (particularly the right to freedom of movement) and 21.⁹

The Supreme Court, by a majority, upheld the validity of the Preventive Detention Act (except for Section 14, which restricted disclosure of grounds of detention) and rejected Gopalan’s plea.¹² The judgment established several key interpretive principles that would dominate constitutional jurisprudence for nearly three decades:

1. Literal Interpretation of “Personal Liberty”: The Court adopted a narrow, literal interpretation of “personal liberty,” confining it largely to freedom from physical restraint or confinement of the person within defined limits.⁴ It was held to mean liberty related to the physical body of the individual and little else.⁴
2. “Procedure Established by Law” means Legislated Procedure: The Court interpreted “procedure established by law” to mean any procedure prescribed by a validly enacted statute by a competent legislature.¹² It explicitly rejected the notion that this phrase incorporated principles of natural justice or the American concept of “due process,” which would require the procedure to be inherently fair, just, and reasonable.⁹ As long as the legislature followed the correct legislative process, the law it created, and the procedure therein for depriving liberty, was deemed compliant with Article 21.¹² This interpretation effectively shielded legislative action from substantive judicial review under Article 21.⁵
3. Doctrine of Mutual Exclusivity: The Court ruled that the fundamental rights guaranteed under different articles, particularly Articles 19 and 21, were mutually exclusive and operated in distinct fields.¹⁴ This meant that a law relating to preventive detention, falling under Article 22 and impacting personal liberty under Article 21, did not need to satisfy the test of reasonableness prescribed under Article 19(5) for restrictions on freedoms like movement.¹⁴ Article 22 was seen as a self-contained code for preventive detention.¹⁴

This compartmentalized approach stemmed directly from the court’s literal reading and its deference to the specific textual choice made by the Constituent Assembly. The court perceived its role as upholding the explicit language of the Constitution, reflecting a period of judicial caution and respect for legislative authority in the early years of the Republic.¹² By interpreting “procedure established by law” literally, the Gopalan court aligned its decision with the perceived intent of the framers to limit judicial interference in legislative policy.¹

However, this doctrine of mutual exclusivity created artificial divisions between interconnected rights. It ignored the practical reality that depriving someone of personal liberty (Article 21) inherently restricts their freedoms, such as movement (Article 19(1)(d)) or speech (Article 19(1)(a)). By analyzing rights in isolation, the Court could not assess the cumulative impact of a law on an individual’s overall freedom, thereby weakening the protective shield of Part III.¹⁴

It is crucial to note the dissenting opinion of Justice Fazl Ali, who argued for a more integrated and harmonious interpretation of fundamental rights, suggesting that Articles 19, 21, and 22 should be read together to ensure comprehensive protection against arbitrary state action.¹² His dissent, though unsuccessful at the time, presciently foreshadowed the eventual shift in judicial thinking.

The overall impact of Gopalan was to significantly curtail the scope of Article 21 and limit judicial review over laws infringing personal liberty, establishing a precedent of legislative supremacy in this domain.¹²

III. The Turning Point: Maneka Gandhi and the Widening Ambit of Personal Liberty

The restrictive interpretation of Article 21 established in A.K. Gopalan held sway for nearly three decades. However, the constitutional landscape underwent a seismic shift with the Supreme Court’s decision in Maneka Gandhi vs. Union of India (1978).⁵ This case marked a definitive break from the past and inaugurated a new era of expansive interpretation for fundamental rights, particularly Article 21.

A. The ‘Fair, Just, and Reasonable’ Doctrine

The factual matrix of the case involved the impounding of the passport of Maneka Gandhi, a journalist and political figure, by the Regional Passport Officer under Section 10(3)(c) of the Passport Act, 1967, “in the public interest”.⁴ Crucially, the government declined to provide reasons for the impoundment, citing the “interest of the general public”.⁴ Gandhi challenged this action, arguing it violated her fundamental rights under Articles 14, 19, and 21.¹⁰

The Supreme Court, in a landmark ruling, significantly broadened the interpretation of Article 21.⁴ It explicitly overruled the narrow interpretation adopted in Gopalan.⁵ The Court held that the “procedure established by law” under Article 21 could not be just any procedure, but must be “fair, just, and reasonable”.⁴ Any procedure that was arbitrary, fanciful, or oppressive would not meet the requirement of Article 21.²¹

This interpretation effectively infused Article 21 with principles akin to substantive due process, moving beyond a mere procedural check.¹⁰ The Court emphasized that principles of natural justice, which are inherent components of fairness, are implicitly included within the ambit of Article 21’s procedural requirement.⁴ Specifically, the principle of audi alteram partem (the right to be heard) was deemed essential before a person could be deprived of their personal liberty, unless exceptional circumstances warranted otherwise.⁴

Furthermore, the Court dramatically expanded the scope of “personal liberty.” Rejecting the Gopalan view that confined it to mere freedom from physical restraint, the Court held that “personal liberty” under Article 21 has the “widest amplitude” and covers a variety of rights that constitute the personal liberty of man.⁴ It was interpreted to include not just the negative right against arbitrary deprivation but also positive rights necessary for a meaningful life. In the specific context of the case, the Court held that the right to travel abroad was very much part of personal liberty under Article 21.⁴ Depriving the petitioner of her passport without a fair procedure thus violated Article 21.⁴

This judicial activism represented a significant assertion of the Court’s power to review the substance and fairness of laws affecting personal liberty. The timing of the judgment, shortly after the end of the National Emergency (1975-77) ²¹, suggests that the experiences of that period, which saw widespread abuse of state power and suspension of fundamental rights, likely influenced the Court’s move towards a more robust protection of individual liberties against potential legislative and executive overreach.⁹ The insistence on a “fair, just, and reasonable” procedure became the judiciary’s tool to ensure that the “procedure established by law” did not become a pathway for tyranny.

B. The Golden Triangle: Interplay of Articles 14, 19, and 21

A crucial conceptual innovation of the Maneka Gandhi judgment was the establishment of the “Golden Triangle” of the Constitution.⁵ The Court decisively rejected the doctrine of mutual exclusivity laid down in Gopalan.⁴ Instead, it held that Articles 14 (Right to Equality), 19 (Protection of Certain Rights regarding Freedom of Speech, etc.), and 21 (Protection of Life and Personal Liberty) are not mutually exclusive but are deeply interlinked and form a unified code.⁴

The Court reasoned that the principles of reasonableness and non-arbitrariness are inherent in Article 14, and since the procedure under Article 21 must be fair and non-arbitrary, it must also satisfy the requirements of Article 14.⁹ Similarly, if a law deprives a person of personal liberty under Article 21 and, in doing so, also restricts one of the freedoms guaranteed under Article 19 (like freedom of speech or movement), then the law must also meet the test of reasonableness prescribed in the relevant clauses of Article 19 (e.g., Article 19(2) to 19(6)).⁴

This integrated reading meant that any state action or law leading to the deprivation of life or personal liberty must satisfy the triple test:

1. It must prescribe a procedure (Article 21).
2. That procedure must be fair, just, and reasonable (infusing Article 21 with Article 14’s non-arbitrariness principle).
3. The law must also satisfy the requirements of Article 19 if it affects the freedoms guaranteed therein.

