K. S. Puttaswamy

Last updated

Smt. Thayamma
​
(m. 1952)​
Hon'ble Mr. Justice
K. S. Puttaswamy
Judge, High Court of Karnataka
In office
28 November 1977 –31 August 1986
Children9
Alma mater Maharaja's College, Mysore
University Law College, Bangalore

Justice K. S. Puttaswamy (born 8 February 1926) is an Indian retired judge of the Karnataka High Court who was also the original petitioner, challenging the Government of India over making Aadhaar mandatory. [1] He had filed a writ petition in 2012 and over the last five years, 26 other petitions have been tagged along with his, challenging the scheme. [2]

Contents

Education

K.S. Puttaswamy studied at the Maharaja's College, Mysore and the Government Law College in Bangalore.

Career

He enrolled as an advocate in 1952. He was appointed judge [3] of the Karnataka High Court in November 1977. He was appointed as the first Vice-Chairman of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Bangalore Bench in September 1986. In November 1989, he was appointed as First Chairman of the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal constituted under the Uniform Administrative Tribunals Act. On 26 January 1994, Andhra Pradesh Chief Minister Kotla Vijayabhaskara Reddy constituted the Backward Classes Commission under the Chairmanship of Justice K. S. Puttaswamy. [4] [5]

Jurisprudence & Litigation

Income-Tax Act, 1961

In the case of B.S. Jayachandra vs Income-Tax Officer And Anr. on 24 March 1986, [6] the petitioner urged that section 2(14)(iii) of the Act dealing with income "arising from sale of lands used for agricultural purposes" is outside the legislative competence of the centre as the subject is exclusively assigned to states either under Entry No. 18 or 46 of List II, State List of the 7th Schedule to the Constitution. Justice Puttaswamy observed that there isn't a difference and distinction between agricultural lands in India as defined in section 2(14) or lands used for agricultural purposes. The income from the sale of such lands will not be revenue income but will be income from a capital asset and will naturally be capital gains chargeable to tax on that basis and no other. In other words, the user of lands for agriculture or other purpose cannot and does not make any difference to decide the nature of the gains made on the transfer of the capital asset. In rejecting the contention of the petitioner, Justice Puttaswamy opined that the Union Parliament was competent to define the terms "agricultural income", "agricultural land" and "capital asset" and thus bring to tax capital gains arising or accruing from agricultural lands situated within municipal limits and eight kilometres of notified municipal areas, which had ceased to be agricultural lands.

Central Excise and Salt Act, 1944

The Assistant Collector of Central Excise, IDO No. 23, Bangalore-1 issued [7] show cause notice No. C. No. V. 23A(17)18/75 to the petitioner, M/s Alembic Glass Industries Ltd., Baroda, a public limited company, proposing to withdraw or revoke the provisional approval accorded by the Superintendent of Central Excise, Bangalore, which allowed the cost of ‘cartons’ or ‘packing materials’ supplied by its buyers to be not includible in the assessable value of excisable goods manufactured and supplied to its wholesale purchasers. The petitioner contended that the packing material supplied by buyers is not includible in the assessable value of ‘glass and glassware’ manufactured and supplied to the wholesale buyers under the Act and therefore, the impugned notice is manifestly illegal. Counsel for the Central Government, appearing for the respondents contended that the Court should decline to interfere with the show cause notice on the ground that it is open to the petitioner to show cause, which the authority is bound to examine and decide and that the ultimate order to be made was appealable under the Act. Rejecting this objection by the respondent, Justice Puttaswamy observed that "this case for reasons that are not necessary to examine, has been pending before this Court for more than 9 years. If at this stage, this Court were to decline to interfere, though there is no dispute on facts, the final determination of the question that arises is likely to take another decade" and proceeded to examine the merits. Holding that ‘packing materials’ are supplied by the buyers only and that the same is neither manufactured nor purchased by the petitioner to supply its manufactured articles to the wholesale purchasers, Justice Puttaswamy dismissed the writ petition and quashed the impugned show cause notice issued by the Assistant Collector.

