Translate
Text Highlighter

Bookmark

PDF

Share

Report a problem
AMICUS AI
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Case Number
Disposition

dismissed

Judges
  • S.A Bobde
  • Dr D.Y Chandrachud
  • S. Abdul Nazeer, JJ.
Are you a practicing lawyer?
Enhance your digital presence and reach by creating a Casemine profile.
Upload pleading to use the new AI search
Click here to upload
Cites
Cited by
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Case Number
Disposition

dismissed

Judges
  • S.A Bobde
  • Dr D.Y Chandrachud
  • S. Abdul Nazeer, JJ.
See more information ...
Smart Summary

Factual and Procedural Background

During the hearing of a batch of matters, the Supreme Court observed that it was necessary to determine whether the Indian Constitution guarantees a fundamental right to privacy. Resolving this question would require examining the continued validity of two earlier Constitution Bench judgments—M.P. Sharma v. Satish Chandra (1954, eight Judges) and Kharak Singh v. State of U.P. (1963, six Judges)—which had concluded that no such right exists. Given the significance of the constitutional issue, the present Bench decided to refer the question to a nine-Judge Constitution Bench for authoritative determination.

Legal Issues Presented

  1. Whether the Indian Constitution recognises a fundamental right to privacy.
  2. Whether the holdings in M.P. Sharma v. Satish Chandra (1954) and Kharak Singh v. State of U.P. (1963) correctly state the constitutional position regarding such a right.

Arguments of the Parties

The opinion does not contain a detailed account of the parties' legal arguments.

Table of Precedents Cited

Precedent Rule or Principle Cited For Application by the Court
M.P. Sharma v. Satish Chandra, 1954 SCR 1077, AIR 1954 SC 300 Held that the Constitution does not confer a fundamental right to privacy. Cited as an eight-Judge precedent whose correctness must be re-examined by a larger Bench.
Kharak Singh v. State of U.P., (1964) 1 SCR 332, AIR 1963 SC 1295 Also held that no fundamental right to privacy exists. Identified as a six-Judge precedent that must be reconsidered alongside M.P. Sharma.

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The Court recognised that any determination on the right to privacy must account for precedent set by Constitution Benches of higher or equal strength. Because M.P. Sharma (eight Judges) and Kharak Singh (six Judges) remain binding authorities, a smaller Bench could neither overrule nor modify them. To resolve the constitutional question definitively, the Court therefore ordered that the matters be placed before a nine-Judge Constitution Bench. In the interim, counsel were granted liberty to file written briefs.

Holding and Implications

REFERRED TO A NINE-JUDGE CONSTITUTION BENCH

The matters are to be listed on 19 July 2017 before a Bench of nine Judges, with parties permitted to submit written briefs in the meantime. The order has an immediate procedural effect—setting the stage for a seminal ruling on the existence of a fundamental right to privacy—but does not itself establish new substantive precedent.

Show full summary ...

    Justice K.S Puttaswamy (Retd) And Another v. Union Of India And Others

    Order

    1. During the course of the hearing today, it seems that it has become essential for us to determine whether there is any fundamental right of privacy under the Indian Constitution. The determination of this question would essentially entail whether the decision recorded by this Court in M.P Sharma v. Satish Chandra 1954 SCR 1077, AIR 1954 SC 300, 1954 Cri LJ 865 by an eight-Judge Constitution Bench, and also, in Kharak Singh v. State of U.P (1964) 1 SCR 332, AIR 1963 SC 1295, (1963) 2 Cri LJ 329 by a six-Judge Constitution Bench, that there is no such fundamental right, is the correct expression of the constitutional position.

    2. Before dealing with the matter any further, we are of the view that the issue noticed hereinabove deserves to be placed before the nine-Judge Constitution Bench. List these matters before the nine-Judge Constitution Bench on 19-7-2017.

    3. Liberty is granted to the learned counsel appearing for the rival parties to submit their written briefs in the meantime.

    Use AI to get other relevant cases.
    Try AI Pro free for 7 days Upgrade to AI Pro

    Comments

    Justice K.S Puttaswamy (Retd) And Another v. Union Of India And Others
    (Jul 18, 2017)