28/02/2018 Eugene Wambaugh’s Inversion Test And Its Applicability To The ‘Right To Privacy’ Judgement of the Supreme Court

ourt of India | Live Law

CLICK HERE TO READ LIVELAW HINDI- THE FIRST HINDI LEGAL NEWS WEBSITE

Eugene Wambaugh’s Inversion Test And Its

Applicability To The ‘Right To Privacy’ Judgement
of the Supreme Court of India
BY: K.V.KARTIK SUBRAMANIAN

OCTOBER 11, 2017 12:27 PM

108 Facebook Twitter WhatsApp LinkedIn More

SHARES

Change Font Size  

The Judgement of the Supreme Court of India in the case of KS Puttaswamy (Retd.) & Ors vs
Union of India[1] has rightly been heralded as a Constitutional Landmark in the ever-
evolving horizon of Fundamental Rights Jurisprudence.

Tracing the position of Law, right from the timeless opinion of William Pitt, The Elder, in
Semaynes Case[2], to the expositions of Brandeis. J, in his famous article in The Harvard Law
http://www.livelaw.in/eugene-wambaughs-inversion-test-applicability-right-privacy-judgement-supreme-court-india/ 1/8
28/02/2018 Eugene Wambaugh’s Inversion Test And Its Applicability To The ‘Right To Privacy’ Judgement of the Supreme Court of India | Live Law

Review[3] to the decisions of the United States Supreme Court in Olmstead[4], Griswold[5],
Katz[6], Roe[7] and finally concluding in the dictum in Jones[8], the 547 page judgement was
absolutely thorough in approach and left no stone unturned.

What it will be remembered for is, quite obviously, acknowledging that the ‘Right to Privacy’
exists specifically in Article 21 of the Constitution of India[9] and in a manner, permeates
the entire Chapter on Fundamental Rights in the Indian Constitution. The decision was
absolute and emphatic, as it represented the concurrence and agreement of a bench
consisting of 9 honourable Judges of the Supreme Court who delivered 6 independent
opinions of the matter, all in agreement with the proposition that the ‘Right to Privacy’
exists in the Constitution of India.

While celebrating this verdict is justifiable, the circumstances that necessitated the
constitution of a 9 member bench, must also be kept in mind.

A judgement rendered by the Supreme Court of India in the year 1953, in the case of MP
Sharma vs. Satish Chandra,[10] interpreted the scope and applicability of the right under
Article 20(3) of the Constitution of India[11]   in the context of the Executive’s power to
conduct searches and seizures under necessary circumstances. In the aforementioned
context, B Jagannadhadas. J, speaking for the bench, put it thus:

“…A power of search and seizure is in any system of jurisprudence an overriding power of
the State for the protection of social security and that power is necessarily regulated by law.
When the Constitution makers have thought fit not to subject such regulation to
constitutional limitations by recognition of a fundamental right to privacy, analogous to the
Fourth Amendment, we have no justification to import it, into a totally different
fundamental right, by some process of strained construction…[12]” (Emphasis supplied)

This remark with regards to the Right to Privacy, interestingly, appears only once in the
entire Judgement and was made with reference to the power of search and seizures being an
overriding power exercised by the State for the purpose of social security. This power,
moreover, was found not to be hostile to Article 20(3) of the Indian Constitution by their
Lordships.

http://www.livelaw.in/eugene-wambaughs-inversion-test-applicability-right-privacy-judgement-supreme-court-india/ 2/8
28/02/2018 Eugene Wambaugh’s Inversion Test And Its Applicability To The ‘Right To Privacy’ Judgement of the Supreme Court of India | Live Law

This observation, however, was interpreted by those opposed to the idea of a ‘Right to
Privacy’, as having implied, in absolute terms that ‘Right to Privacy’ did not exist under the
Indian Constitution.

Therefore, the fundamental question before their Lordships who sat to adjudicate the
Puttaswamy matter, was to ascertain if this observation of Justice Jagannadhadas constituted
the Ratio Decidendi in the MP Sharma decision.

‘Eugene Wambaugh’ and ‘The Inversion Test’

Eugene Wambaugh, a professor at The Harvard Law School, published in the year 1892 a
classic textbook called ‘The Study of Cases’.[13] This textbook propounded, inter-alia, what is
known today as the ‘Wambaugh Test’ or the ‘Inversion Test’ as a means of judicial
interpretation.

