Justice K. S. Puttaswamy (Retd.) v. Union of India
E522748
Justice K. S. Puttaswamy (Retd.) v. Union of India is a landmark 2017 Supreme Court of India judgment that unanimously affirmed the fundamental right to privacy under the Indian Constitution.
All labels observed (3)
| Label | Occurrences |
|---|---|
| K. S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India (2017) | 2 |
| Justice K. S. Puttaswamy (Retd.) v. Union of India canonical | 1 |
| Justice K. S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India | 1 |
How this entity was disambiguated
This entity first appeared as the object of triple T5486362 — resolving that mention is where its identity was fixed. The disambiguator weighed these candidate entities and picked the highlighted one (or “None”, minting a new entity). This is how homonymy is resolved: the same surface form can point to different entities.
NED1
Entity disambiguation (via context triple)
gpt-5-mini-2025-08-07
Target entity: Justice K. S. Puttaswamy (Retd.) v. Union of India Context triple: [Dhananjaya Y. Chandrachud, notableWork, Justice K. S. Puttaswamy (Retd.) v. Union of India]
-
A.
Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala
Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala is a landmark 1973 Supreme Court of India judgment that established the basic structure doctrine, limiting Parliament’s power to amend the Constitution.
-
B.
INS v. Chadha
INS v. Chadha is a landmark 1983 U.S. Supreme Court case that struck down the legislative veto as unconstitutional, significantly reshaping the balance of power between Congress and the executive branch.
-
C.
Narmada Bachao Andolan v. Union of India
Narmada Bachao Andolan v. Union of India is a landmark Supreme Court of India case that examined environmental, displacement, and development issues surrounding large dam construction on the Narmada River.
-
D.
ADM Jabalpur v. Shivkant Shukla decision
The ADM Jabalpur v. Shivkant Shukla decision was a controversial 1976 Indian Supreme Court ruling during the Emergency that held citizens had no locus to challenge unlawful detentions when fundamental rights were suspended, later widely criticized and effectively overruled.
-
E.
Eldred v. Ashcroft
Eldred v. Ashcroft is a 2003 U.S. Supreme Court case that upheld the constitutionality of extending copyright terms, affirming Congress’s broad power over copyright duration.
- F. None of above. chosen
- G. Unsure - the case is ambiguous/there is not enough information to decide.
NED2
Entity disambiguation (via description)
gpt-5-mini-2025-08-07
Target entity: Justice K. S. Puttaswamy (Retd.) v. Union of India Target entity description: Justice K. S. Puttaswamy (Retd.) v. Union of India is a landmark 2017 Supreme Court of India judgment that unanimously affirmed the fundamental right to privacy under the Indian Constitution.
-
A.
Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala
Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala is a landmark 1973 Supreme Court of India judgment that established the basic structure doctrine, limiting Parliament’s power to amend the Constitution.
-
B.
INS v. Chadha
INS v. Chadha is a landmark 1983 U.S. Supreme Court case that struck down the legislative veto as unconstitutional, significantly reshaping the balance of power between Congress and the executive branch.
-
C.
Narmada Bachao Andolan v. Union of India
Narmada Bachao Andolan v. Union of India is a landmark Supreme Court of India case that examined environmental, displacement, and development issues surrounding large dam construction on the Narmada River.
-
D.
ADM Jabalpur v. Shivkant Shukla decision
The ADM Jabalpur v. Shivkant Shukla decision was a controversial 1976 Indian Supreme Court ruling during the Emergency that held citizens had no locus to challenge unlawful detentions when fundamental rights were suspended, later widely criticized and effectively overruled.
-
E.
Eldred v. Ashcroft
Eldred v. Ashcroft is a 2003 U.S. Supreme Court case that upheld the constitutionality of extending copyright terms, affirming Congress’s broad power over copyright duration.
