JUSTICE K.S. PUTTASWAMY (RETD.) &ANOTHER versus UNION OF INDIA & OTHERS

Citation: [2015] 9 S.C.R. 99 · Decided: 11-08-2015 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: JASTI CHELAMESWAR · Disposal: Matter referred to larger bench
Cited by 4 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

[2015] 9 S.C.R. 99 
JUSTICE K.S. PUTTASWAMY (RETD.) &ANOTHER 
A 
v. 
UNION OF INDIA & OTHERS 
(Writ Petition (Civil) No.494 of2012) 
B 
AUGUST11,2015 
[J. CHELAMESWAR, S. A. BOBDE AND 
C. NAGAPPAN, JJ.] 
Constitution of India, 1950-Art.21- Right to privacy- c 
Aadhaar Card Scheme - Collection of biometric data - Writ 
petition on the ground that the very collection of biometric 
data for the "Aadhar Card Scheme" is violative of the "right to 
privacy" u/Art.21 - Plea that in view of judgments of larger 
benches of Supreme Court in M.P. Sharma and Kharak D 
Singh, the legal position regarding the existence of the 
fundamental right to privacy is doubtful - Held: The cases 
on hand raise far reaching questions of importance involving 
interpretation of the Constitution - At the same time, the 
institutional integrity and judicial discipline require that E 
pronouncement made by larger benches of Supreme·Court 
cannot be ignored by smaller benches without appropriately 
explaining the reasons for not following the pronouncements 
made by such larger benches- To give a quietus to the kind 
F 
of controversy raised, the ratio decidendi of M.P. Sharma 
and Kharak Singh need to be scrutinized and jurisprudential 
correctness of the subsequent decisions of this Court where 
the right to privacy is either asserted or referred be examined 
and authoritatively decided by a Bench of appropriate G 
strength - Interim order passed in view of the balance of 
interest that till the matter is finally decided by the larger 
-i. 
Bench, Union of India or the UIDA is directed to proceed in 
the following manner- (i) the UO/ to give wide publicity in the 
electronic and print media including radio and television H 
99 
100 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2015] 9 S.C.R. 
A networks, that it is not mandatory for a citizen to obtain an 
Aadhar card; (ii) The production of Aadhar card will not be a 
condition for obtaining any benefits otherwise due to a citizen; 
(iii) The Unique Identification No. or the Aadhar card will not 
be used by the respondents for any purpose other than the 
B PDS Scheme (iv) The information obtained while issuing an 
Aadhar card shall not be used for any other purpose, except 
as may be directed by a Court for the purpose of criminal 
investigation. 
c 
D 
E 
F 
M.P Sharma & Ors. v. Satish Chandra & Ors. AIR 1954 
SC 300: 1954 SCR1077; Kharak Singh v. State ofU.P 
& Ors. AIR 1963 SC 1295: 1964 SCR 332; Gobind v. 
State of M.P & Anr. (1975) 2 sec 148: 1975 (3) 
SCR 946; R. Rajagopal & Another v. State of Tamil 
Nadu & Ors. (1994) 6 SCC 632 :1994 (4) Suppl. SCR 
353; People's Union for Civil Liberties (PUCL) v. Union 
of India & Anr. (1997) 1 SCC 301: 1996 (10) Suppl. 
SCR 321; Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India & Anr. 
(1978) 1SCC248: 1978 (2) SCR 621; A.K. Gopalan v. 
State of Madras AIR 1950 SC 27: 1950 SCR 88; 
Rustom Cavasjee Cooper v. Union of India (1970) 1 
SCC 248: 1970 (3) SCR 530 - referred to. 
1954 SCR 1077 
1964 SCR 332 
1975 (3) SCR 946 
Case Law Reference 
referred to. 
referred to. 
1994 (4) Suppl. SCR 353 
G 1996 (10) Suppl. SCR 321 
1978 (2) SCR 621 
referred to. 
referred to. 
referred to. 
referred to. 
referred to. 
referred to. 
Para 3 
Para 3 
Para4 
Para4 
Para 4 
Para 8 
Para 8 
Para 8 
1950 SCR 88 
1970 (3) SCR 530 
H 
JUSTICE K.S. PUTTASWAMY(RETD.) &ANOTHER v. 
101 
UNION OF INDIA & OTHERS 
CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION: Writ Petition (Civil) No. 
A 
494 of2012 
Under Article 32 of the Constitution of India 
WITH 
Transferred Case (Civil) Nos. 151 & 152 of 2013 
. Writ Petition (Civil) Nos. 829, 833 & 932 of2013 
and 37 & 220 of 2015 
Transfer Petition (Civil) Nos. 312 & 313 of2014 
and 921 of 2015 
Contempt Petition (Civil) No. 144 of 2014 in 
WP(C) 494 of 2012 
Contempt Petition (Civil) No. 470 of 2015 in 
WP(C) 494 of 2012 
B 
c 
Mukul Rohatgi, AG, Pinky Anand, ASG, A. Mariarputham, 
D 
Adv. Gen., Shyam Divan, Gopal Subramanium, Soli Sorabjee, 
Anil B. Diwan, A. K. Sanghi, MeenakshiArora, K. K. Venugopal, 
Jayant Bhushan, J. S. Attri, Ashok Desai, Sajjan Poovayya, 
Ajit Kumar Sinha, Suryanarayana Singh, Sr. AAG, Sanchar E 
Anand, Shiv Mangal Sharma, AAGs, Aaayush Agarwal, Ms. 
Prasanna S., Niharika, Pratap Venugopal, Gaurav Nair (for K. 
J. John & Co.), Aishwarya Bhati, TalhaAbdul Rahman, Prateek 
Chaddha, Ankur Kashyap, Kushag1a Pandey, Anusha 
Ramesh, Rudra Pratap, Saransh Kumar, Anirban Sen, Neha 
F 
Meena, Madhurima Ghosh, T. Gopal, Ankit Goel, Sanjay Kumar 
Yadav, Anish Kumar Gupta, Geetha K
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.