Examine the scope of Fundamental Rights in the light of the latest judgement of the Supreme Court on Right to Privacy.
Approach · directive: “examine”
What it asks · Explain how the nine-judge Puttaswamy judgement (2017) widened Part III by treating privacy as a fundamental right, what it covers and limits, and its effects on other rights and laws.
The question has 2 parts — answer each
- Explain what the Puttaswamy judgement (2017) held on the right to privacy and why
- Examine how it widens the scope of Fundamental Rights: what privacy covers, its limits, and its effect on other rights and laws
Open with · In Justice K.S. Puttaswamy (Retd.) v. Union of India (24 August 2017), a nine-judge Bench unanimously held that the right to privacy is a fundamental right.
Cover
- Source of the right: privacy is intrinsic to life and personal liberty under Article 21 and part of the freedoms guaranteed by Part III, including Articles 14 and 19.
- Overruling: it overruled M.P. Sharma (1954) and Kharak Singh (1962) to the extent they denied a right to privacy, and confirmed the wide reading of Article 21 developed since Maneka Gandhi (1978).
- Aspects covered: bodily integrity, personal autonomy and decisions on family, marriage and food, and informational privacy in a digital age.
- Limits: privacy is not absolute; any restriction must have a law, a legitimate State aim and proportionality between aim and means.
- Scope of Part III: the judgement treats Articles 14, 19 and 21 as interlinked and rights as evolving with new conditions rather than fixed to the original text.
- Impact: it strengthens challenges to surveillance, data collection and Aadhaar-linked requirements; an expert committee under Justice B.N. Srikrishna, constituted on 31 July 2017 (before the judgement), went on to draft a data protection bill.
- Balance: welfare delivery, national security and prevention of crime must be reconciled with privacy through law and safeguards.
Close with · The judgement deepens Part III by placing dignity and autonomy at its centre, and obliges the State to justify every intrusion by law and proportionality.
Question: UPSC's CS (Main) 2017, GS Paper II — paper ↗. Approach: Minimalist IAS, checked 30 Sept 2026 (how we verify) — UPSC publishes no model answers. ·
Model answer · 304 words (UPSC limit 250) · Minimalist IAS
In Justice K.S. Puttaswamy (Retd.) v. Union of India (24 August 2017), a nine-judge Bench unanimously held that the right to privacy is a fundamental right, settling a question left open since the 1950s.
What the Court held
- Privacy is intrinsic to life and personal liberty under Article 21 and runs through the other freedoms of Part III, including Articles 14 and 19.
- M.P. Sharma (1954) and Kharak Singh (1962) were overruled to the extent that they denied a right to privacy; the expansive reading of Article 21 since Maneka Gandhi (1978) was confirmed.
- Privacy is not absolute: a restriction must rest on a law, serve a legitimate State aim and be proportionate to that aim.
How it widens the scope of Fundamental Rights
- Content: the right covers bodily integrity, personal autonomy in decisions on family, marriage and food, and informational privacy in a digital age.
- Method: Articles 14, 19 and 21 are read together, and rights are treated as living guarantees that grow with new conditions rather than a fixed list from 1950.
- Dignity at the centre: privacy flows from dignity, which lets courts protect choices the text never named.
- Discipline on the State: every intrusion, from surveillance to data collection and Aadhaar-linked requirements, must now pass the threefold test of legality, legitimate aim and proportionality.
- Effect on law-making: a committee under Justice B.N. Srikrishna, constituted on 31 July 2017, went on to draft a data protection bill, giving the new right a statutory frame.
- Balance retained: welfare delivery, national security and prevention of crime remain legitimate aims, to be reconciled with privacy through law and safeguards.
Puttaswamy places autonomy and dignity at the core of Part III and reverses the burden: the citizen no longer has to prove that a right exists, the State has to prove that its intrusion is justified.
Written by Minimalist IAS from facts checked at source (how we verify) — a little fuller than exam length, so every part of the question is covered; in the hall, keep the structure and trim the detail. UPSC publishes no model answers: compare your structure and coverage with this, then write your own.