The “Golden Triangle” doctrine fundamentally altered fundamental rights litigation. It created a multi-layered shield for the individual, allowing challenges to state action impacting life or liberty on grounds of procedural unfairness (Article 21), arbitrariness (Article 14), and unreasonable restriction of specific freedoms (Article 19).³² This significantly raised the threshold for the state to justify any law or action that encroached upon personal liberty, requiring a comprehensive justification addressing equality, freedom, and procedural fairness collectively.³³ The era of compartmentalized rights was over, replaced by a holistic view of fundamental freedoms.

The following table summarizes the key differences in the interpretation of Article 21 between the Gopalan and Maneka Gandhi judgments:

Feature	A.K. Gopalan (1950)	Maneka Gandhi (1978)	Key Supporting Information
“Procedure Established by Law”	Any procedure enacted by legislature	Procedure must be fair, just, and reasonable	12 vs 5
Relationship between Art 19 & 21	Mutually Exclusive	Interlinked (Golden Triangle)	14 vs 4
Scope of “Personal Liberty”	Primarily physical restraint	Wide amplitude, includes travel abroad, dignity	15 vs 4
Protection Against	Arbitrary Executive Action	Arbitrary Executive & Legislative Action	5 vs 4
Role of Natural Justice	Not explicitly required	Integral part of fair procedure	12 vs 4

IV. Glimmers of Privacy: Judicial Recognition Before Puttaswamy

While Maneka Gandhi revolutionized the interpretation of Article 21, explicitly establishing the right to privacy as a fundamental right remained elusive for several more decades. However, certain pre-Puttaswamy judgments hinted at or grappled with the concept, laying crucial groundwork for its eventual affirmation. The cases of Kharak Singh and Govind are particularly significant in this context.

The following table provides a chronological overview of how the concept of privacy under Article 21 evolved through key cases leading up to Puttaswamy:

Case	Year	Stance on Privacy as Fundamental Right	Key Reasoning/Scope	Key Supporting Information
M.P. Sharma	1954	No (in context of search/seizure)	No equivalent to US 4th Amendment found in Constitution.	37
Kharak Singh (Majority)	1962	No	Explicitly denied as a guaranteed right. Domiciliary visits violated Art 21 liberty (intrusion into home).	38
Kharak Singh (Minority)	1962	Yes	Essential part of personal liberty under Art 21. Surveillance impacts dignity.	40
Govind	1975	Implicitly Yes (Penumbral)	Acknowledged privacy emanating from Art 19/21, but not absolute. Introduced ‘compelling state interest’ test for restrictions.	44
Puttaswamy	2017	Explicitly Yes (Unanimous)	Intrinsic part of Art 21 and Part III freedoms. Rooted in dignity and autonomy. Multi-faceted. Subject to legality, legitimate aim, proportionality test.	6

A. Kharak Singh: Surveillance and the Seeds of Dissent

In Kharak Singh vs. State of U.P. (1962), the petitioner challenged the constitutionality of Chapter XX of the U.P. Police Regulations, which permitted extensive surveillance measures against individuals with a history of criminal activity or those suspected of being habitual criminals.⁴⁰ These measures included secret picketing, tracking of movements, periodical inquiries, and, most controversially, domiciliary visits at night.⁴⁰ Kharak Singh argued that these regulations violated his fundamental rights under Article 19(1)(d) (freedom of movement) and Article 21 (personal liberty).⁴⁰

The six-judge bench delivered a split verdict. The majority opinion, authored by Justice Ayyangar, struck down Regulation 236(b), which authorized domiciliary visits at night, as unconstitutional.⁴⁰ The Court reasoned that such visits constituted an unauthorized intrusion into a person’s home and were a violation of the “personal liberty” guaranteed under Article 21.⁴⁰ The reasoning focused on the sanctity of the home and the disturbance caused, linking it to liberty and dignity rather than explicitly privacy.⁴⁰ While striking down this specific provision, the majority upheld the other surveillance measures like tracking and picketing, deeming them not to be direct or tangible infringements on freedom of movement or personal liberty.⁴⁰

Crucially, the majority explicitly stated that the right to privacy was not a fundamental right guaranteed under the Indian Constitution.³⁷ They observed the absence of language similar to the US Fourth Amendment and declined to import such a right.³⁷

However, the minority opinion, delivered by Justice Subba Rao (for himself and Justice Shah), took a significantly different and forward-looking stance.⁴⁰ The minority argued forcefully that the right to privacy was indeed an essential ingredient of personal liberty protected under Article 21, even if not explicitly named.⁴¹ They contended that personal liberty was a comprehensive concept, and freedom from restrictions included freedom from encroachments on one’s private life.⁴¹ Justice Subba Rao emphasized the psychological impact of constant surveillance, stating that it constricted movement and inhibited personal expression, thereby violating both Article 19(1)(d) and Article 21.⁴⁰ The minority held the entire set of surveillance regulations under Chapter XX to be unconstitutional.⁴¹ This powerful dissent, recognizing privacy as inherent in liberty and dignity, laid the intellectual foundation upon which the right to privacy would later be built.⁴¹

The Kharak Singh case thus presented a paradox. The majority denied a fundamental right to privacy in principle but protected a core aspect of it – the sanctity of the home – under the umbrella of Article 21’s “personal liberty”.⁴⁰ This suggests an implicit acknowledgment of a privacy interest related to the home, even without formally recognizing the right itself. The Court seemed hesitant to create an unenumerated right but was willing to protect certain privacy-related interests using existing constitutional language.

B. Govind: Privacy, Liberty, and the ‘Compelling State Interest’ Test

The discourse on privacy under Article 21 took another significant step forward in Govind vs. State of M.P. (1975).³⁷ This case also involved a challenge to police surveillance regulations (Regulations 855 and 856 of the Madhya Pradesh Police Regulations) that permitted domiciliary visits and other surveillance methods against individuals classified as habitual criminals.⁴⁵ The petitioner argued these violated his rights under Articles 19(1)(d) and 21, contending they infringed his right to privacy.⁴⁵

The three-judge bench in Govind, while ultimately upholding the regulations, adopted a more nuanced approach to privacy than the Kharak Singh majority. Justice Mathew, writing for the Court, acknowledged that fundamental rights could have “penumbras” and that a right to privacy could be inferred as emanating from the rights guaranteed under Article 19 and, more specifically, from the concept of personal liberty in Article 21.⁴⁵ The Court referred to international jurisprudence, including US cases like Griswold v. Connecticut and Roe v. Wade, recognizing privacy as essential to liberty.⁴⁵

Crucially, the Govind court introduced the “compelling state interest” test into Indian privacy jurisprudence.⁴⁴ It held that even assuming a fundamental right to privacy exists, it cannot be absolute.⁴⁵ Restrictions could be imposed by a procedure established by law, but such restrictions must satisfy the demanding standard of serving a “compelling state interest”.⁴⁴ Furthermore, the restriction must be narrowly tailored to achieve that interest.⁴⁵

