Author: Shalini S, Saveetha School of Law
TO THE POINT
On September 26, 2018, the Supreme Court of India delivered its landmark judgment in Justice K.S. Puttaswamy (Retd.) v. Union of India, addressing the constitutional validity of the Aadhaar Act, 2016. This case represents one of the most significant constitutional developments in Indian jurisprudence regarding digital identity, privacy rights, and technological governance. After 38 days of extensive hearings, a five-judge Constitution Bench comprising Chief Justice Dipak Misra, Justice A.K. Sikri, Justice A.M. Khanwilkar, Justice D.Y. Chandrachud, and Justice Ashok Bhushan rendered a split verdict that profoundly shaped India’s digital landscape.
The Court, by a 4:1 majority, upheld the constitutional validity of the Aadhaar scheme while simultaneously striking down several provisions that threatened fundamental rights. The majority opinion validated mandatory Aadhaar enrollment for receiving government subsidies and welfare benefits funded from the Consolidated Fund of India under Section 7 of the Aadhaar Act. The Court reasoned that this provision served the legitimate state interest of eliminating duplicate beneficiaries and preventing leakage in welfare distribution, thereby ensuring benefits reached intended recipients efficiently.
However, the judgment imposed significant restrictions on Aadhaar’s application. The Court struck down Section 57, which permitted private entities and corporations to demand Aadhaar authentication, holding that such provisions facilitated commercial exploitation of personal biometric data without informed consent. The mandatory linking of Aadhaar with bank accounts and mobile phone SIM cards was declared unconstitutional for failing the proportionality test and constituting excessive state intrusion into citizens’ privacy.
Section 33(2), which allowed disclosure of Aadhaar information for national security purposes on orders from Joint Secretary-level officers without judicial oversight, was invalidated. The Court emphasized that such sweeping powers without judicial review violated constitutional safeguards against arbitrary state action. Justice D.Y. Chandrachud delivered a comprehensive dissenting opinion, declaring the entire Aadhaar Act unconstitutional on grounds including its passage as a Money Bill, surveillance architecture concerns, and inadequate data protection safeguards.
USE OF LEGAL JARGON
The Aadhaar judgment deployed sophisticated constitutional doctrines that merit examination. The doctrine of proportionality served as the analytical framework, requiring state action infringing fundamental rights to satisfy a four-stage test: legitimate goal, suitable means rationally connected to that objective, necessity demonstrating absence of less restrictive alternatives, and proportionate balancing between public interest and individual rights infringement. This test, derived from German constitutional jurisprudence and incorporated through Modern Dental College precedent, operates as the constitutional litmus test for evaluating restrictions on fundamental freedoms.
The judgment extensively invoked Articles 14, 19, and 21 of the Constitution. Article 14 embodies the equality guarantee through the twin tests of intelligible differentia and rational nexus, prohibiting arbitrary state action. Article 19 protects six fundamental freedoms subject to reasonable restrictions. Article 21, guaranteeing life and personal liberty, has evolved through judicial interpretation to encompass substantive due process, procedural fairness, and the right to privacy.
A critical constitutional controversy centered on whether the Aadhaar Act constituted a Money Bill under Article 110. Money Bills concern taxation, borrowing, Consolidated Fund expenditure, and follow truncated legislative procedures where the Rajya Sabha possesses merely recommendatory powers. The majority upheld the Speaker’s certification under Article 110(3) as valid. Justice Chandrachud’s dissent characterized this as constitutional fraud violating bicameralism, which forms part of the basic structure doctrine established in Kesavananda Bharati.
Several provisions were declared ultra vires, meaning they exceeded constitutional authority and were void ab initio. The judgment applied data protection principles including data minimization, purpose limitation, and storage limitation, representing emerging international norms governing personal data processing despite absence of statutory codification in India at that time.
THE PROOF
The majority opinion authored by Justice A.K. Sikri upheld Section 7 of the Aadhaar Act, permitting mandatory Aadhaar for subsidies, benefits, and services funded from the Consolidated Fund of India. The Court applied the proportionality test and found this provision satisfied all requirements: it possessed statutory backing providing legality, served the legitimate state aim of preventing subsidy leakage and ensuring targeted welfare delivery, and constituted proportionate means achieving significant public benefit with minimal privacy intrusion. However, the Court clarified that “benefits and services” encompassed only welfare schemes targeting economically disadvantaged sections, not universal services like education or healthcare.
