Author: Kainaat Afreen
To the Point
The landmark ruling in Justice K.S. Puttaswamy (Retd.) v. Union of India (2018) brought into sharp focus the delicate balance between technology-driven governance and fundamental constitutional freedoms. The Supreme Court examined whether the Aadhaar scheme
encroached upon the fundamental rights of Indian citizens, particularly the right to privacy enshrined under Article 21. Although the Court affirmed the constitutional validity of Aadhaar, it limited its scope by striking down or modifying several provisions to safeguard individual liberties and prevent misuse of personal data.
Use of Legal Jargon
The judgment revolved around core constitutional principles, including “proportionality,” “legitimate state interest,” “informational self-determination,” “reasonable classification,”
and the “doctrine of the Money Bill.” Petitioners argued that the Aadhaar Act, 2016, violated Articles 14, 19, and 21 of the Constitution and had been improperly passed as a Money Bill to circumvent parliamentary scrutiny. In contrast, the government defended Aadhaar as essential for “efficient governance,” enabling “targeted delivery” of subsidies, and supported its design under the doctrine of proportionality to justify minimal invasion into privacy.
The Proof
Initially launched in 2009 through an executive order, the Aadhaar project aimed to provide every resident with a unique identity number. In 2016, the Aadhaar (Targeted Delivery of Financial and Other Subsidies, Benefits and Services) Act was enacted to establish the statutory basis for the Aadhaar system and regulate its use for delivering welfare benefits and services.
Petitioners, led by Justice K.S. Puttaswamy (Retd.), challenged its validity on grounds that biometric data collection without adequate safeguards infringed the right to privacy. This concern was amplified after the nine-judge Bench in Justice K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India (2017) recognized privacy as a fundamental right. Building on this, a five-judge Constitution Bench in the 2018 Aadhaar case, led by Chief Justice Dipak Misra along with Justices A.K. Sikri and others, addressed the implications of this right in relation to the Aadhaar scheme.
Justice A.K. Sikri authored the majority opinion (on behalf of himself, CJI Misra, and Justice Khanwilkar), upholding Aadhaar’s use for state welfare but reading down provisions
permitting data misuse. Justice D.Y. Chandrachud dissented, declaring the entire Act unconstitutional due to procedural and substantive violations.
Abstract
This case reshaped India’s digital governance and constitutional framework. While Aadhaar was promoted as a means to ensure inclusivity and transparent delivery of state benefits, critics feared it could enable mass surveillance. The Supreme Court attempted to reconcile these competing interests.
The verdict clarified the contours of the right to privacy, emphasized the principle of proportionality, and examined the nature of legislative procedures under Article 110. It also highlighted the need for data protection legislation. Ultimately, Aadhaar was constitutionally upheld but only within a tightly regulated framework.
Case Laws
Justice K.S. Puttaswamy (Retd.) v. Union of India (2018) Citation: (2019) 1 SCC 1
In this significant judgment, the Supreme Court, by a 4:1 majority, upheld the constitutional validity of the Aadhaar Act. It maintained the legality of making Aadhaar mandatory for
state-sponsored welfare schemes under Section 7 but invalidated Section 57, which had
permitted private entities to access Aadhaar data. The Court also struck down Section 33(2), which had allowed data disclosure for national security without judicial oversight, and held Section 47 unconstitutional to the extent it barred individuals from filing complaints. The majority judgment imposed strict limits to prevent Aadhaar from becoming a tool of mass surveillance.
Justice K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India (2017) Citation: (2017) 10 SCC 1
This historic ruling by a nine-judge Bench affirmed that the right to privacy is a fundamental constitutional right, deriving its protection from Articles 14, 19, and 21.
The Court confirmed that the right to privacy includes the protection of bodily integrity, the freedom to make personal decisions, and the right to manage one’s own personal information.
It overruled prior judgments that had denied such recognition, and provided a framework through proportionality and necessity tests for evaluating any privacy infringement. This ruling laid the doctrinal foundation for scrutinizing the Aadhaar scheme in 2018.
M.P. Sharma v. Satish Chandra (1954) Citation: AIR 1954 SC 300
In this early case, an eight-judge Bench held that the Constitution did not protect a general right to privacy, focusing instead on protections against self-incrimination under Article
20(3). This interpretation leaned heavily on textual literalism and avoided expansive readings of constitutional liberty. However, in 2017, the Court overruled this view, stating that constitutional rights must evolve alongside societal progress and technology.
Kharak Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh (1964) Citation: AIR 1963 SC 1295
This case addressed surveillance under colonial-era police regulations. The majority did not recognize a broad right to privacy, though Justice Subba Rao’s dissent argued that such surveillance violated personal liberty under Article 21. His progressive view was later
vindicated by the 2017 privacy judgment, which held that any form of state surveillance must be tested against the right to privacy and proportionality principles.
Conclusion
The Aadhaar decision represents a landmark in Indian jurisprudence. While allowing Aadhaar’s use for government schemes, the Court curtailed its misuse, particularly by private actors. The ruling safeguarded democratic values and ensured Aadhaar could not undermine individual liberties. Justice Chandrachud’s dissent raised important concerns about procedural legitimacy and long-term surveillance risks, leaving open important questions for future review.
FAQs
Q1. What was the primary legal issue in the Aadhaar case?
The central issue was whether the Aadhaar scheme infringed upon fundamental rights, particularly the right to privacy.
Q2. What did the Supreme Court decide?
It upheld Aadhaar’s constitutionality but struck down provisions allowing private and unchecked use of Aadhaar data.
Q3. Is it permissible to mandate Aadhaar for access to welfare schemes?
Yes. The Court validated its use under Section 7 for accessing state subsidies and benefits.
Q4. Can private companies demand Aadhaar?
No, the Court invalidated Section 57 of the Aadhaar Act, thereby disallowing private organizations from accessing Aadhaar data for authentication.
Q5. What is the significance of Justice Chandrachud’s dissent?
He deemed the entire Aadhaar Act unconstitutional due to flawed legislative procedures and risks of surveillance.
Q6. Is Aadhaar needed for mobile or bank account?
No. The Court barred mandatory Aadhaar linking with mobile numbers and bank accounts.
Q7. What does “reasonable expectation of privacy” imply?
It reflects an individual’s expectation that their personal data will not be accessed or misused without consent.
Q8. What was the impact on data protection laws?
The judgment highlighted the need for robust data privacy laws, influencing the 2023 Digital Personal Data Protection Act.
Q9. Why was the Aadhaar Act controversial as a Money Bill?
Critics argued it bypassed Rajya Sabha scrutiny, violating Article 110. Justice Chandrachud held this unconstitutional.
Q10. Can the Aadhaar verdict be revisited?
Yes. The Rojer Mathew case (2020) referred the Money Bill issue to a larger Bench, leaving the door open for review.
