No, the right to privacy is not absolute, and this was affirmed in the Puttaswamy judgment. While the Supreme Court recognized privacy as a fundamental right, it also established that it can be limited by the state under specific circumstances. These limitations must be lawful, serve a legitimate state interest, and be proportionate to the objective.

The right to privacy is not absolute, as clarified in the landmark case of Justice K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India (2017), where a nine-judge bench of the Supreme Court unanimously held that the right to privacy is a fundamental right under Article 21 of the Constitution.

However, the Court also stated that this right is subject to reasonable restrictions. It can be limited by the state if three conditions are met:

(1) Legality—there must be a law
(2) Necessity—the restriction must serve a legitimate state aim
(3) Proportionality—the action must not be excessive or arbitrary.

The judgment acknowledged that privacy is essential to autonomy and dignity but may be curtailed in matters like national security, public order, or prevention of crime. Thus, the Puttaswamy judgment strikes a balance between individual liberty and state interest, confirming that while privacy is fundamental, it is not an unqualified right.