Section 139AA of the Income Tax Act, mandating Aadhaar-PAN linkage for tax purposes, survived constitutional scrutiny. The Court held this served the legitimate aim of curbing tax evasion by eliminating duplicate PANs and preventing black money circulation. The authentication mechanism was deemed proportionate as it merely verified identity without creating surveillance infrastructure.
Critical provisions were invalidated. Section 57, enabling private entities to demand Aadhaar authentication, was struck down for violating Articles 14 and 21 by facilitating commercial exploitation of biometric data without informed consent. The Court held that private corporations could not mandate Aadhaar as it transformed a welfare identity tool into a commercial commodity. Section 33(2), permitting national security disclosures on Joint Secretary authorization without judicial oversight, was struck down for vesting excessive discretionary power susceptible to abuse without procedural safeguards.
Mandatory bank account and mobile SIM linking failed the proportionality test. The Court held that treating every citizen as a potential money launderer to justify compulsory linkage was disproportionate and constituted excessive privacy intrusion. The judgment incorporated children’s protections, requiring parental consent for enrollment and providing exit options upon attaining majority at age 18.
Justice Chandrachud’s dissent found the entire Act unconstitutional, arguing its passage as a Money Bill undermined bicameralism, its centralized architecture enabled surveillance, and less restrictive alternatives existed for achieving welfare objectives.
ABSTRACT
The September 2018 Aadhaar judgment represents a watershed moment in Indian constitutional jurisprudence, balancing technological governance imperatives with fundamental rights protection. The case arose from comprehensive challenges to India’s Aadhaar scheme, initiated in 2009 to provide biometric-based unique identification to all residents through a centralized database maintained by the Unique Identification Authority of India (UIDAI). The scheme collected demographic information and biometric data including fingerprints and iris scans, ostensibly to eliminate duplicate beneficiaries and ensure efficient subsidy delivery.
The five-judge Constitution Bench delivered a nuanced 4:1 verdict that upheld Aadhaar’s constitutional validity for welfare purposes while striking down provisions enabling surveillance and commercial exploitation. The majority opinion validated mandatory Aadhaar under Section 7 for government subsidies, finding it satisfied the proportionality test established in the August 2017 privacy judgment that declared privacy a fundamental right. However, the Court invalidated Section 57 permitting private entities to use Aadhaar, Section 33(2) allowing national security disclosures without judicial oversight, and mandatory linking with bank accounts and mobile connections.
Justice Chandrachud’s dissent provided an alternative constitutional vision, declaring the entire Aadhaar Act unconstitutional on grounds including violation of bicameralism through Money Bill passage, surveillance architecture threatening privacy, and permanent nature of biometric compromise. The judgment’s significance transcends Aadhaar itself, establishing that technological systems require constitutional scrutiny, fundamental rights extend to digital domains, and administrative efficiency cannot automatically override privacy protections. The proportionality framework created precedent for evaluating future digital governance initiatives, affirming that constitutional values must guide India’s technological transformation while respecting human dignity and individual autonomy.
CASE LAWS
Justice K.S. Puttaswamy (Retd.) v. Union of India (2017) 10 SCC 1 – The foundational nine-judge bench decision establishing privacy as a fundamental right intrinsic to life and personal liberty under Articles 14, 19, and 21. This August 2017 judgment articulated the three-fold test for permissible privacy restrictions: statutory backing, legitimate state aim, and proportionality. It overruled M.P. Sharma and Kharak Singh, creating the constitutional framework within which the September 2018 Aadhaar judgment operated.
Modern Dental College and Research Centre v. State of Madhya Pradesh (2016) 7 SCC 353 – This five-judge bench decision articulated the comprehensive four-part proportionality test adopted in the Aadhaar judgment: legitimate goal, suitability of means, necessity demonstrating absence of less restrictive alternatives, and balancing of interests. The Modern Dental framework provided the analytical structure for evaluating Aadhaar’s constitutional validity against fundamental rights.
M.P. Sharma v. Satish Chandra (1954) SCR 1077 – An eight-judge bench holding that search and seizure did not violate fundamental rights and privacy was not constitutionally protected. This precedent created decades of doctrinal uncertainty about privacy’s constitutional status until the Puttaswamy judgments explicitly overruled it, recognizing it was rendered before Article 21’s expansive interpretation.
