Supreme Court Rulings On Right To Privacy And Bodily Autonomy
1. Justice K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India (2017)
Facts:
This case challenged the constitutional validity of the Aadhaar scheme, which involved biometric data collection.
Issue:
Whether the right to privacy is a fundamental right under the Indian Constitution.
Judgment:
The Supreme Court unanimously declared the right to privacy as a fundamental right under Article 21 (Right to Life and Personal Liberty). The Court emphasized privacy as intrinsic to human dignity and autonomy.
Significance:
Landmark ruling that privacy is a core right, protecting individuals against state intrusion.
Laid the foundation for later rulings on bodily autonomy and informational privacy.
Set principles for reasonable restrictions on privacy.
2. Gian Kaur v. State of Punjab (1996)
Facts:
This case involved the legality of euthanasia and whether the right to life included the right to die.
Issue:
Does the right to life include the right to die with dignity, implying bodily autonomy?
Judgment:
The Court ruled that the right to life does not include the right to die, but it also recognized the need for humane treatment and dignity in life.
Significance:
Affirmed bodily autonomy is subject to legal limits.
Initiated debates on euthanasia and end-of-life rights.
Paved way for future discussions on autonomy over one’s body.
3. Justice K.S. Puttaswamy (2nd phase) – Right to Privacy in Sexual Orientation (2018)
Facts:
Following the Puttaswamy ruling, this case challenged Section 377 IPC criminalizing consensual same-sex relations.
Issue:
Whether Section 377 violates the right to privacy and bodily autonomy.
Judgment:
The Supreme Court decriminalized consensual same-sex acts, holding that sexual orientation is an essential aspect of privacy and dignity.
Significance:
Reinforced privacy includes autonomy over sexual choices.
Affirmed LGBTQ+ rights and personal freedom.
Emphasized bodily autonomy as a constitutional right.
4. Union of India v. Naz Foundation (2009)
Facts:
Before the decriminalization ruling, this PIL challenged Section 377 IPC.
Issue:
Whether criminalizing consensual same-sex relations violates fundamental rights.
Judgment:
The Delhi High Court read down Section 377, recognizing right to privacy and personal autonomy.
Significance:
Early judicial recognition of privacy in sexual autonomy.
Laid groundwork for later Supreme Court decriminalization.
Highlighted intersection of privacy and bodily autonomy.
5. Common Cause v. Union of India (2018)
Facts:
The case dealt with the right to die with dignity and advance medical directives.
Issue:
Whether individuals have a right to refuse medical treatment, including advance directives.
Judgment:
The Supreme Court recognized the right to refuse medical treatment and allowed advance directives (living wills), emphasizing bodily autonomy.
Significance:
Expanded bodily autonomy to medical decision-making.
Affirmed individual control over one’s body even in medical crises.
Strengthened the concept of dignity linked with autonomy.
Summary Table:
| Case Name | Key Principle | Impact on Privacy & Bodily Autonomy |
|---|---|---|
| Justice K.S. Puttaswamy (2017) | Privacy is a fundamental right | Privacy protects personal dignity and autonomy |
| Gian Kaur v. Punjab (1996) | Right to life excludes right to die | Bodily autonomy limited but dignity protected |
| K.S. Puttaswamy (2nd phase) (2018) | Sexual orientation part of privacy | Decriminalized consensual same-sex acts; affirmed sexual autonomy |
| Union of India v. Naz Foundation (2009) | Privacy in sexual autonomy | Groundwork for LGBTQ+ rights; privacy recognized in sexual choice |
| Common Cause v. Union of India (2018) | Right to refuse medical treatment | Affirmed bodily autonomy in medical decisions; advance directives |
RELATED Blog
0 comments