The verdict of a five-member Constitutional Bench upheld the constitutional validity of the Aadhaar Act 2016. This was a result of a multitude of petitions filed against the Indian Government’s Aadhaar Scheme, with the initial filing in 2012 by former Karnataka High Court judge K S Puttaswamy.
Aadhar: Constructing a Surveillance State?
The Supreme Court held that the fundamental framework and provisions of the Aadhaar Act do not aim to create a surveillance state. During the enrollment process, minimum biometric data, iris and fingerprints, is collected. The Unique Identification Authority of India (UIDAI) does not document the purpose, location, or transaction details, thus ensuring the sole purpose of authentication.
However, dissenting Judge D Y Chandrachud pointed at the potential threat to privacy through the verification log, which could track an individual’s transactions over a span of five years. The Supreme Court eventually ruled that an archive of transaction data beyond six months was unnecessary.
The Privacy Question
Establishing that the Aadhaar Act passes the privacy test, the Supreme Court noted its statutory backing, legitimate state aim, and the necessity to guarantee targeted delivery of government benefits to the deserving population. While the challenge to the Aadhaar Act was rooted in the right to privacy, the majority judgment upheld the balance between an individual’s privacy rights and their right to life as a beneficiary of government schemes. Justice Chandrachud, however, opined that every citizen is implicitly treated as a potential criminal through the collection of identity information, thus questioning this balance.
Classifying Aadhar as a Money Bill
The Supreme Court upheld the Lok Sabha Speaker’s decision to classify the Aadhar Act as a Money Bill. Despite the critical role played by the Rajya Sabha in the parliamentary bicameral system, the court ruled that the Aadhaar Act did fall within the ambit of money bills as per Article 110. This decision was based on the argument that the primary objective of the Aadhaar Act is to extend financial aids and subsidies to the marginalized sections of society with the backing of the Consolidated Fund of India.
Aadhaar Necessary for Government Services
The Supreme Court upheld the necessity of Aadhar for accessing government services by relying on the Doctrine of Proportionality. The doctrine implies that the State’s interference in rights should be proportionate to its goal. Aimed at ensuring a targeted delivery of financial subsidies and benefits, the court held that Section 7 of the Aadhaar Act was valid.
Disclosure of Data and Data Protection
Considering the biometric data protection measures in place, the Supreme Court argued that sufficient security measures were incorporated into the authentication process. Acknowledging the protection mechanisms that UIDAI has established, it was noted to be challenging to create an individual’s profile based on biometric and demographic information alone.
Aadhaar for Children
Noting the importance of consent, the Supreme Court ruled that children’s enrollment under the Aadhaar Act would require the agreement of their parents or guardians. An option to opt-out of the Aadhaar project on reaching the age of 18 was also provided.
Linking Aadhaar to PAN and Income Tax-returns Filing
The Supreme Court confirmed the linking of Aadhaar and PAN, along with the requirement of Aadhaar for filing Income Tax returns. This ruling made the linking of PAN with Aadhaar obligatory, as it did not violate the right to privacy.
Linking Aadhaar to Banks and Mobile Phones
The Supreme Court invalidated the Department of Telecommunications’ circular mandating Aadhaar-based re-verification of mobile numbers. Additionally, it ruled out the provision in the Aadhaar Act that permitted private entities to conduct authentications, prohibiting corporate bodies, including banks and telecom operators, from demanding customers’ Aadhaar numbers.