- F. None of above. chosen
Statements (48)
| Predicate | Object |
|---|---|
| instanceOf |
Supreme Court of India judgment
ⓘ
constitutional law case ⓘ landmark judgment ⓘ |
| benchHeadedBy | Chief Justice J. S. Khehar ⓘ |
| benchType | Constitution Bench ⓘ |
| citation | (2017) 10 SCC 1 ⓘ |
| constitutionalProvisionInterpreted |
Article 21 of the Constitution of India
ⓘ
Part III of the Constitution of India ⓘ |
| country | India ⓘ |
| court | Supreme Court of India ⓘ |
| dateOfDecision | 2017-08-24 ⓘ |
| decisionType | unanimous ⓘ |
| held | right to privacy is a fundamental right under the Constitution of India ⓘ |
| impact |
formed constitutional basis for later Aadhaar merits judgment
ⓘ
influenced Indian jurisprudence on data protection and surveillance ⓘ |
| issue | whether right to privacy is a fundamental right under the Constitution of India ⓘ |
| judgeOnBench |
A. M. Sapre
ⓘ
D. Y. Chandrachud ⓘ
linked to:
Dhananjaya Y. Chandrachud
J. Chelameswar ⓘ J. S. Khehar ⓘ R. K. Agrawal ⓘ Rohinton Fali Nariman ⓘ
linked to:
Fali Nariman
S. A. Bobde ⓘ S. Abdul Nazeer ⓘ Sanjay Kishan Kaul ⓘ |
| jurisdiction | India ⓘ |
| leadPetitioner | K. S. Puttaswamy ⓘ |
| legalPrinciple |
privacy is an inalienable and natural right
ⓘ
privacy is intrinsic to life and personal liberty under Article 21 ⓘ restrictions on privacy must satisfy tests of legality, necessity and proportionality ⓘ |
| linkedToScheme | Aadhaar ⓘ |
| numberOfJudges | 9 ⓘ |
| opinionAuthoredBy |
A. M. Sapre
ⓘ
D. Y. Chandrachud ⓘ
linked to:
Dhananjaya Y. Chandrachud
J. Chelameswar ⓘ Rohinton Fali Nariman ⓘ
linked to:
Fali Nariman
S. A. Bobde ⓘ Sanjay Kishan Kaul ⓘ |
| overruledPrecedent |
Kharak Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh (to the extent it denied a fundamental right to privacy)
ⓘ
M. P. Sharma v. Satish Chandra ⓘ |
| petitionerDescription | retired judge of the High Court of Karnataka ⓘ |
| recognizedRight |
bodily privacy
ⓘ
decisional autonomy ⓘ fundamental right to privacy ⓘ informational privacy ⓘ |
| respondent | Union of India ⓘ |
| subjectMatter | challenge to Aadhaar-based biometric identification scheme ⓘ |
| yearOfDecision | 2017 ⓘ |
How these facts were elicited
The pipeline generated the facts above by prompting gpt-5.1 with this entity's name + description and the instruction below.
Instruction
You are a knowledge base construction expert. Given a subject entity and a description of it, return factual statements that you know for the subject as a JSON list of dictionaries(triples), where keys must be "subject", "predicate" and "object". The number of facts may be very high, between 25 to 50 or more, for very popular subjects. For less popular subjects, the number of facts can be very low, like 5 or 10. # Requirements - If you don't know the subject at all, return an empty list. - If the subject is not a named entity, return an empty list. - Include at least one triple where predicate is "instanceOf". - Do not get too wordy. - Separate several objects into multiple triples with one object.
Input
Subject: Justice K. S. Puttaswamy (Retd.) v. Union of India Description of subject: Justice K. S. Puttaswamy (Retd.) v. Union of India is a landmark 2017 Supreme Court of India judgment that unanimously affirmed the fundamental right to privacy under the Indian Constitution.
Referenced by (4)
Full triples — surface form annotated when it differs from this entity's canonical label.
ADM Jabalpur v. Shivkant Shukla decision
→
overruledBy
→
K. S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India (2017)
ⓘ
linked to: Justice K. S. Puttaswamy (Retd.) v. Union of India
ADM Jabalpur v. Shivkant Shukla decision
→
acknowledgedAsWrongIn
→
K. S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India (2017)
ⓘ
linked to: Justice K. S. Puttaswamy (Retd.) v. Union of India
linked to: Justice K. S. Puttaswamy (Retd.) v. Union of India