The ‘Inversion Test’, is used primarily to distinguish and identify the Ratio Decidendi in any
Judgement. The central idea, in the words of Professor Wambaugh is as under:

“In order to make the test, let him first frame carefully the supposed proposition of law. Let
him then insert in the proposition a word reversing its meaning. Let him then inquire
whether, if the court had conceived this new proposition to be good, and had had it in mind,
the decision could have been the same. If the answer be affirmative, then, however excellent
the original proposition may be, the case is not a precedent for that proposition, but if the
answer be negative the case is a precedent for the original proposition and possibly for other
propositions also.”[14]

Therefore, the application of the ‘Inversion test’, in a step-by-step manner, is as follows:

1. The first step is to frame the supposed proposition of law, which is considered to be the
Ratio of the case decided

2. Now, the proposition is to be ‘inversed’ or its meaning ‘reversed’ – In Application, the

proposition is simply to be removed from the context of the Judgement, as if it were non-
existent

http://www.livelaw.in/eugene-wambaughs-inversion-test-applicability-right-privacy-judgement-supreme-court-india/ 3/8
28/02/2018 Eugene Wambaugh’s Inversion Test And Its Applicability To The ‘Right To Privacy’ Judgement of the Supreme Court of India | Live Law

3. If the decision of the case could still have been the same, even without this proposition,
then the proposition, however excellent it seems, is not to be regarded as the ratio of the
case.

Other jurists, while adopting the ‘Inversion Test’, have followed Professor Wambaugh, in
treating the Ratio Decidendi as something that is absolutely necessary to the decision. “In
order that an opinion may have the weight of a precedent”, according to John Chipman
Grey[15], “It must be an opinion, the formation of which, is necessary for the decision of a
particular case”[16]

Therefore, the Test, in essence, is to pick out the proposition believed to be the Ratio
Decidendi, remove that proposition from the Judgement or reverse its meaning, and to then
observe whether the judgement, in the absence of the proposition, still holds good. If the
Judgement stands, even without the proposition, then the proposition, however important
and ‘excellent’ it seems, is not the Ratio Decidendi.

Only when the Judgement fails in the absence of the proposition, can the proposition be
regarded as the ‘Ratio Decidendi’ of the Judgement.  

Applying the ‘Inversion Test’ to the MP Sharma Case

The pointed focus in the MP Sharma matter was whether searches violated the fundamental
rights of the petitioners under Article 19(1) (f)[17] and Article 20(3) of the Constitution.

The charge of violating Article 19(1) (f) was rejected outright by the bench. With regards to
Article 20(3) of the Constitution, holding that the guarantee against self-incrimination was
not offended by a search and seizure, the court opined as follows:  “When the Constitution
makers have thought fit not to subject such regulation to constitutional limitations by
recognition of a fundamental right to privacy, analogous to the Fourth Amendment, we have
no justification to import it, into a totally different fundamental right, by some process of
strained construction”[18]

The Court  repelled  the  argument  that  a  search  for  documents,  compelled  a person
accused of an offence to be witness against himself in the following words : “there is no basis
in the Indian law for the assumption that a search or seizure of a thing or document is in

http://www.livelaw.in/eugene-wambaughs-inversion-test-applicability-right-privacy-judgement-supreme-court-india/ 4/8
28/02/2018 Eugene Wambaugh’s Inversion Test And Its Applicability To The ‘Right To Privacy’ Judgement of the Supreme Court of India | Live Law

itself to be treated as compelled production of the same. Indeed a little consideration will
show that the two are essentially different matters for the purpose relevant to the present
discussion. A notice to produce is addressed to the party concerned and his production in
compliance therewith constitutes a testimonial act by him within the meaning of Article
20(3) as above explained. But a search warrant is addressed to an officer of the Government,
generally a police officer. Neither the search nor the seizure are acts of the occupier of the
searched premises. They are acts of another to which he is obliged to submit and are,
therefore, not his testimonial acts in any sense.”[19] 

Therefore, their Lordships were of the opinion, that unlike a notice to produce documents,
which is addressed to a person and whose compliance would constitute a testimonial act, a
search warrant and a seizure which follows are not testimonial acts of a person to whom the
warrant is addressed, within the meaning of Article 20(3).[20]

Nowhere else in the judgement is there any mention of the scope and Applicability of the
Right to privacy. Even in this instance, the ‘Right to Privacy’ was viewed only on the
touchstone of Article 20(3) of the Constitution and not in the context of any other Part III
protection.

This is where the ‘Inversion Test’ of Professor Wambaugh gains importance. If we were to
take the observation extracted herein above as the proposition considered to be the Ratio
Decidendi of the case, and apply to it the ‘Inversion Test’, what would be the result?

Let us for the sake of application, now consider that the Right to Privacy, was indeed a
Fundamental Right, even during the time the Judgement was being authored. This would
effectively ‘inverse’ the proposition, that there was no recognised Right to Privacy under the
Indian Constitution.