Central Sales Tax Act, 1956

M/s. Mac Charles Brothers (Private) Limited had undertaken the construction of a five star hotel on premises No. 28, Sankey Road, Bangalore City [8] and made an application before the Commercial Tax Officer "CTO", X Additional Circle, Bangalore under the Central Sales Tax "CST" Act of 1956 and the Central Sales Tax (Registration and Turnover) Rules, 1957 for registration in dealing with the articles detailed in an annexure to that application. On an examination of the same, the CTO issued a registration certificate on 23 January 1984, to be valid from 9 October 1983, for certain specified goods only and impliedly rejected the same for all other goods. In so far as the CTO rejected the said application, the petitioner approached the Court in Writ Petition No. 15158 of 1984 which was disposed of by the Court on 10 October 1984, with a direction to the CTO to redetermine the matter. In compliance of that order, the CTO heard the petitioner and made an order on 18 October 1984 accepting the case of the petitioner for "cold storage and refrigeration equipment" and rejecting the same for all other goods. The petitioner has challenged the order dated 18 October 1984, of the CTO to the extent it has rejected its application and has sought for a writ in the nature of mandamus to the CTO to include all goods specified in its application. In quashing the impugned order except to the extent of "building materials and stones" and issuing a writ in the nature of mandamus to the respondent to include all other items refused in that order in the certificate of registration already issued to the petitioner under the CST Act, Justice Puttaswamy noted "When I examine the claim made by the petitioner with reference to every one of the items for which it had registration, it is not possible to hold that they are not integrally connected with the ultimate production of goods. In this view, the rejection by the CTO was unjustified and illegal."

Right to Privacy, 2012

Retired Justice K.S. Puttaswamy turned litigant [9] for the first time in his legal career, spanning five decades, when he petitioned the Supreme Court against the linking of state benefits to the UID scheme saying that much money has been wasted on the ‘dangerous’ project. Arguing passionately that "It is a clear violation of citizens privacy and among various other reasons this program was rejected by the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Finance, but still the Government of India went ahead with it. How can this awfully wrong program roll out without a clear legislation?", Justice K.S. Puttaswamy filed the PIL for scrapping the Aadhar project in 2012. [10] On 24 August 2017, a nine judge bench of the Supreme Court of India in a remarkable and wide ranging 547-page judgment [11] ruled unanimously that privacy is a constitutionally protected right in India in the case of Puttaswamy v Union of India. With the Supreme Court declaring the Right to Privacy a fundamental right, Justice K.S. Puttaswamy said "I am completely vindicated [12] by the decision. My contention had always been that Aadhaar enrolment can be made voluntary, in which case I would not have petitioned". [13] [14] [15] [16] [17] [18] In February 2020, [19] the High Court of Kenya at Nairobi referred to the Indian Supreme Court judgment in Justice K.S. Puttaswamy (Retd.) and Another v. Union of India and Others to hold that biometric data is necessary for identification purposes and adopted the findings in Justice K.S. Puttaswamy (Retd.) on the necessity of different types of biometric data in identification. This became one of the landmark judgments in the history of India.

Views and opinions

Dams and Environment

Justice Puttaswamy felt that courts cannot and should not interfere with the construction of dams. He wrote "In my view, the one and only question, on which we should focus our attention is, that in the construction of dams in future, the principle of the "greatest good to the greatest number" which necessarily results in some hardship and inconvenience to a few cannot be avoided, must alone be the guide. [20] He advocated for the construction of smaller dams, rather than mighty ones, with lesser ecological effects and wrote that even this, is a matter for experts to decide, not for the courts. He suggested that before undertaking construction of any dam, there should be a complete, full and impartial investigation of all aspects. In the course of investigation, all the affected parties, the environmentalists and the general public must be involved and their views and objections duly considered by the experts and decided on merit and not on any collateral considerations. Once that is done, dams should be constructed, with speed and dispatch, avoiding all escalations in costs. Observing that courts cannot and should not interfere with the construction of dams, he said "With all due respects, the interference by our Supreme Court in the Narmada Dam matter is not legally sound and justified". He observed that the principle of "equitable apportionment", "protection of existing users" or "first in time, first in right" evolved in settlement of international rivers or inter-state river disputes, firmly established and applied, can neither be doubted nor given a go by based on a doctrinaire approach.