Applying this test, the Court found that the M.P. Police Regulations, unlike those in Kharak Singh, had statutory backing under the Police Act, 1861.⁴⁵ It held that the prevention of crime constituted a compelling state interest.⁴⁵ Therefore, surveillance, including domiciliary visits, could be a constitutionally permissible restriction on the right to privacy, provided it was applied cautiously and only in cases of clear determination of habitual criminality posing a threat to public safety, not based on mere suspicion.⁴⁵ The Court explicitly warned against the overly broad application of the regulations, urging that they be interpreted narrowly to avoid unconstitutionality.⁴⁵

Govind‘s adoption of the compelling state interest test marked a significant development. While it stopped short of definitively declaring privacy a fundamental right and ultimately upheld the challenged regulations, it implicitly elevated the status of privacy. By requiring a high threshold of justification (compelling interest and narrow tailoring) for any infringement, the judgment shifted the focus from whether privacy existed as a right to how and under what conditions it could be legitimately limited.⁴⁵ This paved the way for the more definitive pronouncement in Puttaswamy.

The journey from the Kharak Singh majority’s denial to Govind‘s cautious acknowledgment and introduction of a high standard for restrictions illustrates the judiciary’s evolving engagement with privacy. It reflects the inherent tension between adhering strictly to the constitutional text, which lacks an explicit mention of privacy, and the need to interpret fundamental rights purposively to encompass values deemed essential for liberty and dignity in a changing world.⁴¹ This ongoing dialogue between textualism and living constitutionalism set the stage for the comprehensive resolution offered by the nine-judge bench in Puttaswamy.

V. The Puttaswamy Pronouncement: Privacy Elevated to a Fundamental Right

Decades of judicial vacillation and incremental development culminated in the landmark judgment of Justice K.S. Puttaswamy (Retd.) vs. Union of India (2017).⁶ This case definitively settled the constitutional status of the right to privacy in India.

A. Context and Unanimous Declaration

The genesis of the Puttaswamy case lay in challenges to the Aadhaar scheme, India’s ambitious project to provide a unique biometric identity number to every resident.⁶ Petitioners, led by retired High Court Judge K.S. Puttaswamy, argued that the mandatory collection and linking of biometric and demographic data under the Aadhaar scheme violated the citizens’ fundamental right to privacy.⁶ During the hearings, the Union Government, relying on the larger bench decisions in M.P. Sharma vs. Satish Chandra (1954) and the majority view in Kharak Singh vs. State of U.P. (1962), contended that the Indian Constitution did not guarantee a fundamental right to privacy.⁶

Given the conflicting precedents – the larger bench rulings denying the right versus subsequent smaller bench rulings affirming it – the matter was referred first to a five-judge bench and then to a nine-judge Constitution Bench to authoritatively determine the status of the right to privacy.³¹

On August 24, 2017, the nine-judge bench delivered a unanimous and historic verdict.³¹ Across six concurring opinions, all nine judges unequivocally held that the Right to Privacy is a fundamental right protected under the Constitution of India.⁶ The Court declared:

“The right to privacy is protected as an intrinsic part of the right to life and personal liberty under Article 21 and as a part of the freedoms guaranteed by Part III of the Constitution.” ³⁸

This declaration explicitly overruled the judgments in M.P. Sharma and Kharak Singh to the extent that they held that privacy was not a constitutionally protected right.⁶ The unanimity of the verdict, cutting across different judicial philosophies represented on the bench, lent immense weight and finality to this conclusion, resolving decades of uncertainty.³⁸

B. Constitutional Moorings: Dignity, Autonomy, and Liberty under Article 21

The Court did not recognize privacy as a new right created by judicial interpretation. Instead, it grounded the right firmly within the existing framework of fundamental rights, primarily Article 21, but also drawing strength from other freedoms in Part III.⁶ The reasoning rested on several interconnected pillars:

1. Intrinsic to Life and Personal Liberty (Article 21): The Court held that the right to life under Article 21 encompasses the right to live with human dignity, and personal liberty includes the freedom to make fundamental choices about one’s life.⁶ Privacy was deemed essential for both dignity and liberty to be meaningful.⁵⁰
2. Human Dignity: Dignity was identified as a core constitutional value found in the Preamble and infused throughout Part III.⁶ Privacy protects the inner sphere of the individual, safeguarding personal choices and preventing unwanted intrusions, thereby upholding human dignity.⁵⁰
3. Individual Autonomy: Privacy was recognized as fundamental to individual autonomy – the ability of individuals to make decisions about their personal life, body, and identity, free from unwarranted interference.⁶ It allows individuals to control significant aspects of their lives and develop their personalities.⁵¹
4. Natural and Inalienable Right: The Court viewed privacy not as a right granted by the state, but as a pre-constitutional, natural right inherent in human beings.⁸ The Constitution merely recognizes and guarantees this inherent right.⁵¹
5. Living Constitutionalism: Rejecting a static interpretation, the Court embraced the principle of the Constitution as a living document.⁶ It emphasized that fundamental rights must be interpreted dynamically to address contemporary challenges, including those posed by technology and the information age.⁶ The absence of an explicit mention of “privacy” was deemed irrelevant, as the essence of the right was embedded within the broader guarantees of liberty and dignity.⁶
6. Interconnectedness with Other Freedoms: Reinforcing the Maneka Gandhi principle, the Court noted that privacy is also essential for the meaningful exercise of other fundamental rights, such as freedom of speech and expression (Article 19(1)(a)) and freedom of movement (Article 19(1)(d)).⁶

By grounding privacy in these fundamental constitutional values of dignity and autonomy, the Puttaswamy judgment provided a robust philosophical and ethical foundation for the right. It framed privacy not merely as a legal entitlement but as an essential attribute of human flourishing and a prerequisite for a meaningful existence in a free society.⁶

C. Dimensions of Privacy: Informational, Bodily, and Decisional Autonomy

The Puttaswamy Court acknowledged that privacy is not a monolithic concept but a multifaceted one, encompassing various interests.⁶ While declining to provide an exhaustive catalogue, the different opinions highlighted several key dimensions:

1. Informational Privacy: This emerged as a major focus, particularly given the Aadhaar context. It refers to an individual’s control over the collection, processing, storage, and dissemination of their personal data.⁶ It includes the right to control who can access personal information and the right to protection against unauthorized surveillance and data mining.⁸ The critical role of informed consent in the collection and use of data was emphasized.⁸ The Court recognized the heightened risks to informational privacy in the digital age from both state and non-state actors.⁶
2. Bodily Autonomy and Integrity: This dimension concerns the right of individuals to make autonomous decisions regarding their own bodies.⁶ Examples mentioned included the right to refuse medical treatment and control over reproductive choices.⁶³
3. Decisional Autonomy: This relates to the freedom to make fundamental personal life choices without intrusion.⁶ This includes choices regarding intimate matters such as family, marriage, procreation, home, and significantly, sexual orientation.⁸
4. Spatial Privacy: The traditional notion of privacy associated with physical spaces, particularly the sanctity of the home, was also reaffirmed as a component of the right.⁸ Justice Chelameswar referred to aspects like repose (freedom from unwarranted stimuli) and sanctuary (protection from intrusive observation).⁵²

This recognition of multiple facets underscored the breadth and depth of the newly affirmed fundamental right, extending its protection beyond mere secrecy to encompass autonomy, choice, and control over various aspects of one’s personal existence.

