Create a custom practice set
Pick category, difficulty, number of questions, and time limit. Start instantly with your own quiz.
Generate QuizGK Question
In Justice K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India (2017), the 9-judge bench recognized right to privacy as intrinsic to Article 21. Which of the following is NOT one of the three dimensions of privacy identified in this judgment?
- Spatial privacy (control over physical space)
- Decisional privacy (autonomy over personal choices)
- Informational privacy (control over personal data)
- Economic privacy (protection of financial transactions)
Answer: Economic privacy (protection of financial transactions)
Puttaswamy (2017) privacy dimensions: (a) 9-judge bench unanimously held right to privacy intrinsic to life/liberty under Article 21; also part of Article 19 freedoms, Article 14 equality, (b) Three dimensions identified: (i) Spatial privacy: Control over physical space, home, body, (ii) Decisional privacy: Autonomy over personal choices (marriage, procreation, sexual orientation), (iii) Informational privacy: Control over personal data, collection, use, disclosure, (c) NOT dimension: Economic privacy - while financial transactions may involve privacy concerns, Court did not identify 'economic privacy' as separate dimension; financial privacy falls under informational privacy, (d) Applications: (i) Spatial: Protection against unlawful search/seizure, domestic violence, custodial torture, (ii) Decisional: Navtej Singh Johar (decriminalization of homosexuality), Joseph Shine (adultery decriminalization), reproductive rights cases, (iii) Informational: DPDP Act, 2023 (data protection framework), Aadhaar authentication limits, surveillance oversight, (e) Proportionality overlay: Each dimension subject to proportionality test balancing individual privacy vs. state interests (security, welfare efficiency, public health), (f) Illustrates adaptive constitutionalism: Privacy concept evolves with technology, social norms; proportionality test ensures calibrated balancing of rights vs. state interests.