Important Cases on Privacy and Data Protection: The Indian Case Law

Indian privacy law was denied, then rediscovered, then made fundamental: the early benches found no privacy right, the 1970s to 1990s read one quietly into Article 21, and in 2017 nine judges settled it with a proportionality test that now governs every data and surveillance question. Topics 87 and 95 state the law; this note, as asked, is the dedicated case digest.

1. The Case Line

From denial to fundamental right

Figure 1: From denial to fundamental right

📖 K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India (Privacy), (2017) 10 SCC 1

Facts: The question whether privacy is a fundamental right, raised in the Aadhaar litigation, was referred to a nine-judge bench to resolve the conflict between M.P. Sharma and Kharak Singh and the later line.

Held: Privacy is a fundamental right, intrinsic to life and personal liberty under Article 21 and running through Part III; M.P. Sharma and Kharak Singh are overruled to the contrary. Every invasion must satisfy legality, a legitimate State aim, and proportionality, and informational privacy is expressly recognised, with a data protection statute anticipated (Topic 87).

M.P. Sharma (1954) and Kharak Singh (1963). The early benches found no fundamental right to privacy in the Constitution, Kharak Singh striking only physical domiciliary visits while denying a general privacy right, the positions Puttaswamy would overrule.
Gobind v. State of M.P. (SC, 1975). Privacy assumed into Article 21 arguendo and subjected to a compelling State interest test: the quiet turn that began the rediscovery.
R. Rajagopal v. State of T.N. (SC, 1994). The Auto Shankar case: a right to be let alone protecting private life against unauthorised publication, subject to the exceptions of public records and public conduct, the civil-and-press dimension of privacy.
PUCL v. Union of India (SC, 1997). The telephone tapping case: interception invades privacy and free speech, so it demands procedural safeguards, authorisation, review and limits, later codified in the Interception Rules (Topics 70, 72)
K.S. Puttaswamy (Aadhaar) (SC, 2018). Aadhaar upheld with limits: the scheme survived proportionality for welfare delivery, but s.57 permitting private-party demands for Aadhaar was struck, and mandatory linking narrowed, the proportionality test applied in practice.
The DPDP Act and 2025 Rules. The legislature's answer to Puttaswamy's call: a statutory data protection regime, phased in from November 2025 (Topics 87, 116)

2. Quick Revision

One line per case

Figure 2: One line per case

⚠ Exam trap

Order the arc and name the overrulings: M.P. Sharma and Kharak Singh denied the right, Gobind and Rajagopal read it in, PUCL disciplined interception, and Puttaswamy (Privacy) in 2017 made it fundamental and overruled the early benches, laying down legality, legitimate aim and proportionality. Keep the two Puttaswamy decisions distinct, the 2017 nine-judge privacy reference against the 2018 five-judge Aadhaar judgment that struck s.57, and close by noting the DPDP Act as the statute the 2017 Court asked Parliament to pass.

3. Frequently Asked Questions

Which are the landmark cases on privacy in India?

K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India (2017), the nine-judge bench declaring privacy a fundamental right under Article 21 with legality, legitimate aim and proportionality as the test, overruling M.P. Sharma and Kharak Singh; R. Rajagopal v. State of Tamil Nadu, recognising a right to be let alone; PUCL v. Union of India, disciplining telephone interception; Gobind v. State of M.P., the early assumption of privacy into Article 21; and K.S. Puttaswamy (Aadhaar) (2018), upholding Aadhaar with limits and striking Section 57. The DPDP Act, 2023 is the statutory sequel.

4. Related Topics

Topic 87: Privacy and Data Protection. The doctrine these cases built.
Topic 70: Section 69 and privacy. Surveillance under the Puttaswamy test.