D. The Test for Permissible Restrictions: Legality, Legitimate Aim, and Proportionality

While establishing privacy as a fundamental right, the Court made it clear that, like other fundamental rights, it is not absolute.⁶ The state can interfere with or restrict the right to privacy, but any such intrusion must meet a stringent test.⁶ The Court synthesized previous jurisprudence and international standards to lay down a three-fold requirement (often viewed as four-fold when procedural guarantees are explicitly included) for any law infringing upon privacy:

1. Legality: The interference must be sanctioned by a validly enacted law.³¹ Executive action without legislative backing cannot curtail the right to privacy.
2. Legitimate State Aim: The law authorizing the intrusion must pursue a legitimate state objective or need.⁶ Examples include national security, prevention and investigation of crime, protection of public health, or ensuring the equitable distribution of welfare benefits.⁵⁰
3. Proportionality: This is the most critical and complex prong. It requires that:
   • There must be a rational nexus between the means adopted (the intrusion) and the legitimate aim sought to be achieved.⁶
   • The means adopted must be necessary to achieve the objective; there should not be a less intrusive alternative available that could achieve the same goal (Necessity/Least Restrictive Means).³¹
   • The extent of the interference with the right to privacy must be proportionate to the importance of the legitimate aim. A balance must be struck between the infringement of the right and the public interest served by the measure (Balancing).⁶

Some opinions also explicitly mentioned the need for Procedural Safeguards to prevent abuse of the power to interfere with privacy.⁵²

This proportionality test significantly elevates the standard of judicial review for privacy infringements compared to the earlier, more general “reasonableness” standard. It requires a structured, intensive scrutiny of both the state’s objectives and the specific means employed, demanding a detailed justification from the state and empowering the court to conduct a more fine-grained analysis of the impact on individual rights.³¹ This framework aims to ensure that any encroachment on the fundamental right to privacy is truly necessary, minimally intrusive, and justified by a sufficiently important public purpose.

The following table outlines the components of the Puttaswamy test for restricting the Right to Privacy:

Component	Requirement	Description/Purpose	Key Supporting Information
1. Legality	Existence of Law	Action must be sanctioned by a valid law passed by the legislature.	31
2. Legitimate Aim	Need / Legitimate Goal	The law must pursue a legitimate state purpose (e.g., national security, crime prevention, welfare).	6
3. Proportionality	Rational Nexus & Necessity & Balancing	Rational connection between means and aim. Means must be necessary (least intrusive). Impact on right balanced against benefit of aim.	6
(4. Procedural Safeguards)	(Against Abuse)	(Mechanisms must exist to prevent arbitrary application or abuse of the power to interfere.)	52

VI. The Ripple Effect: Post-Puttaswamy Jurisprudence and Impact

The unanimous affirmation of the right to privacy as a fundamental right in Puttaswamy was not merely a symbolic declaration; it has had tangible and far-reaching consequences for Indian law and society. The principles laid down by the nine-judge bench have been invoked and applied in several subsequent landmark judgments, reshaping legal discourse around individual autonomy, state power, data protection, and surveillance.

A. Application in Subsequent Landmark Cases

The true measure of a landmark judgment lies in its application. Puttaswamy has served as a crucial precedent in several significant cases:

1. Navtej Singh Johar vs. Union of India (2018): Perhaps the most prominent application of Puttaswamy came in the case challenging Section 377 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, which criminalized “carnal intercourse against the order of nature”.⁸⁰ The Supreme Court, heavily relying on the Puttaswamy judgment’s recognition of privacy, dignity, and autonomy – specifically including sexual orientation as an essential attribute of privacy and identity – unanimously read down Section 377 to decriminalize consensual same-sex relations between adults.⁴⁹ The Court explicitly noted that the challenge to Section 377 was significantly strengthened by the Puttaswamy verdict, which repudiated the notion that fundamental rights could be denied to minorities and affirmed that privacy protects intimate personal choices.⁸⁴ This case demonstrated Puttaswamy‘s power to advance individual autonomy against laws based on outdated social morality, grounding the challenge firmly in constitutional values.
2. Joseph Shine vs. Union of India (2018): In this case, the Supreme Court struck down Section 497 of the IPC, which criminalized adultery.⁸⁴ The Court invoked Puttaswamy‘s principles of individual autonomy, dignity, and privacy.⁸⁴ It held that Section 497 treated women as subordinate to men, effectively denying them agency over their own sexuality and violating their dignity and privacy.⁸⁴ The judgment specifically referenced Puttaswamy‘s caution against using privacy as a “veneer for patriarchal domination,” emphasizing that privacy inheres in the individual, not in the institution of marriage in a way that subverts equality.⁸⁴
3. Puttaswamy II (Aadhaar Constitutionality Review) (2018): The original challenge that led to the privacy reference returned to a five-judge bench for a decision on the merits of the Aadhaar Act, 2016.⁶⁵ The majority upheld the Act’s constitutionality for its stated purpose of distributing subsidies and welfare benefits, finding that it passed the proportionality test laid down in Puttaswamy I.⁶⁵ They reasoned that the collection of minimal biometric data served a legitimate state aim and was proportionate for targeted welfare delivery.⁷⁶ However, the Court struck down Section 57 of the Act, which allowed private entities to demand Aadhaar authentication, and invalidated mandatory linking of Aadhaar with bank accounts and mobile numbers, deeming these requirements disproportionate and violative of privacy.⁶⁵ Justice D.Y. Chandrachud delivered a powerful dissent, arguing that the entire Aadhaar project, in its existing form, failed the proportionality test due to its potential for surveillance and lack of robust safeguards, thus violating the fundamental right to privacy.⁷⁷ This case highlighted the complexities and potential subjectivity involved in applying the proportionality test, showing that while the framework exists, its application can lead to divergent outcomes, particularly when balancing state interests against privacy concerns.⁶⁵
4. Other Applications: The principles of Puttaswamy have been invoked in various other contexts by High Courts and the Supreme Court. These include challenges related to state surveillance and phone tapping (requiring stricter adherence to legality and proportionality) ⁷⁸, cases concerning bodily autonomy, including the ongoing challenge to the marital rape exception ⁸⁵, and discussions around data protection requirements.⁷⁸

B. Implications for Data Protection and Surveillance Laws

The Puttaswamy judgment has profound implications for the legal framework governing data protection and state surveillance in India, particularly in the digital age.