Interlinking of Rivers

Justice Puttaswamy wrote that he asked a leading Swiss expert on dams, Raymond Lafitte, when he was visiting New Delhi, what his view was on China’s Three Gorges Project. [21] Raymond Lafitte thought for a while and said that it was a most laudable venture because after just two decades it would take to build, commission and operate, 50 million people downstream would be able to cultivate their lands without flooding and be assured of regular releases. When Justice Puttaswamy questioned ‘what about the over one million people that have been deprived of their homes and have to be resettled elsewhere on account of this mega project?’, he replied ‘That is the price we must pay for future progress!’. In response, Justice Puttaswamy told the Swiss expert that "the Three Gorges Project – beneficial as it is in the long run – can never be a possibility in India, under a democracy based on individual rights and freedoms." Three Gorges project implementation had commenced in 1999 and the same may take another 10 years to complete. Justice Puttaswamy observed that what has been stated by the Swiss expert, applies equally to the Interlinking of Inter State Rivers in India. Justice Puttaswamy hoped to stimulate an intellectual discussion by intellectuals, experts and the public expressing their views, either for or against the same and forwarding them to the Secretary, Ministry of Water Resources for further action. He observed that this topic is of utmost importance and aspired to generate a useful discussion leading to a public demand for the implementation of interlinking of rivers which will benefit the people of India as a whole.

Related Research Articles

A writ of mandamus is a judicial remedy in the English and American common law system consisting of a court order that commands a government official or entity to perform an act it is legally required to perform as part of its official duties, or to refrain from performing an act the law forbids it from doing. Writs of mandamus are usually used in situations where a government official has failed to act as legally required or has taken a legally prohibited action. They cannot be issued to compel an authority to do something against the law. For example, it cannot be used to force a lower court to take a specific action on applications that have been made, but if the court refuses to rule one way or the other, then a mandamus can be used to order the court to rule on the applications.

The chief instrument through which judicial activism has flourished in India is public interest litigation (PIL) or social action litigation (SAL). It refers to litigation undertaken to secure public interest and demonstrates the availability of justice to socially-disadvantaged parties and was introduced by Justice P. N. Bhagwati and Justice V.R. Krishna Iyer. It is a relaxation on the traditional rule of locus standi. Before 1980s the judiciary and the Supreme Court of India entertained litigation only from parties affected directly or indirectly by the defendant. It heard and decided cases only under its original and appellate jurisdictions. However, the Supreme Court began permitting cases on the grounds of public interest litigation, which means that even people who are not directly involved in the case may bring matters of public interest to the court. It is the court's privilege to entertain the application for the PIL.

Section 377 is a British colonial penal code that criminalized all sexual acts "against the order of nature". The law was used to prosecute people engaging in oral and anal sex along with homosexual activity. As per Supreme Court Judgement since 2018, the Indian Penal Code Section 377 is used to convict non-consensual sexual activities among homosexuals with a minimum of ten years imprisonment extended to life imprisonment. It has been used to criminalize third gender people, such as the apwint in Myanmar. In 2018, then British Prime Minister Theresa May acknowledged how the legacies of such British colonial anti-sodomy laws continues to persist today in the form of discrimination, violence, and even death.

The Fundamental Rights in India enshrined in part III of the Constitution of India guarantee civil liberties such that all Indians can lead their lives in peace and harmony as citizens of India. These rights are known as "fundamental" as they are the most essential for all-round development i.e., material, intellectual, moral and spiritual and protected by fundamental law of the land i.e. constitution. If the rights provided by Constitution especially the Fundamental rights are violated the Supreme Court and the High Courts can issue writs under Articles 32 and 226 of the Constitution, respectively, directing the State Machinery for enforcement of the fundamental rights.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Dhananjaya Y. Chandrachud</span> Chief Justice of India

Dhananjaya Yeshwant Chandrachud is an Indian jurist, who is the 50th and current chief justice of India serving since November 2022. He was appointed a judge of the Supreme Court of India in May 2016. He has also previously served as the chief justice of the Allahabad High Court from 2013 to 2016 and as a judge of the Bombay High Court from 2000 to 2013. He is also a former executive chairperson (ex officio) of the National Legal Services Authority.

