Justice K.S.Puttaswamy(Retd) vs Union Of India on 26 September, 2018 negation of equality. One need not confine the denial of equality to a comparative evaluation between two persons to arrive at a conclusion of discriminatory treatment. An action per se arbitrary itself denies equal of (sic) protection by law. The Constitution Bench pertinently observed in Ajay Hasia case and put the matter beyond controversy when it said: (SCC p. 741, para 16) 16. Wherever therefore, there is arbitrariness in State action whether it be of the legislature or of the executive or of an authority under Article 12, Article 14 immediately springs into action and strikes down such State action. This view was further elaborated and affirmed in D.S. Nakara v. Union of India . In Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India it was observed that Article 14 strikes at arbitrariness in State action and ensures fairness and equality of treatment. It is thus too late in the day to contend that an executive action shown to be arbitrary is not either judicially reviewable or within the reach of Article 14. The same view was reiterated in Babita Prasad v. State of Bihar , SCC at p. 285, para 31. This doctrine is, thus, treated as a facet of both Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution. 79) We would like to record that we have proceeded on the premise that manifest arbitrariness also furnishes a ground on the basis on which a legislative enactment can be judicially reviewed. In the process, even the constitutional validity of Section 139AA of the Income Tax Act, 1961 is given a fresh look on the touchstone of this norm. Explaining the doctrine/principles on which the cases are to be decided: 80) Our discussion up to this stage, which gives a glimpse of the attack to the Aadhaar scheme and the Aadhaar Act, spearheaded by the petitioners, would reveal that in the forefront is the right to privacy and that forms the main pillar on which the edifice of arguments is substantially constructed 27. Inbuilt in this right to privacy is the right to live with dignity, which is a postulate of right to privacy. In the process, discussion leads to the issue of proportionality, viz. whether measures taken under the Aadhaar Act satisfy the doctrine of proportionality. We would, therefore, 27 There are few other incidental and ancillary issues raised by the petitioners as well, which we propose to discuss and deal with after answering these fundamental submissions. be well advised to explain these concepts, so that their application to the fact situation is undertaken with clear and stable norms in mind. Contours of Right to Privacy: 81) It stands established, with conclusive determination of the nine Judge Bench judgment of this Court in K.S. Puttaswamy that right to privacy is a fundamental right. The majority judgment authored by Dr. D.Y. Chandrachud, J. (on behalf of three other Judges) and five concurring judgments of other five Judges have declared, in no uncertain terms and most authoritatively, right to privacy to be a fundamental right. This judgment also discusses in detail the scope and ambit of right to privacy. The relevant passages in this behalf have been reproduced above while taking note of the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioners as well as respondents. One interesting phenomenon that is discerned from the respective submissions on either side is that both sides have placed strong reliance on different passages from this very judgment to support their respective stances. A close reading of this judgment brings about the following features: Indian Kanoon - http://indiankanoon.org/doc/127517806/ 60