A new book on Indian laws demystifies the ‘right to privacy’ and examines how it has improved lives

A new book explores the evolution of the 'right to privacy' in Indian law, focusing on the landmark 2017 Supreme Court judgment in Justice KS Puttaswamy v Union of India. The ruling affirmed privacy as a fundamental right under Article 21 of the Constitution, emphasizing its role in protecting individual dignity and enabling the exercise of other freedoms. The judgment overturned the controversial ADM Jabalpur decision from 1975, which had suspended civil liberties during emergencies. The Puttaswamy verdict reshaped India's legal landscape, requiring the government to justify intrusions on privacy through proportionality. Its impact was evident in the subsequent 2018 Aadhaar case, where the court upheld the Aadhaar Act's constitutionality but removed provisions allowing private entities to demand Aadhaar numbers, reinforcing the principle that fundamental rights cannot be outsourced to corporations.

A new book explores Indian laws, focusing on the 'right to privacy' and its impact on everyday life. The work delves into the judicial interpretations that have shaped this fundamental right, highlighting key contributions from several esteemed justices. Justice Jasti Chelameswar distinguished between "freedom from intrusion" and "freedom of decision," asserting that a fundamental right does not necessarily require explicit mention in the Constitution. Justice SA Bobde emphasized that privacy is essential for exercising other rights, arguing that it belongs to the individual, not the state. Justice Manohar Sapre grounded the right to privacy in the Preamble's values of liberty and dignity, noting that these cannot exist without privacy. Justice RF Nariman revisited the history of fundamental rights, overturning the controversial ADM Jabalpur judgment, which had stood for four decades. Justice SK Kaul addressed the implications of digital technology, referencing "digital footprints" and the concept of the "right to be forgotten." He cautioned against the risks posed by profiling and big data. The nine judges reached a unanimous decision, affirming that the right to privacy is protected as an intrinsic part of the right to life and personal liberty under Article 21 and as a component of the freedoms outlined in Part III of the Constitution. This landmark ruling, known as the Puttaswamy verdict, clarified the legal status of privacy and redefined the framework of fundamental rights within the Indian Constitution. The judgment positioned individual dignity as a central principle, influencing societal norms around data governance, dignity, and democratic practices. The Puttaswamy verdict triggered significant reforms. One immediate outcome was the resolution of the case concerning the validity of Aadhaar, the biometric identification system. With privacy recognized as a fundamental right, a five-judge bench revisited the Aadhaar Act using the Puttaswamy principles. In 2018, the Supreme Court applied the "triple test" of legality, necessity, and proportionality, delivering a detailed verdict in the case of Justice KS Puttaswamy (Retd.) v Union of India. While upholding the constitutional validity of Aadhaar, the court invalidated its most invasive provisions. It allowed Aadhaar for welfare schemes and income tax purposes but prohibited its use for opening bank accounts, obtaining mobile SIMs, or school admissions. The court also struck down Section 57 of the Aadhaar Act, which permitted private entities to access Aadhaar data, reinforcing the principle that the state cannot delegate fundamental rights to private corporations. The impact of the privacy judgment extends to LGBTQ+ rights. Prior to the verdict, Section 377 of the Indian Penal Code criminalized consensual same-sex relationships, reflecting Victorian-era morality. This provision marginalized millions of LGBTQ+ individuals, treating their private lives as crimes against the state. The legal struggle began in 2009 when the Delhi High Court decriminalized same-sex acts in the Naz Foundation case. However, in 2013, the Supreme Court, in Suresh Kumar Koushal v. Naz Foundation, reversed this decision, reinstating Section 377.

Go to the primary sources (1)

The official sources this coverage is built on. Read them directly to bypass framing.

Source documentUPSC Essentials magazine for August 2026

2 reports

Scroll.inIndependentCenterFactual 85Objective 90Sep 7

A new book on Indian laws demystifies the ‘right to privacy’ and examines how it has improved lives

Bias read (Center): The article provides a balanced overview of the legal developments surrounding the right to privacy in India, quoting multiple justices and detailing the implications of the Supreme Court's rulings. There is no overt ideological framing or biased language; the focus is on the legal reasoning and its

Why factuality (85): The article accurately summarizes the content of the Puttaswamy judgment, citing multiple justices' perspectives and the unanimous conclusion. It reflects the cross-source consensus regarding the recognition of privacy as a fundamental right. However, it does not provide direct quotes from the origi

Why objectivity (90): The article presents the information in a neutral tone, summarizing the arguments of different justices without taking sides or expressing personal opinions. It maintains a balanced perspective throughout, focusing on the legal reasoning and societal impact.

The Indian ExpressIndependentCenterFactual 50Objective 60Sep 8

UPSC Prelims 2027 Polity Quiz (Week 179): MCQs on right to vote, enforcement of decrees and orders of the Supreme Court and more

The article discusses a multiple-choice question related to the enforcement of decrees and orders of the Supreme Court of India under Article 142 of the Constitution. It presents three statements regarding the enforceability of these decrees across India, the court's authority to secure attendance and evidence, and the role of Parliament or the President in prescribing enforcement methods. The explanation clarifies that statements 1 and 2 are correct, while statement 3 is incorrect because the enforcement method is determined by Parliament or the President, not the Chief Justice of India. The relevance of this topic for the UPSC Preliminary Examination is highlighted, as it relates to understanding the scope of judicial powers under the Indian Constitution.

Bias read (Center): The article focuses on constitutional law and the powers of the Supreme Court, which is a politically charged subject. However, the content is primarily educational, aimed at preparing candidates for the UPSC examination. It presents factual information about legal provisions without overtly favorit

Why factuality (50): This article appears to be an educational resource related to UPSC Preliminary exams, not a news report. It includes multiple-choice questions and explanations about legal concepts, but does not provide actual news content. There is no clear factual claim about an event, making it difficult to asses

Why objectivity (60): The tone is instructional and neutral, focusing on academic preparation. However, the inclusion of a 'story continues' link suggests potential bias towards promoting the publication's content. The overall framing is appropriate for an educational platform.

How each side covered it

The same event, grouped by the political lean of the outlets covering it.

How each side covered it

Support independent, bias-aware news and unlock the social pulse, community voting, and every other Supporter feature.

Become a Supporter

Covered around the world

The same event as reported in other countries.

Covered around the world

Support independent, bias-aware news and unlock the social pulse, community voting, and every other Supporter feature.

Become a Supporter

Claims check

Key factual claims, and how many sources assert vs dispute each.

Claims check

Support independent, bias-aware news and unlock the social pulse, community voting, and every other Supporter feature.

Become a Supporter

Keep the news honest.

ObjectiveNews is reader-funded and ad-free — we show you the bias instead of hiding it. Support independent journalism for €4/month.

Become a Supporter

A new book on Indian laws demystifies the ‘right to privacy’ and examines how it has improved lives

Go to the primary sources (1)

2 reports

How each side covered it

progressive

center

conservative

How each side covered it

Covered around the world

Covered around the world

Claims check

Claims check

Keep the news honest.

Related stories

Lula faces himself and history: the challenge of reinventing himself at 80

Activist Arun Ferreira's arrest illegal, give him Rs 2 lakh: Bombay HC

‘Logical discrepancy’ permitted in Bengal SIR as interim measure, legality yet to be decided: SC

This is the argument with which the previous government opposed in court to reduce the sentences of child sexual abusers

NCLT, NCLAT hijacked by corporate affairs ministry: Supreme Court

Why are Indians continuing to fall prey to digital arrest scams, asks CJI Kant