In the landmark decision of Puttaswamy v. Union of India, the Supreme Court recognised Right to Privacy as a Fundamental Right under Article 21 and Part III of the Constitution of India. While historically, the con cept of privacy presupposed the existence of a 'erivate space' as distinct from the 'ublic sphere, in the Puttaswamy case, the Court accorded supremacy to the individual, emphasising on his/her right to bodily and decisional autonomy. However, despite such a progressive move towards an individual-centric Right to Privacy, the judgment still has inherent contradictions and loopholes. This paper critically analyses the judgment using the lens of Panchayati Eclecticism and Feminist Constitutionalism. The lens of Panchayati Eclecticism demonstrates how this case is a unique example of 'intra-bench' polyvocality, which led to patchwork jurisprudence and ambiguous judicial understanding of the individual's Right to Privacy, thereby failing to achieve uniformity and legitimacy. The Court complicated the notion of privacy for women within marriage, by defin ing it through vague hollow principles and ignored the issue of marital rape. Therefore, using the concept of Feminist Constitutionalism, it is argued that the Court failed to 'address' one of the significant 'woman's questions'.