<i>M. C. Mehta v. Union of India</i> Shriram Gas Leak Case of 1987

M.C. Mehta v. Union of India originated in the aftermath of oleum gas leak from Shriram Food and Fertilisers Ltd. complex at Delhi. This gas leak occurred soon after the infamous Bhopal gas leak and created a lot of panic in Delhi. One person died in the incident and a few were hospitalized. The case lays down the principle of absolute liability and the concept of deep pockets.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Aadhaar</span> Indian national identification number

Aadhaar is a 12-digit unique identity number that can be obtained voluntarily by all residents of India, based on their biometrics and demographic data. The data is collected by the Unique Identification Authority of India (UIDAI), a statutory authority established in January 2009 by the Government of India, under the jurisdiction of the Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology, following the provisions of the Aadhaar Act, 2016.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Jagdish Singh Khehar</span> 44th Chief Justice of India

Jagdish Singh Khehar is a former senior advocate and a former judge, who served as the 44th Chief Justice of India in 2017. Khehar is the first chief justice from the Sikh community. He has been a judge in Supreme Court of India from 13 September 2011 to 27 August 2017 upon superannuation. He served for a brief period but gave many landmark judgements such as the Triple Talaq and the Right to Privacy verdict. He was succeeded by Justice Dipak Misra.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Dipak Misra</span> 45th Chief Justice of India

Dipak Misra is an Indian jurist who served as the 45th Chief Justice of India from 28 August 2017 till 2 October 2018. He is also former Chief Justice of the Patna High Court and Delhi High Court. He is the nephew of Justice Ranganath Misra, who was the 21st Chief Justice from 1990 to 1991.

Sudhansu Jyoti Mukhopadhaya is a former justice of the Supreme Court of India. He was also chair of the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal from 1 June 2016 to 14 March 2020. He previously served as Chief Justice of Gujarat High Court and also served as acting Chief Justice at the Jharkhand High Court and the Madras High Court.

In Re Electronic Privacy Information Center, 134 S.Ct. 638 (2013), was a direct petition to the Supreme Court of the United States regarding the National Security Agency's (NSA) telephony metadata collection program. On July 8, 2013, the Electronic Privacy Information Center (EPIC) filed a petition for a writ of mandamus and prohibition, or a writ of certiorari, to vacate an order of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISC) in which the court compelled Verizon to produce telephony metadata records from all of its subscribers' calls and deliver those records to the NSA. On November 18, 2013, the Supreme Court denied EPIC's petition.

In India, Special Leave Petitions (SLP) holds a prime place in the Judiciary of India, and has been provided as a residual power in the hands of Supreme Court of India to be exercised only in cases when any substantial question of law is involved, or gross injustice has been done. It provides the aggrieved party a special permission to be heard in apex court in appeal against any judgment or order of any court/tribunal in the territory of India, except military tribunal and court martial.

<i>National Legal Services Authority v. Union of India</i> Indian LGBT Rights Case Law

National Legal Services Authority v. Union of India(2014) is a landmark judgement of the Supreme Court of India, which declared transgender people the 'third gender', affirmed that the fundamental rights granted under the Constitution of India will be equally applicable to them, and gave them the right to self-identification of their gender as male, female or third gender.

<i>Olga Tellis and ors v. Bombay Municipal Corporation and ors</i>

Olga Tellis v. Bombay Municipal Corporation was a 1985 case in the Supreme Court of India. It came before the Court as a written petition by pavement and slum dwellers in Bombay, seeking to be allowed to stay on the pavements against their order of eviction during the monsoon months by the Bombay Municipal Corporation.

<i>Right to Privacy verdict</i> Indian Fundamental Rights Case Law

Justice K.S. Puttaswamy (Retd.) &Anr. vs. Union of India &Ors. (2017), also known as the Right to Privacy verdict, is a landmark decision of the Supreme Court of India, which holds that the right to privacy is protected as a fundamental right under Articles 14, 19 and 21 of the Constitution of India. The original petitioner Justice K.S. Puttaswamy was former judge of the Karnataka High Court

<i>Navtej Singh Johar v. Union of India</i> Indian LGBT Rights Case Law

Navtej Singh Johar &Ors. v. Union of India thr. Secretary Ministry of Law and Justice (2018) is a landmark decision of the Supreme Court of India that decriminalised all consensual sex among adults, including homosexual sex.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Ajay Kumar Tripathi</span> Indian judge (1957–2020)

Justice Ajay Kumar Tripathi was an Indian judge and former Judicial Member of the Lokpal of India starting 23 March 2019. He was also the Chief Justice of Chhattisgarh High Court.

