Page 1REPORTABLEIN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIACIVIL ORIGINAL
JURISDICTIONWRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO.494 OF 2012Justice K.S.
Puttaswamy (Retd.) & Another PetitionersVersusUnion of India
& Others ResondentsWITH!RA"S#$RR$% &AS$ (&I'I() "O.)*)
O# +,)-!RA"S#$RR$% &AS$ (&I'I() "O.)*+ O# +,)-.RI! P$!I!IO"
(&I'I() "O./+0 O# +,)-.RI! P$!I!IO" (&I'I() "O./-- O#
+,)-.RI! P$!I!IO" (&I'I()"O.0-+ O# +,)-!RA"S#$R P$!I!IO"
(&I'I() "O.-)+ O# +,)1!RA"S#$R P$!I!IO" (&I'I() "O.-)- O#
+,)1.RI! P$!I!IO" (&I'I()"O.-2 O# +,)*.RI! P$!I!IO" (&I'I()
"O.++, O# +,)*!RA"S#$R P$!I!IO" (&I'I() "O.0+) O#
+,)*&O"!$3P! P$!I!IO" (&I'I() "O.)11 O# +,)1 I" .P(&)
1014+,)+&O"!$3P! P$!I!IO" (&I'I() "O.12, O# +,)* I"
.P(&) 1014+,)+O R D E R). In this 5atch of matters6 a scheme
roounded 5y the7o8ernment of India ou9ar9y :nown as ;Aadhaar
&ard Scheme< isunder attac: on 8arious counts.#or the urose
of this order6 it is1Page 2not necessaryforusto=ointothedetai9sof
thenatureof thescheme and the 8arious counts on which the scheme is
attac:ed.Sufficeit tosaythat underthesaidschemethe7o8ernment
ofIndia is co99ectin= and comi9in= 5oth the demo=rahic and5iometric
data of the residents of this country to 5e used for 8ariousuroses6
the detai9s of which are not re9e8ant at resent.+. One of the
=rounds of attac: on the scheme is that the 8eryco99ection of such
5iometric data is 8io9ati8e of the ;ri=ht to ri8acyIII of the
&onstitution of India.-. .hen the matter was ta:en u for
hearin=6 Shri 3u:u9Rohat=i6 9earned Attorney 7enera9 made a
su5mission that in 8iewof the ?ud=ments of this &ourt in M.P.
Sharma & Others v. SatishChandra & Others6 AIR )0*1 S&
-,, and Kharak Singh v. Stateof U.P. & Others,AIR )0@- S&
)+0*6 (decided 5yEightand SixJud=es resecti8e9y) the 9e=a9 osition
re=ardin= the eAistence of thefundamenta9 ri=ht to ri8acy is
dou5tfu9. #urther6 the 9earned2Page 3Attorney 7enera9 a9so
su5mitted that in a catena of decisions of this&ourt rendered
su5seBuent9y6 this &ourt referred to ;ri=ht tori8acyJud=e 5ench
decision of this &ourt in ManekaGandhi v. Union of )ndia &
Another, ()02/) ) S&& +1/-.3/ara . .. 1t was in Kharak
Singh v. State of U.P., A12 193! 4- 109 that the ,uestion as to the
)ro)er sco)e an'#eanin( o% the e5)ression 6)ersonal li$ert*6 ca#e
u) )ointe'l* %or consi'eration %or the %irst ti#e $e%ore this
-ourt."he #ajorit* o% the &u'(es too7 the +iew 8that 6)ersonal
li$ert*6is use' in the article as a co#)en'ious ter# toinclu'e
within itsel% all the +arieties o% ri(hts which (o to #a7e u) the
6)ersonal li$erties6 o% #an other than those9'ealt with in the
se+eral clauses o% Article 19(1). 1n other wor's, while Article
19(1) 'eals with )articular s)ecies orattri$utes, o% that %ree'o#,
6)ersonal li$ert*6 in Article 01 ta7es in an' co#)rises the
resi'ue8. "he #inorit* ju'(es,howe+er, 'isa(ree' with this +iew
ta7en $* the #ajorit* an' e5)laine' their )osition in the %ollowin(
wor's. 8No'ou$t the e5)ression 6)ersonal li$ert*6 is a
co#)rehensi+e one an' the ri(ht to #o+e %reel* is an attri$ute o%
)ersonalli$ert*. 1t is sai' that the %ree'o# to #o+e %reel* is
car+e' out o% )ersonal li$ert* an', there%ore,the
e5)ression6)ersonal li$ert*6 inArticle 01 e5clu'es that attri$ute.
1n our +iew, this is not a correct a))roach. Botharein'e)en'ent
%un'a#ental ri(hts, thou(hthereiso+erla))in(.
"hereisno,uestiono%one$ein(car+e'out o%another."he%un'a#ental ri(ht
o%li%ean')ersonal
li$ert*has#an*attri$utesan'so#eo%the#are%oun'inArticle 19. 1% a
)erson6s %un'a#ental ri(ht un'er Article 01 is in%rin(e', the 4tate
can rel* u)on a law to sustain theaction, $ut that cannot $e a
co#)lete answer unless the sai' law satis%ies the test lai' 'own in
Article 19(0) so %ar asthe attri$utes co+ere' $* Article 19(1) are
concerne'8. "here can $e no 'ou$t that in +iew o% the 'ecision o%
this-ourt in R. C. Cooper v. Union of India, (197:) 0 4-- 09; the
#inorit* +iew #ust $e re(ar'e' as correct an' the#ajorit* +iew #ust
$e hel' to ha+e $een o+errule'. 6Page 7(iii) !hey further ar=ued
that 5othM.P. Sharma(supra)andKharak Singh (supra)came to 5e
decided on an interretation ofthe &onstitution 5ased on the
rinci9es eAounded inA.K.Goa!an v.State of Madras,AIR )0*, S&
+2. Such rinci9esroounded 5yA.K. Goa!anthemse98es came to 5e
dec9aredwron= 5y a 9ar=er Gench of this &ourt in R$stom
Cavasjee Cooerv.Union of )ndia6 ()02,) ) S&& +1/.
!herefore6 there is no needfor the instant 5atch of matters to 5e
heard 5y a 9ar=er Gench. 0. It is true that Gobind (supra) did not
ma:e a c9ear dec9arationthat there is a ri=ht to ri8acy f9owin=
from any of the fundamenta9ri=hts=uaranteedunderPart>III of
the&onstitutionof India6 5uto5ser8ed that ;!herefore6
e8enassumin=thattheri=httoersona9 9i5erty6 theri=ht to mo8e free9y
throu=hout the territory of India and the freedom of seech createan
indeendent ri=ht of ri8acy as an emanation fromthemwhich one
cancharacteriCe as a fundamenta9 ri=ht6 we do not thin: that the
ri=ht is a5so9ute
