Ethics · 11 Aug 2026

Puttaswamy proportionality state surveillance

Consider the following statements with reference to the K.S. Puttaswamy vs Union of India (2017) judgment:

  1. It established that any restriction on the right to privacy, including state surveillance, must satisfy the standards of legality, necessity and proportionality.
  2. It was delivered by a Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court that unanimously recognised privacy as a fundamental right.
  3. It explicitly fixed a maximum time limit beyond which any state surveillance of an individual automatically becomes disproportionate.
AOnly one
BOnly two
CAll three
DNone
This question is based on: The Protest Ended Months Ago. The Visits to Her Parents' House Did Not.
Take this in full test mode → Instructions for 11 Aug 2026
About this question

Why in news

Student activists have alleged continued Delhi Police and Intelligence Bureau surveillance and family intimidation months after the protests that triggered police attention ended and after their legal matters were resolved via bail or habeas corpus, raising proportionality questions under Puttaswamy.

Why for UPSC

This tests precise recall of what the Puttaswamy judgment actually established versus what it left open - UPSC frequently probes whether a landmark judgment set a specific bright-line rule or a flexible standard requiring case-by-case application.

Prelims summary

Puttaswamy (2017) recognised privacy as a fundamental right and set a legality-necessity-proportionality test for state surveillance, but fixed no automatic time limit - proportionality must be assessed case by case.

On web, answers are shown once after a test — no save or reattempt. For unlimited reattempts, Hindi medium, and Mentor Observations, use the TAN App.