Would the existence of the Right to Privacy have altered the Judgement?

The answer would have to be in the negative. With regards to the right to perform a search
and seizure under the orders of a Magistrate, the authorised officer himself conducts the
search of the premises. Therefore neither the search, nor the seizure can be said to be a

http://www.livelaw.in/eugene-wambaughs-inversion-test-applicability-right-privacy-judgement-supreme-court-india/ 5/8
28/02/2018 Eugene Wambaugh’s Inversion Test And Its Applicability To The ‘Right To Privacy’ Judgement of the Supreme Court of India | Live Law

testimonial act of the occupier of the searched premises. That being the case, the right under
Article 20(3) can definitely not said to be violated by the occupier.

In this context, even if there did exist a right to Privacy, the power of search and seizure,
being an overriding power of the state for the purpose of ensuring social security, would not
have altered the legality of the search order. Therefore, notwithstanding a Right to Privacy,
the outcome of the case, being that the search and seizure did not constitute a violation of
the right under Article 20(3) would still hold good.

Apart from the Inversion Test, it may be noted that the Right to Privacy was tested only
under the lens of Article 20(3) and not under the touchstone of any other Article such as
Articles 21, 19, 25. Therefore, even logically speaking, an observation made in a completely
different context, could not have altogether washed away the Right to Privacy, even though
the Judgement did carry the force of 8 honourable Judges of the Supreme Court.

The time tested ‘Inversion Test’ therefore, leads us to only one conclusion: The Dictum in
MP Sharma qua the Right of Privacy could only have been an Obiter Dicta, for it definitely
could not have constituted the Ratio Decidendi.

A validation of the result is also expressly evinced from the words of Justice Chelameswar –
“M.P.  Sharma  is  not  an authority  for  an  absolute  proposition  that  there  is no  right  of
privacy  under  our  Constitution;  and  such  is  not  the  ratio of  that judgment.[21]”

[1] WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO 494 OF 2012

[2] 77 ER 194

[3] 4 Harv. L. Rev. 193

[4] Olmstead vs. United States, 277 U.S. 438 (1928)

[5] Griswold. vs Connecticut, 381 U.S. 479 (1965)

[6] Katz vs. United States, 389 US 347 (1967)

[7] Roe vs. Wade, 410 U.S. 113  (1973)

http://www.livelaw.in/eugene-wambaughs-inversion-test-applicability-right-privacy-judgement-supreme-court-india/ 6/8
28/02/2018 Eugene Wambaugh’s Inversion Test And Its Applicability To The ‘Right To Privacy’ Judgement of the Supreme Court of India | Live Law

[8]  United States vs. Jones, 565  U.S.  400  (2012)

[9] Article 21 – Protection of life and personal liberty – No person shall be deprived of his
life or personal liberty except according to procedure established by law

[10]  AIR 1954 SC 300

[11] Article 20(3) –   No person accused of any offence shall be compelled to be a witness
against himself

[12] At Paragraph 17

[13] Eugene Wambaugh, The Study of Cases (Boston: Little, Brown, & Co., 1892)

[14] at Page 17

[15] Another distinguished jurist who served as a professor of law at The Harvard Law School

[16] See ‘The Nature and Authority of Precedent’ by Neil Duxbury, Cambridge University
Press, 2008

[17] Now omitted

[18] Supra

[19] See Paragraph 17

[20] See the Judgement of Justice DY Chandrachud in the Puttaswamy Case, at Paragraph 25

[21] See the Judgement of Justice Jasti Chelameswar in the Puttaswamy Case, at Paragraph 7

K.V.Kartik Subramanian was a former Law clerk to the Hon’ble Chief Justice of the Madras
High Court and currently works as a Law Clerk in the Supreme Court of India with The
Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul.

[The opinions expressed in this article are the personal opinions of the author. The facts and
opinions appearing in the article do not reflect the views of LiveLaw and LiveLaw does not
assume any responsibility or liability for the same].
http://www.livelaw.in/eugene-wambaughs-inversion-test-applicability-right-privacy-judgement-supreme-court-india/ 7/8
28/02/2018 Eugene Wambaugh’s Inversion Test And Its Applicability To The ‘Right To Privacy’ Judgement of the Supreme Court of India | Live Law

108 Facebook Twitter WhatsApp LinkedIn More

SHARES

Topics: Eugene Wambaugh

Wambaugh’s Inversion Test | MP Sharma Case | Right to Privacy | Supreme Court of
India

http://www.livelaw.in/eugene-wambaughs-inversion-test-applicability-right-privacy-judgement-supreme-court-india/ 8/8