Parties and roles: Justice K.S. Puttaswamy (Retd.) is the petitioner who initiated or carried the matter to the Supreme Court. Union of India & Ors. — Privacy and Aadhaar is the respondent opposing the relief or defending the challenged action, decision, law or proceeding. The labels “plaintiff” and “defendant” are generally not used here because this is a constitutional writ proceeding. Aadhaar sought to establish identity through a centralized database containing demographic and biometric information. Retired Justice K.S. Puttaswamy argued that compulsory collection and use of such data threatened privacy and lacked adequate legal safeguards. Before testing Aadhaar, the Court had to resolve older decisions suggesting privacy was not a fundamental right. The 2017 ruling established the constitutional foundation; the 2018 ruling then tested the Aadhaar Act for legality, legitimate aim and proportionality. Procedural and real-world context: 2009-2010: UIDAI and Aadhaar project launched. | 2012: Puttaswamy challenged Aadhaar. In simple terms, the Court had to resolve is privacy a fundamental right and what is its scope? What test governs State intrusion? Does Aadhaar violate privacy, equality or dignity through collection, authentication or exclusion? Was the Aadhaar Act validly enacted as a Money Bill? The outcome mattered immediately because 2017: A unanimous nine-judge bench held privacy fundamental, rooted in liberty, dignity and freedoms; M.P. Sharma and Kharak Singh were overruled to the contrary extent. Procedural setting: 2009-2010: UIDAI and Aadhaar project launched. | 2012: Puttaswamy challenged Aadhaar. | 2015: Privacy question referred to larger bench. | 24 Aug 2017: Nine judges unanimously recognized privacy as fundamental. | 26 Sep 2018: Five judges decided Aadhaar challenge 4:1. The central problem before the Court was is privacy a fundamental right and what is its scope? What test governs State intrusion? Does Aadhaar violate privacy, equality or dignity through collection, authentication or exclusion? Was the Aadhaar Act validly enacted as a Money Bill? The controversy was considered in the framework of Aadhaar Act, 2016, especially ss.7, 29, 33, 47, 57; Finance Act provisions; Telegraph and money-laundering rules, together with Constitution arts.14, 19, 21, 32, 110 and 122. The wider importance of the case lies in privacy; dignity; autonomy; informational self-determination; legality-necessity-proportionality; data minimization; constitutional review.

Privacy case—Petitioners: privacy is intrinsic to dignity, autonomy and Articles 14, 19 and 21; old contrary rulings were obsolete. Union: privacy was not expressly enumerated and must yield to governance and welfare needs. | Aadhaar case—Petitioners: architecture enabled surveillance, exclusion and insecure data collection; the Act was wrongly passed as a Money Bill. Union: Aadhaar reduced welfare leakage, used minimal authentication and had safeguards. Competing positions in context: Justice K.S. Puttaswamy (Retd.)'s position: as the petitioner, Justice K.S. Puttaswamy (Retd.) sought the relief indicated by the questions of law and challenged the opposing action or interpretation. The claim was that the Court should apply the governing provisions consistently with Privacy; dignity; autonomy; informational self-determination; legality-necessity-proportionality; data minimization; constitutional review. Union of India & Ors. — Privacy and Aadhaar's position: as respondent, Union of India & Ors. — Privacy and Aadhaar resisted that relief, defended the impugned measure or decision, or proposed a narrower interpretation of the Court's power and the applicable law. The Court therefore had to test these submissions against Aadhaar Act, 2016, especially ss.7, 29, 33, 47, 57; Finance Act provisions; Telegraph and money-laundering rules and Constitution arts.14, 19, 21, 32, 110 and 122, the record of the proceedings and binding precedent. This summary states the principal controversy in accessible language; the official judgment remains authoritative for counsel-specific submissions and paragraph references.

2017: A unanimous nine-judge bench held privacy fundamental, rooted in liberty, dignity and freedoms; M.P. Sharma and Kharak Singh were overruled to the contrary extent. Intrusion requires law, legitimate aim, proportionality and safeguards. | 2018: By 4:1, the Aadhaar Act was substantially upheld for welfare and tax use, but private mandatory use under Section 57, mandatory linkage to bank/mobile services and certain data-retention/disclosure provisions were invalidated or read down. Chandrachud J. dissented and would have invalidated the Act, including its Money Bill passage. Effect of the decision: the ruling explains or applies Privacy; dignity; autonomy; informational self-determination; legality-necessity-proportionality; data minimization; constitutional review and binds the parties to the operative directions made in W.P.(C) No. 494/2012 and connected matters. It also guides lower courts and public authorities on materially similar questions under Aadhaar Act, 2016, especially ss.7, 29, 33, 47, 57; Finance Act provisions; Telegraph and money-laundering rules. Scope and caution: only the ratio decidendi and operative directions of the signed judgment are binding; summaries should not be treated as substitutes for the judgment, separate opinions, later review orders or subsequent precedent.

Aadhaar Act, 2016, especially ss.7, 29, 33, 47, 57; Finance Act provisions; Telegraph and money-laundering rules

Constitution arts.14, 19, 21, 32, 110 and 122

Privacy; dignity; autonomy; informational self-determination; legality-necessity-proportionality; data minimization; constitutional review