1. Data Protection: The Court explicitly recognized informational privacy as a facet of the fundamental right.⁶ It highlighted the unprecedented risks posed by digital technologies, data mining, and profiling by both state and non-state actors.⁶ Recognizing these dangers, the Court underscored the urgent need for a comprehensive and robust data protection law to regulate the collection, storage, and use of personal data, emphasizing principles like informed consent and purpose limitation.⁶ The judgment effectively mandated the state to fulfill its positive obligation to protect citizens’ privacy through legislation.⁷⁸ While a committee drafted a Personal Data Protection Bill following the judgment ⁶, the legislative process has faced significant delays and setbacks, with the initial bill being withdrawn.⁷⁸ This gap between the judicial recognition of a right and the legislative implementation of protective measures highlights a potential challenge in translating constitutional mandates into effective statutory frameworks.⁷⁸
2. Surveillance Reform: Puttaswamy‘s affirmation of privacy and the imposition of the proportionality test set a significantly higher constitutional bar for justifying state surveillance activities.⁷⁸ Existing surveillance laws, such as Section 5(2) of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885, and Section 69 of the Information Technology Act, 2000, which allow for interception and monitoring of communications, must now be interpreted and applied in a manner consistent with the Puttaswamy test.⁷⁸ Any surveillance measure must be authorized by law, pursue a legitimate aim (like national security or crime prevention), be necessary (least intrusive means), and proportionate.³¹ This framework provides stronger grounds for challenging potentially overbroad or arbitrary surveillance practices, including modern techniques like bulk data collection or facial recognition technology.⁸² Courts are now expected to scrutinize the necessity and proportionality of surveillance measures more rigorously than before.⁷⁸

The Puttaswamy judgment has thus fundamentally altered the legal landscape, providing a constitutional anchor for privacy protection and demanding greater accountability from the state regarding data handling and surveillance.

VII. Synthesis: The Transformation of Personal Liberty

The journey of the right to privacy under Article 21, from the inception of the Constitution to the post-Puttaswamy era, represents a profound transformation in Indian constitutional law. It reflects not only an evolution in judicial interpretation but also a deeper shift in the understanding of liberty, dignity, and the relationship between the individual and the state.

A. Comparing Pre- and Post-Puttaswamy Interpretations of Article 21 vis-à-vis Privacy

The contrast between the legal landscape before and after the Puttaswamy judgment is stark.

Pre-Puttaswamy:

• Status of Privacy: Uncertain and contested. Explicitly denied as a fundamental right by larger benches (M.P. Sharma, Kharak Singh majority).³⁷ Acknowledged implicitly or as a penumbral right by smaller benches or dissenting judges (Kharak Singh minority, Govind), often framed within the existing concept of personal liberty.⁴⁰
• Scope: When acknowledged, often linked to specific interests like the sanctity of the home (spatial privacy) or protection from egregious surveillance.⁴⁰ Informational and decisional autonomy aspects were largely undeveloped in constitutional jurisprudence.
• Justification for Intrusion: Initially, the focus was on the existence of a legislative procedure (Gopalan).¹² Later, Govind introduced the “compelling state interest” test, raising the bar but applied cautiously.⁴⁴ The overall standard remained less defined and structured.

Post-Puttaswamy:

• Status of Privacy: Unequivocally recognized as a fundamental right, intrinsic to Article 21 and other Part III freedoms.⁶ The earlier conflicting precedents were decisively overruled.³⁸
• Scope: Broad and multi-faceted. Explicitly includes informational privacy (data control, consent), bodily autonomy (choices about one’s body), and decisional autonomy (personal life choices, including family, marriage, sexual orientation), alongside spatial privacy.⁶ Rooted in the constitutional values of dignity and autonomy.⁶
• Justification for Intrusion: Subject to the rigorous, structured three/four-fold test of legality, legitimate state aim, and proportionality (including necessity and balancing).⁶ This test demands a high level of justification and careful balancing of interests.

This evolution demonstrates a clear trajectory from denial and ambiguity towards explicit affirmation and elaboration. Privacy transitioned from being, at best, a shadow lurking within the contours of personal liberty to being recognized as a distinct and fundamental right with its own broad scope and demanding justification standard for any infringement.

B. From Procedural Safeguard to Substantive Right

The evolution of privacy under Article 21 is intrinsically linked to the transformation of Article 21 itself.

Initially, in A.K. Gopalan, Article 21 was interpreted narrowly as primarily a procedural safeguard against arbitrary executive action.⁵ The focus was on whether a law existed and whether the executive followed the procedure laid down in that law.¹² The fairness or substance of the law itself was largely beyond the scope of Article 21 review.¹³

Maneka Gandhi marked a crucial shift. It transformed Article 21 into a guarantee of fair procedure against legislative action as well.⁴ By insisting that the “procedure established by law” must be “fair, just, and reasonable,” the Court began to assess the substantive quality of the procedure and, implicitly, the law itself.²⁴ It linked Article 21 with Articles 14 and 19, requiring laws affecting liberty to be non-arbitrary and reasonable.²⁹

Puttaswamy completed this transformation. By firmly embedding the right to privacy within Article 21, rooted in dignity and autonomy, the Court solidified Article 21’s role as a repository of substantive fundamental rights.⁶ Privacy, along with other rights read into Article 21 over the years (like the right to livelihood ⁵, right to a healthy environment ⁸⁷, right to dignity ²⁹), is now understood not just as a freedom from arbitrary deprivation, but as encompassing positive entitlements necessary for a meaningful and dignified life. The journey shows Article 21 evolving from a minimalist procedural shield to a rich source of fundamental human rights, reflecting a dynamic and purposive approach to constitutional interpretation.

This judicial evolution, reading unenumerated rights like privacy into the broad guarantees of Article 21, showcases the judiciary’s vital role in adapting the Constitution to meet the evolving needs and values of society. It demonstrates a commitment to ensuring that the promise of liberty and dignity remains relevant and robust in the face of new challenges, effectively breathing life into the constitutional text. The shift also signifies a fundamental rebalancing in the perceived relationship between the individual and the state in India. The Gopalan era reflected a view where state power, exercised through legislation, held primacy, and individual liberty existed in the spaces left unregulated. The post-Maneka and particularly post-Puttaswamy era embodies an individual-centric approach, where inherent rights like dignity, autonomy, and privacy are paramount, and any state action infringing upon them must meet a high threshold of justification under a structured constitutional test.⁶

VIII. Conclusion: The Enduring Significance of Privacy under Article 21

The judicial voyage tracing the contours of the Right to Privacy under Article 21 of the Indian Constitution culminates in the landmark Puttaswamy judgment, marking a watershed moment in Indian constitutionalism. This report has charted the evolution from the initial restrictive interpretation in A.K. Gopalan, which viewed personal liberty narrowly and confined Article 21’s protection largely to procedural compliance by the executive, through the transformative Maneka Gandhi decision, which infused Article 21 with fairness, reasonableness, and interconnectedness with other fundamental rights, to the tentative acknowledgments in Kharak Singh and Govind, and finally, to the definitive and unanimous affirmation in Puttaswamy.

