New Delhi/ Mumbai, Aug. 24 (Agencies): The Supreme Court on Thursday unanimously ruled that individual privacy is a fundamental right under the Constitution, in a verdict that could impact everything from the way companies handle personal data to the roll-out of the world's largest biometric ID card programme.

“(The) right to privacy is an intrinsic part of Right to Life and Personal Liberty under Article 21 and entire Part III of the Constitution,” a nine-judge Constitution bench headed by Chief Justice J.S. Khehar ruled.

The bench – Chief Justice Khehar and Justices J. Chelameswar, S.A. Bobde, R.K. Agrawal, R.F. Nariman, A.M. Sapre, D.Y. Chandrachud, S.K. Kaul and S. Abdul Nazeer – overruled two earlier Supreme Court judgments that the right to privacy is not protected under the Constitution.

The ruling comes against the backdrop of a large multi-party case against the mandatory use of the Aadhaar—an identity card backed by iris scans and fingerprints—as an infringement of privacy. There have also been concerns over breaches of data.

Thursday’s judgment was limited to the issue of right to privacy and the question whether Aadhaar violates the right to privacy will be dealt with a five-judge bench that has been hearing the petitions since 2015.

Critics say the ID cards link enough data to create a comprehensive profile of a person's spending habits, their friends and acquaintances, the property they own and a trove of other information.

Aadhaar, which over one billion Indians have already signed up for, was set up to be a secure form of digital identification for citizens, one that they could use for government services.

But as it was rolled out, concerns arose about privacy, data security and recourse for citizens in the face of data leaks and other issues.

Over time, Aadhaar was made mandatory for income tax returns and operating bank accounts. Companies were also pushing to gain access to Aadhaar details of customers.

“This is a blow to the government, because the government had argued that people do not have a right to privacy,” said Prashant Bhushan, a senior lawyer involved in the case.

The government has argued the Indian constitution does not guarantee individual privacy as an inalienable fundamental right.

”The fact that there was no dissent is an important thing,” said Raman Chima, policy director at Access Now, which defends digital rights. “They made it clear that the government has to protect privacy.”

The judgment also has a bearing on broader civil rights as well as a law criminalising homosexuality. A ban imposed on the consumption of beef in many states and alcohol in some could also come up for review.

The bench overruled the M P Sharma verdict of 1950 and that of Kharak Singh of 1960. The judgment in the Kharak Singh case was pronounced by eight judges and in M P Sharma it was delivered by six judges.

Justice Khehar, who read the operative portion of the judgment, said the subsequent verdicts pronounced after M P Sharma and Kharak Singh have laid down the correct position of the law.

Before pronouncing the judgment, the CJI said that among the nine judges some of them have authored different orders.

The high-voltage hearing saw a battery of senior lawyers, including Attorney General K.K. Venugopal, Additional Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, Arvind Datar, Kapil Sibal, Gopal Subaramaniam, Shyam Divan, Anand Grover, C.A. Sundaram and Rakesh Dwivedi, advancing arguments either in favour or against the inclusion of right to privacy as a fundamental right.

The decision to set up the nine-judge bench was taken to examine the correctness of two apex court judgements delivered in the cases of Kharak Singh and M P Sharma in which it was held that this right was not a fundamental right.

(This report was updated at 3pm.)