Supreme Court Rulings On Privacy Rights And Biometric Data
📌 Supreme Court Rulings on Privacy Rights and Biometric Data
With Detailed Explanation and Case Law
The Indian judiciary, especially the Supreme Court, has gradually expanded the ambit of Article 21 (Right to Life and Personal Liberty) to include informational privacy, which covers biometric data collected through programs like Aadhaar, facial recognition, and other digital surveillance systems.
✅ 1. Justice K.S. Puttaswamy (Retd.) v. Union of India (2017) 10 SCC 1
(Right to Privacy – 9-Judge Constitution Bench)
Facts:
A PIL was filed challenging the constitutional validity of Aadhaar on the grounds that it violates the right to privacy due to mandatory collection of biometric data.
Key Ruling:
The Supreme Court unanimously held that the right to privacy is a fundamental right, protected under Article 21.
Recognized informational privacy as an essential aspect of individual autonomy.
Held that any invasion of privacy (including biometric data collection) must satisfy:
Legality (backed by law),
Necessity (for legitimate state interest),
Proportionality (least restrictive means).
Impact:
Laid the constitutional foundation for challenging arbitrary collection and storage of biometric data.
Imposed limits on state surveillance and misuse of biometric identifiers.
✅ 2. Justice K.S. Puttaswamy (Retd.) v. Union of India (2018) 1 SCC 809
(Aadhaar Judgment – 5-Judge Constitution Bench)
Facts:
Follow-up case focusing specifically on the constitutional validity of the Aadhaar scheme under the Aadhaar Act, 2016.
Key Rulings:
Aadhaar is constitutionally valid, but its use must be limited:
Mandatory Aadhaar for welfare schemes is valid, but
Not required for private services like telecom, banking, schools, etc.
The Court upheld biometric data collection under Aadhaar, provided robust safeguards are in place.
Prohibited private companies from accessing Aadhaar data.
Directed that biometric information must not be stored indefinitely and should not be used for surveillance.
Significance:
Limited the scope of Aadhaar to protect privacy.
Recognized that biometric data is sensitive personal information.
Imposed data minimization and purpose limitation principles.
✅ 3. Ritesh Sinha v. State of Uttar Pradesh (2019) 8 SCC 1
Facts:
Concerned the legality of compelling an accused to provide biometric data (voice sample) during investigation without specific legislative backing.
Supreme Court Ruling:
Held that compelling an individual to give biometric samples (like voice) for investigation is not necessarily a violation of privacy if done under proper legal procedure.
Urged Parliament to create specific legislation for collection and use of biometric data in criminal investigations.
Relevance:
Highlighted the gap in legal frameworks governing biometric data collection.
Emphasized the need for statutory safeguards to prevent abuse in criminal law contexts.
✅ 4. Anuradha Bhasin v. Union of India (2020) 3 SCC 637
Facts:
Concerned the internet shutdown in Jammu & Kashmir and its impact on freedom of expression and privacy.
Supreme Court Ruling:
Recognized that digital infrastructure and data access are essential for exercising constitutional rights.
Emphasized that any restriction on access to digital services must meet the test of proportionality.
Connection to Biometrics:
The judgment indirectly impacts biometric systems linked to digital identity verification, recognizing that access to such systems is integral to exercising fundamental rights.
Importance:
Strengthens the argument that restrictions on biometric-based services (e.g., Aadhaar-linked authentication) must be constitutionally justified.
✅ 5. K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India – DNA Profiling Context
(Part of the broader Aadhaar and privacy discourse)
Issue:
The Supreme Court cautioned against unregulated collection of DNA and biometric data.
Raised concerns about potential misuse of biometric identifiers for surveillance or discrimination without adequate oversight.
Observations:
Any DNA profiling or biometric database must have a legal framework.
Emphasized informed consent, data protection, and independent oversight.
✅ 6. Binoy Viswam v. Union of India (2017) 7 SCC 59
(Aadhaar-PAN Linkage Case)
Facts:
Challenge to mandatory linking of Aadhaar with PAN under Income Tax Act.
Ruling:
Upheld Aadhaar-PAN linking as constitutionally valid.
But the Court emphasized that privacy concerns must be addressed through data protection safeguards.
Reiterated that biometric data cannot be used beyond the specified purpose.
Relevance:
Reinforced the principle of purpose limitation in using biometric data.
✅ 7. Karmanya Singh Sareen v. Union of India (Pending before Supreme Court)
Facts:
Concerns the privacy policy of WhatsApp and sharing of user metadata, including potential biometric data.
Key Legal Issues:
Whether private platforms can collect or share biometric-related information without violating privacy rights.
The case remains significant for defining privacy boundaries in non-state (private) biometric data usage.
Anticipated Importance:
Likely to lay down rules for biometric data sharing by private tech platforms, especially in light of digital consent and profiling.
📌 Key Legal Principles from These Judgments
| Legal Principle | Explanation | Case Reference |
|---|---|---|
| Right to Privacy is Fundamental | Protected under Article 21; includes biometric/informational privacy. | Puttaswamy (2017) |
| Biometric Data Needs Safeguards | Collection/storage must meet proportionality, legality, purpose limitation. | Aadhaar Case (2018) |
| State Surveillance Requires Justification | Government cannot mandate biometric use without clear law and necessity. | Puttaswamy, Binoy Viswam |
| No Arbitrary Use by Private Entities | Private companies cannot compel Aadhaar or collect biometric data. | Aadhaar Case (2018) |
| Digital Access Is a Right-Linked Infrastructure | Biometric systems used to access rights must remain operational and fair. | Anuradha Bhasin |
📍 Conclusion
The Supreme Court of India has strongly upheld individual privacy, particularly in the context of biometric data collection and use. While recognizing the importance of digital identity systems like Aadhaar, the Court has emphasized that privacy cannot be sacrificed for convenience. Any collection or use of biometric data must be backed by law, necessary for a legitimate aim, and proportionate to that aim.
These judgments collectively shape India's data protection jurisprudence and serve as the constitutional foundation for future laws like the Digital Personal Data Protection Act and other tech regulations.
RELATED Blog
0 comments