The Puttaswamy verdict firmly establishes that the Right to Privacy is not a penumbral right or a mere derivative of other freedoms, but a fundamental right in itself, intrinsic to the right to life and personal liberty guaranteed by Article 21 and inherent in the freedoms protected under Part III of the Constitution.⁶ Rooted in the foundational values of human dignity and individual autonomy, this right is multi-faceted, encompassing informational privacy, bodily integrity, and decisional autonomy.⁶

Crucially, while fundamental, the right is not absolute. The judgment provides a clear, albeit demanding, framework – the test of legality, legitimate state aim, and proportionality – for evaluating the constitutionality of any state intrusion into privacy.⁶ This structured test signals a move towards more rigorous judicial scrutiny of state actions that impinge upon fundamental rights.

The post-Puttaswamy era has witnessed the application of these principles in significant cases concerning sexual orientation, adultery, and the Aadhaar scheme, demonstrating the judgment’s transformative potential.⁸⁰ However, challenges remain. The effective realization of informational privacy, particularly in the digital age, hinges on the enactment of robust data protection legislation, a process that has faced delays.⁷⁸ Furthermore, the consistent and rigorous application of the proportionality test across diverse factual scenarios will require ongoing judicial vigilance and refinement.⁶⁵

The recognition of privacy as fundamental under Article 21 is, therefore, not an end point but a crucial foundation for ongoing legal and societal engagement. It necessitates a continuous dialogue about the appropriate boundaries between individual autonomy, state interests, technological capabilities, and the rights of others.⁶ The journey of the right to privacy exemplifies the dynamic nature of constitutional interpretation, where the judiciary responds to societal evolution and technological change, ensuring that the Constitution remains a living document capable of protecting fundamental values in contemporary contexts.⁶ Ultimately, the right to privacy, now securely anchored within Article 21, stands as an indispensable safeguard for individual freedom, human dignity, and the sustenance of a robust democratic order in India.

