This seminar, co-hosted by ICRIER and the Centre for Communication Governance, National Law University, Delhi, commemorated the first anniversary of the Supreme Court of India judgment in the Justice K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India case, popularly known as the Privacy Judgment. In her opening remarks, Usha Ramanathan, well known privacy advocate, noted that the judgment has become the foundation for public discourse and policy debates on privacy as the most significant legal consequence of Speakers of the seminar on Celebrating One Year of the Justice K. S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India Judgment 83 the judgment was the proclamation of the right to privacy as a fundamental right by the Supreme Court. Ms. Ramanathan cautioned against the whittling down of this right by narratives of innovation and efficiency by different stakeholders. The first panel discussion at this seminar focused on data protection for a free and fair digital economy, highlighting key issues such as data localisation and the economics of privacy. The discussion was moderated by Mansi Kedia, Consultant, ICRIER, and the key speakers were Nehaa Chaudhari, Public Policy Head, TRA Law, Malavika Raghavan, Project Head, Dvara Research, Madhulika Srikumar, Associate Fellow, Observer Research Foundation and Smriti Parsheera, Technology Policy Researcher, NIPFP. The panel emphasised that the focus of privacy debates should not remain confined to issues of protection of consumers from companies but also from the state. The second panel was moderated by Apurva Vishwanath, Special Correspondent, The Print and key speakers were Kritika Bhardwaj, Lawyer, Supreme Court of India, Shweta Mohandas, Policy Officer, Centre for Internet & Society India, Smitha K. Prasad, Civil Liberties Lead, Centre for Communication Governance, National Law University, Delhi, and Ujjwala Uppaluri, Lawyer, Supreme Court of India. The panellists dwelt on the guidelines set forth in the Supreme Court judgment to determine what could constitute permissible restrictions to the right to privacy. They discussed the impact that the judgment has already had, and will continue to have, on several cases before the courts, including the challenge against section 377 of the IPC, the recognition of marital rape and others. The discussion also touched upon the data protection bill, the Digital Information Security in Health Care Bill, and other policy frameworks such as the e-commerce policy that will affect the protection of the right to informational privacy.