Franchise Tax Board of California v. Hyatt, 587 U.S. 230 (2019), was a United States Supreme Court case that determined that unless they consent, states have sovereign immunity from private suits filed against them in the courts of another state. The 5–4 decision overturned precedent set in a 1979 Supreme Court case, Nevada v. Hall. This was the third time that the litigants had presented their case to the Court, as the Court had already ruled on the issue in 2003 and 2016.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Rahul Kamerkar</span> Indian lawyer and author (born 1990)

Rahul Kamerkar is an Indian lawyer and author.

<i>Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India</i> Court case of India

Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India, AIR 1978 SC 597, was a landmark decision of the Supreme Court of India in which the Court significantly expanded the interpretation of Article 21 of the Constitution of India. It overruled A. K. Gopalan v. State of Madras, which had implied the exclusiveness of fundamental rights, and established a relationship between Articles 14, 19, and 21 of the Constitution, holding that a law depriving a person of 'personal liberty' must not violate any of them. Once again overruling A. K. Gopalan, the Court in this case held that a 'procedure' under Article 21 of the Constitution cannot be arbitrary, unfair, oppressive, or unreasonable.

References

  1. ↑ "Former Hon'ble Judges of High Court of Karnataka". High Court of Karnataka. karnatakajudiciary.kar.nic.in. Retrieved 20 April 2013.
  2. ↑ K. S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India( Supreme Court of India 2013), Text .
  3. ↑ "Hon'ble Mr. Justice K.S. Puttaswamy" (jpg). karnatakajudiciary.kar.nic.in.
  4. ↑ "Puttaswamy's exit from BC panel leads to piquant situation". The Hindu . 2 March 2003. Archived from the original on 6 February 2018.
  5. ↑ "Lessons from a survey". www.frontline.in.
  6. ↑ "B.S. Jayachandra vs Income-Tax Officer And Anr". indiankanoon.org.
  7. ↑ "Alembic Glass Industries Limited vs Union Of India And Ors. on 23 January 1985". indiankanoon.org.
  8. ↑ "Mac Charles Brothers (Private) vs The Commercial Tax Officer on 4 December 1984". indiankanoon.org.
  9. ↑ Kurup, Deepa (30 September 2013). "Aadhaar infringes on our fundamental right to privacy". The Hindu. Retrieved 5 November 2018.
  10. ↑ Badrinath, Raghuvir (24 September 2013). "The man who intends to stop Aadhar in its tracks". Business Standard India. www.business-standard.com.
  11. ↑ "In the Supreme Court of India Civil Original Jurisdiction Writ Petition (Civil) No. 494 of 2012 Justice K S Puttaswamy (Retd.), and Anr. Versus Union of India and Ors" (PDF). supremecourtofindia.nic.in.
  12. ↑ "KS Puttaswamy, original petitioner in right to privacy case, hails SC verdict". www.hindustantimes.com. 25 August 2017.
  13. ↑ "Case Law, India: Puttaswamy v Union of India, Supreme Court recognises a constitutional right to privacy in a landmark judgment – Hugh Tomlinson QC". inforrm.org. 4 September 2017.
  14. ↑ "Meet KS Puttaswamy, the 92-Year Old Retired Judge, Who Fired the First Shot in the Right to Privacy Case". www.news18.com. 24 August 2017.
  15. ↑ "Right to Privacy: 91-year-old retd Justice KS Puttaswamy is the face behind legal history". indianexpress.com. 25 August 2017.
  16. ↑ "Why I want to give this man a hug". www.rediff.com.
  17. ↑ "The Man Behind Our Right to Privacy". www.youtube.com.
  18. ↑ "Chit Chat With K.S Puttaswamy, Retired Judge, First Petitioner In The Privacy Case | ಸುದ್ದಿ ಟಿವಿ". www.youtube.com.
  19. ↑ "Compliance With Data Protection Norms Necessary For Proceeding With National Biometric ID Project : Kenya High Court".
  20. ↑ Need to Avoid Doctrinaire Approach, Freedom First, No. 433, April–June 1997 http://freedomfirst.in/uploads/issues/pdf/433.pdf
  21. ↑ Interlinking of Rivers in India, Freedom First, No. 563, May 2014, http://freedomfirst.in/uploads/issues/pdf/563.pdf
This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.