Right to privacy is an intrinsic part of the right to life. Comment. (2017, 10 Marks)
Samuel D. Warren and Louis D. Brandeis defined privacy in 1890 as the right to be let alone. The statement echoes K. S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India (24 August 2017), where nine judges held unanimously that privacy is intrinsic to life and personal liberty under Article 21 and to the freedoms of Part III. It is intrinsic, not absolute.
From Denial to Recognition
- M. P. Sharma (1954) and Kharak Singh (1962) denied a constitutional privacy right; K. Subba Rao‘s dissent in Kharak Singh anticipated the later law.
- Govind v. State of Madhya Pradesh (1975) accepted a limited privacy right yielding to a compelling state interest; PUCL v. Union of India (1997) protected telephone conversations and laid down safeguards for tapping.
- Puttaswamy overruled the earlier denials and identified bodily, informational and decisional privacy. It rejected the view that privacy is an elitist concern.
Why It Is Intrinsic
- Dignity and autonomy: D. Y. Chandrachud called privacy the constitutional core of human dignity. Without a protected inner sphere John Stuart Mill‘s self-regarding liberty is empty; hence Navtej Singh Johar (2018) on sexual orientation and Joseph Shine (2018) on adultery.
- The digital age: as globalisation and individualism grow and identification becomes impersonal, data becomes the person. Exposure threatens economic security, personal life and even physical safety.
Limits
- Proportionality: an intrusion needs a law, a legitimate aim and proportionate means, meaning the least restrictive effective measure; Sanjay Kishan Kaul added procedural safeguards against abuse.
- The Aadhaar judgment (26 September 2018, 4:1) upheld the scheme for welfare but struck down private use under Section 57; Chandrachud dissented.
- Security is a real claim: encrypted channels serve terror networks and lone-wolf attackers, so privacy must be regulated, not absolutised.
The Gap in Practice
- The Digital Personal Data Protection Act, 2023, with Rules notified in November 2025 and phased in, lets the Union exempt state agencies, keeps the Data Protection Board close to the executive, and narrows the RTI Act’s personal-information clause.
- Surveillance: the committee overseen by R. V. Raveendran (2021) found malware on 5 of 29 phones but no conclusive trace of Pegasus, and recorded that the Union did not cooperate. In April 2025 the Court said owning spyware is not wrong in itself; the question is against whom it is used. Interception still lacks prior judicial authorisation.
Conclusion
The statement is correct doctrine since 2017: life under Article 21 means a life of dignity, which is impossible without privacy. Yet until surveillance faces independent oversight and data law binds the state as firmly as private firms, the right remains more robust in doctrine than in practice.