Works cited

1. Article 21: Protection of life and personal liberty – Constitution of India, accessed on April 15, 2025, https://www.constitutionofindia.net/articles/article-21-protection-of-life-and-personal-liberty/
2. PART III FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS, accessed on April 15, 2025, https://www.mea.gov.in/images/pdf1/part3.pdf
3. Article 21 in Constitution of India – Indian Kanoon, accessed on April 15, 2025, https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1199182/
4. Article 21 of the Indian Constitution : Right to Life and Personal Liberty – iPleaders, accessed on April 15, 2025, https://blog.ipleaders.in/article-21/
5. Article 21 of Indian Constitution: Protection of life and personal liberty
6. Case Analysis of K.S. Puttaswamy vs. Union of India (2017): Landmark Judgment on Right to Privacy – LegalOnus, accessed on April 15, 2025, https://legalonus.com/case-analysis-of-k-s-puttaswamy-vs-union-of-india-2017-landmark-judgment-on-right-to-privacy/
7. India Puttaswamy 1 Joint judgment 2018 – Delaware Law School, accessed on April 15, 2025, https://delawarelaw.widener.edu/files/resources/indiaputtaswamy1jointjudgment2018.pdf
8. From Aadhaar To Privacy Right: The Spin-off Of The Aadhaar Controversy – Countercurrents, accessed on April 15, 2025, https://countercurrents.org/2017/09/from-aadhaar-to-privacy-right-the-spin-off-of-the-aadhaar-controversy/
9. AK Gopalan vs. State of Madras (1950) – iPleaders, accessed on April 15, 2025, https://blog.ipleaders.in/ak-gopalan-vs-state-of-madras-1950/
10. Learn About Maneka Gandhi’s Case – Unacademy, accessed on April 15, 2025, https://unacademy.com/content/upsc/study-material/polity/maneka-gandhis-case/
11. Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India, 1978 : case analysis – iPleaders, accessed on April 15, 2025, https://blog.ipleaders.in/maneka-gandhi-v-union-of-india/
12. The Historic AK Gopalan V. State Of Madras Case: An Indian Court Analysis Of Fundamental Rights – Lawful Legal, accessed on April 15, 2025, https://lawfullegal.in/the-historic-ak-gopalan-v-state-of-madras-case-an-indian-court-analysis-of-fundamental-rights/
13. case commentary on ak gopalan vs state of madras – Institute of Legal Education, accessed on April 15, 2025, https://iledu.in/case-commentary-on-a-k-gopalan-vs-state-of-madras/
14. A.K. Gopalan vs. State of Madras (1950) Summary for UPSC Polity Notes, accessed on April 15, 2025, https://notes.saralupsc.com/a-k-gopalan-vs-state-of-madras-1950-summary-for-upsc-polity-notes/
15. Landmark Case : A.K. Gopalan Case: A Landmark Judgment In Indian Constitutional Law – Lawful Legal, accessed on April 15, 2025, https://lawfullegal.in/landmark-case-a-k-gopalan-case-a-landmark-judgment-in-indian-constitutional-law/
16. A. K. Gopalan v. State of Madras – Wikipedia, accessed on April 15, 2025, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A._K._Gopalan_v._State_of_Madras
17. A K Gopalan and State of Madras: A Landmark Case in Indian Legal History – Unacademy, accessed on April 15, 2025, https://unacademy.com/content/clat/study-material/legal-reasoning/a-k-gopalan-v-s-state-of-madras-a-landmark-case-in-indian-legal-history/
18. legal discourse on detention and due process: ak gopalan v state of madras – JLRJS, accessed on April 15, 2025, https://jlrjs.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/09/70.-Sneha-Chauhan.pdf
19. AK Gopalan vs State of Madras (1950) Case Analysis – Testbook, accessed on April 15, 2025, https://testbook.com/landmark-judgements/ak-gopalan-vs-state-of-madras
20. A.K. Gopalan v. State of Madras – Naya Legal, accessed on April 15, 2025, https://www.nayalegal.com/ak-gopalan-v-state-of-madras
21. The Journey Of The Supreme Court From A K Gopalan To Maneka Gandhi – Desi Kaanoon, accessed on April 15, 2025, https://desikaanoon.in/the-journey-of-the-supreme-court-from-a-k-gopalan-to-maneka-gandhi/
22. AK Gopalan vs. The State of Madras – Manupatra Academy, accessed on April 15, 2025, http://www.manupatracademy.com/LegalPost/MANU_SC_0012_1950
23. A.K. Gopalan vs The State Of Madras.Union Of India: … on 19 May, 1950, accessed on April 15, 2025, https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1857950/
24. Maneka Gandhi vs. Union of India – Record Of Law, accessed on April 15, 2025, https://recordoflaw.in/maneka-gandhi-vs-union-of-india/
25. Maneka Gandhi vs. Union of India and Ors. – LawBhoomi, accessed on April 15, 2025, https://lawbhoomi.com/case-brief-maneka-gandhi-v-union-of-india/
26. Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India – Wikipedia, accessed on April 15, 2025, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maneka_Gandhi_v._Union_of_India
27. CASE COMMENT ON MANEKA GANDHI V. UNION OF INDIA, accessed on April 15, 2025, https://ijirl.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/CASE-COMMENT-ON-MANEKA-GANDHI-V-UNION-OF-INDIA.pdf
28. Maneka Gandhi V. Union of India – Lloyd Law College, accessed on April 15, 2025, https://www.lloydlawcollege.edu.in/blog/maneka-gandhi-vs-union-of-india.html
29. Maneka Gandhi V. Union Of India : Expands The Interpretation Of The Right To Life And Personal Liberty Under Article 21 – Lawful Legal, accessed on April 15, 2025, https://lawfullegal.in/maneka-gandhi-v-union-of-india-expands-the-interpretation-of-the-right-to-life-and-personal-liberty-under-article-21/
30. CASE ANALYSIS OF MANEKA GANDHI VS. UNION OF INDIA 1978 – Lawful Legal, accessed on April 15, 2025, https://lawfullegal.in/case-analysis-of-maneka-gandhi-vs-union-of-india-1978/
31. Does The Traceability Requirement Meet The Puttaswamy Test? – The Dialogue, accessed on April 15, 2025, https://thedialogue.co/does-the-traceability-requirement-meet-the-puttaswamy-test/
32. Why is Article 14, 19 and 21 called the Golden Triangle? [Get the Answers at BYJU’S], accessed on April 15, 2025, https://byjus.com/ias-questions/why-is-article-14-19-and-21-called-the-golden-triangle/
33. RESCUING ARTICLE 19 FROM THE ‘GOLDEN TRIANGLE’: AN EMPIRICAL ANALYSIS OF THE APPLICATION OF THE EXCEPTION CLAUSES UNDER ARTI – NUJS Law Review, accessed on April 15, 2025, https://nujslawreview.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/05/15.3-4.Sharma.pdf
34. The Majestic Golden Triangle of the Indian Constitution – Article 14, 19 & 21 – Unfold Law, accessed on April 15, 2025, https://unfoldlaw.in/the-golden-triangle-of-the-indian-constitution/
35. Article 14, 19, 21 –[Fundamental Rights In Indian Constitution], accessed on April 15, 2025, https://thelawwaywithlawyers.com/article-14-19-21-fundamental-rights-in-indian-constitution/
36. INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF ADVANCED LEGAL RESEARCH THE GOLDEN TRIANGLE OF THE INDIAN CONSTITUTION: ARTICLE 14, 19, 21, accessed on April 15, 2025, https://ijalr.in/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/The_Golden_Triangle_of_Indian_Constitution-rp.pdf
37. Right to Privacy: Court in Review, accessed on April 15, 2025, https://www.scobserver.in/journal/right-to-privacy-court-in-review/
38. Justice K.S. Puttaswamy (Retd.) & Anr. vs. Union of India & Ors. – Privacy Law Library, accessed on April 15, 2025, https://privacylibrary.ccgnlud.org/case/justice-ks-puttaswamy-ors-vs-union-of-india-ors
39. An Analysis of Puttaswamy: The Supreme Court’s Privacy Verdict, accessed on April 15, 2025, https://www.ssoar.info/ssoar/bitstream/handle/document/54766/ssoar-indrastraglobal-2017-11-bhandari_et_al-An_Analysis_of_Puttaswamy_The.pdf?sequence=1
40. Kharak Singh vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Ors. – Privacy Law Library, accessed on April 15, 2025, https://privacylibrary.ccgnlud.org/case/kharak-singh-vs-state-of-up
41. Kharak Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh – Global Freedom of Expression, accessed on April 15, 2025, https://globalfreedomofexpression.columbia.edu/cases/singh-v-uttar-pradesh/
42. Kharak Singh vs The State of Uttar Pradesh and Others – Wikipedia, accessed on April 15, 2025, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kharak_Singh_vs_The_State_of_Uttar_Pradesh_and_Others
43. Kharak Singh vs The State Of U. P. & Others on 18 December, 1962 – Indian Kanoon, accessed on April 15, 2025, https://indiankanoon.org/doc/619152/
44. Right to Privacy, Evolution, Significance, Challenges – Vajiram & Ravi, accessed on April 15, 2025, https://vajiramandravi.com/upsc-exam/right-to-privacy/
45. Gobind v State of Madhya Pradesh – LawBhoomi, accessed on April 15, 2025, https://lawbhoomi.com/gobind-v-state-of-madhya-pradesh/
46. Govind vs. State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors. – Privacy Law Library, accessed on April 15, 2025, https://privacylibrary.ccgnlud.org/case/g
47. Enhancing Personal Liberty: A Comprehensive Analysis of Gobind v. State of Madhya Pradesh (1975) – CaseMine, accessed on April 15, 2025, https://www.casemine.com/commentary/in/enhancing-personal-liberty:-a-comprehensive-analysis-of-gobind-v.-state-of-madhya-pradesh-(1975)/view
48. Govind Versus State of Madhya Pradesh – iPleaders, accessed on April 15, 2025, https://blog.ipleaders.in/govind-versus-state-of-madhya-pradesh/
49. Puttaswamy v. Union of India – Wikipedia, accessed on April 15, 2025, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Puttaswamy_v._Union_of_India
50. [2017] 10 S.C.R. 569 JUSTICE K S PUTIASWAMY (RETD.), AND ANR. UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. (Writ Petition (Civil) No. 494 of2012) AUG – Digital Supreme Court Reports, accessed on April 15, 2025, https://digiscr.sci.gov.in/admin/judgement_file/judgement_pdf/2017/volume%2010/Part%20I/justice%20k%20s%20putiaswamy%20(retd.),_union%20of%20india%20and%20ors._1700550294.pdf
51. Judgment of the Court in Plain English (I) – Supreme Court Observer, accessed on April 15, 2025, https://www.scobserver.in/reports/k-s-puttaswamy-right-to-privacy-judgment-of-the-court-in-plain-english-i/
52. An Analysis of Puttaswamy: The Supreme Court’s Privacy Verdict – IndraStra Global, accessed on April 15, 2025, https://www.indrastra.com/2017/11/An-Analysis-of-Puttaswamy-Supreme-Court-s-Privacy-Verdict-003-11-2017-0004.html
53. The Puttaswamy Judgement- How Is Privacy a Fundamental Right? – Enhelion Blogs, accessed on April 15, 2025, https://enhelion.com/blogs/2022/01/22/the-puttaswamy-judgement-how-is-privacy-a-fundamental-right/
54. Kharak Singh vs State of UP – LawBhoomi, accessed on April 15, 2025, https://lawbhoomi.com/kharak-singh-vs-state-of-up/
55. Kharak Singh v. the State of Uttar Pradesh (1962) : case analysis – iPleaders, accessed on April 15, 2025, https://blog.ipleaders.in/kharak-singh-v-the-state-of-uttar-pradesh-1962-case-analysis/
56. KHARAK SINGH Vs. THE STATE OF U. P. & OTHERS, accessed on April 15, 2025, https://www.legallore.info/post/kharak-singh-vs-the-state-of-u-p-others
57. Kharak Singh vs State of UP (1962) – Case Analysis – Testbook, accessed on April 15, 2025, https://testbook.com/landmark-judgements/kharak-singh-vs-state-of-up
58. Case Comment: Govind v State of Madhya Pradesh – Jus Corpus Law Journal, accessed on April 15, 2025, https://www.juscorpus.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/11/152.-Aisika-Basu.pdf
59. Govind vs State Of Madhya Pradesh & Anr on 18 March, 1975 – Indian Kanoon, accessed on April 15, 2025, https://indiankanoon.org/doc/436241/
60. Surveillance and Privacy: A Ramification of Article 21. – International Journal of Reviews and Research in Social Sciences, accessed on April 15, 2025, https://ijrrssonline.in/HTMLPaper.aspx?Journal=International%20Journal%20of%20Reviews%20and%20Research%20in%20Social%20Sciences;PID=2018-6-3-14
61. Surveillance and Privacy in India – II: Gobind and the Compelling State Interest test, accessed on April 15, 2025, https://indconlawphil.wordpress.com/2013/12/16/surveillance-and-privacy-in-india-ii-gobind-and-the-compelling-state-interest-test/
62. Right to privacy – iPleaders, accessed on April 15, 2025, https://blog.ipleaders.in/different-aspects-of-right-to-privacy-under-article-21/
63. Puttaswamy v. Union of India (I) – Global Freedom of Expression, accessed on April 15, 2025, https://globalfreedomofexpression.columbia.edu/cases/puttaswamy-v-india/
64. Case Brief: Justice K.S. Puttaswammy (Retd) v. Union of India – LawBhoomi, accessed on April 15, 2025, https://lawbhoomi.com/case-brief-justice-k-s-puttaswammy-retd-v-union-of-india/
65. Puttaswamy v. Union of India (II) – Global Freedom of Expression, accessed on April 15, 2025, https://globalfreedomofexpression.columbia.edu/cases/puttaswamy-v-union-of-india-ii/
66. The Supreme Court’s Right to Privacy Judgment – I: Foundations, accessed on April 15, 2025, https://indconlawphil.wordpress.com/2017/08/27/the-supreme-courts-right-to-privacy-judgment-i-foundations/
67. Fundamental Right to Privacy – Supreme Court Observer, accessed on April 15, 2025, https://www.scobserver.in/cases/puttaswamy-v-union-of-india-fundamental-right-to-privacy-case-background/
68. India’s Supreme Court Upholds Right to Privacy as a Fundamental Right—and It’s About Time | Electronic Frontier Foundation, accessed on April 15, 2025, https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2017/08/indias-supreme-court-upholds-right-privacy-fundamental-right-and-its-about-time
69. The Puttaswamy Judgement: A New Era Of Privacy – Lawful Legal, accessed on April 15, 2025, https://lawfullegal.in/the-puttaswamy-judgement-a-new-era-of-privacy/
70. Supreme Court of India Declares Privacy Is a Fundamental Right, accessed on April 15, 2025, https://ijrcenter.org/2017/09/13/supreme-court-of-india-declares-privacy-is-a-fundamental-right/
71. JUSTICE K.S. PUTTASWAMY VS. UNION OF INDIA – South Asian Translaw Database, accessed on April 15, 2025, https://translaw.clpr.org.in/case-law/justice-k-s-puttaswamy-anr-vs-union-of-india-ors-privacy/
72. Judgment of the Court in Plain English (II) – Supreme Court Observer, accessed on April 15, 2025, https://www.scobserver.in/reports/k-s-puttaswamy-right-to-privacy-judgment-of-the-court-in-plain-english-ii/
73. Justice K.S.Puttaswamy(Retd) vs Union Of India on 26 September, 2018 – Indian Kanoon, accessed on April 15, 2025, https://indiankanoon.org/doc/127517806/
74. Decisional Autonomy – Constitutional Law and Philosophy, accessed on April 15, 2025, https://indconlawphil.wordpress.com/category/privacy/decisional-autonomy/
75. The RTI Judgment: On Proportionality – Constitutional Law and Philosophy – WordPress.com, accessed on April 15, 2025, https://indconlawphil.wordpress.com/2019/11/15/the-rti-judgment-on-proportionality/
76. Constitutionality of Aadhaar Act: Judgment Summary – Supreme Court Observer, accessed on April 15, 2025, https://www.scobserver.in/reports/constitutionality-of-aadhaar-justice-k-s-puttaswamy-union-of-india-judgment-in-plain-english/
77. Proportionality Test for Aadhaar: The Supreme Court’s two approaches – Bar and Bench, accessed on April 15, 2025, https://www.barandbench.com/columns/proportionality-test-for-aadhaar-the-supreme-courts-two-approaches
78. The broken promises of Puttaswamy – Amber Sinha, accessed on April 15, 2025, https://www.ambersinha.com/blog/the-broken-promises-of-puttaswamy
79. THE IMPACT OF THE PUTTASWAMY JUDGEMENT ON LAW RELATING TO SEARCHES, accessed on April 15, 2025, https://nujslawreview.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/07/15.1-Panigrahi-Mehta-4.pdf
80. Implications of Justice K.S.Puttaswamy Case: Aadhar, Section-377 and More, accessed on April 15, 2025, https://www.rsrr.in/post/implications-of-justice-k-s-puttaswamy-case-aadhar-section-377-and-more
81. LEGAL ANALYSIS OF AADHAR 5-JUDGE BENCH CASE ON JUDICIAL TRENDS IN INDIA’S PRIVACY AND DATA PROTECTION LANDSCAPE, accessed on April 15, 2025, https://ijirl.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/05/LEGAL-ANALYSIS-OF-AADHAR-5-JUDGE-BENCH-CASE-ON-JUDICIAL-TRENDS-IN-INDIAS-PRIVACY-AND-DATA-PROTECTION-LANDSCAPE.pdf
82. Five years after the SC upheld the right to privacy, why does India lack a data protection law? – Scroll.in, accessed on April 15, 2025, https://scroll.in/article/1031054/five-years-after-the-sc-upheld-the-right-to-privacy-why-does-india-lack-a-data-protection-law
83. Privacy After Puttaswamy | Economic and Political Weekly, accessed on April 15, 2025, https://www.epw.in/privacy-after-puttaswamy
84. Right to Privacy: The Puttaswamy Effect | The CCG Blog, accessed on April 15, 2025, https://ccgnludelhi.wordpress.com/2020/01/22/the-right-to-privacy-the-puttaswamy-effect/
85. How SC’s right to privacy judgment influenced rulings — Section 377, trans rights, phone tapping – ThePrint, accessed on April 15, 2025, https://theprint.in/judiciary/how-scs-right-to-privacy-judgment-influenced-rulings-section-377-trans-rights-phone-tapping/1732808/
86. THE SURVEILLANCE LAW LANDSCAPE IN INDIA AND THE IMPACT OF Puttaswamy – Global Network Initiative, accessed on April 15, 2025, https://globalnetworkinitiative.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/07/CCG-June-15.pdf
87. Critical Analysis on Interpretation of Article 21 of the Indian Constitution – INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF LAW MANAGEMENT & HUMANITIES, accessed on April 15, 2025, https://www.ijlmh.com/wp-content/uploads/Critical-Analysis-on-Interpretation-of-Article-21-of-the-Indian-Constitution.docx.pdf