Kharak Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh (1964) 1 SCR 332 – A six-judge bench holding privacy was not a guaranteed fundamental right, though recognizing limited protection within homes. The Puttaswamy decisions overruled this restrictive approach, establishing privacy as intrinsic to personal liberty under Article 21.
Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India (1978) 1 SCC 248 – This landmark judgment revolutionized Article 21 interpretation, holding that life and personal liberty encompass more than mere physical existence and require just, fair, and reasonable procedures. Maneka Gandhi’s expansive jurisprudence provided the foundation for recognizing privacy as fundamental to personal liberty.
Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala (1973) 4 SCC 225 – The thirteen-judge bench establishing the basic structure doctrine proved crucial in Justice Chandrachud’s dissent, where he argued passing Aadhaar as a Money Bill violated bicameralism, a basic structure element.
CONCLUSION
The September 26, 2018 Aadhaar judgment represents a sophisticated constitutional balancing exercise navigating competing imperatives of efficient welfare delivery, financial inclusion, individual privacy, bodily integrity, and protection from surveillance. The 4:1 decision upholding Aadhaar’s core welfare application while invalidating expansive uses reflects judicial pragmatism in addressing technological governance challenges within constitutional constraints.
The judgment’s enduring strengths include establishing that technological systems must undergo rigorous constitutional scrutiny, fundamental rights extend meaningfully to digital spaces, and administrative efficiency cannot automatically override privacy protections. By striking down Section 57 and invalidating bank and mobile linking, the Court imposed meaningful constraints on Aadhaar’s reach, establishing that commercial exploitation of biometric data without informed consent violates constitutional guarantees.
The proportionality framework articulated provides structured methodology for evaluating future conflicts between state power and individual liberty in the digital age. Requirements of legislative backing, legitimate state aims, assessment of less restrictive alternatives, and balancing public benefit against rights infringement create precedent for judicial review of emerging technologies including facial recognition, contact tracing, and artificial intelligence deployments.
However, significant concerns persist. Critics argue the Court displayed excessive deference to executive assertions about necessity and absence of alternatives, weakening proportionality analysis. The majority’s confidence in security measures appears questionable considering subsequent data breaches revealing vulnerabilities. The broad interpretation of “legitimate state aim” could facilitate function creep beyond contemplated boundaries.
Justice Chandrachud’s dissent offers an alternative constitutional vision emphasizing individual autonomy and technological design choices as constitutional choices. His analysis of surveillance architecture and critique of the Money Bill route as undermining democratic accountability provides important perspectives on protecting fundamental rights in digitized governance.
The judgment ultimately affirms that constitutional rights must evolve to address technological challenges while remaining grounded in human dignity, personal autonomy, and limited government. As India continues digital transformation, this framework requiring justification, proportionality, and respect for individual rights remains vital for ensuring technological advancement respects freedoms and protections defining democratic constitutional governance.
FAQS
1. What was decided in the September 2018 Aadhaar judgment?
The Supreme Court upheld Aadhaar’s constitutional validity by a 4:1 majority for welfare delivery purposes but struck down provisions enabling private sector use, bank and mobile linking, and national security disclosures without judicial oversight.
2. Can private companies demand Aadhaar from customers?
No. The Court struck down Section 57, which permitted private entities to use Aadhaar for authentication. Private companies cannot mandate Aadhaar for providing services as it violates privacy rights under Articles 14 and 21.
3. Is linking Aadhaar with bank accounts mandatory?
No. The Court declared mandatory Aadhaar-bank account linking unconstitutional as it failed the proportionality test and constituted excessive privacy intrusion. Linking remains voluntary.
4. Is linking Aadhaar with mobile phones compulsory?
No. The Court struck down mandatory Aadhaar-SIM card linking, finding it lacked legislative backing and involved disproportionate privacy invasion. Telecom companies cannot refuse services for non-linking.
5. What protections exist for children under Aadhaar?
Children require parental consent for enrollment between ages 5-18 and must be provided exit options upon attaining majority at age 18, respecting their autonomous consent capacity.
6. Can schools make Aadhaar mandatory for admissions?
No. The Court held that Aadhaar cannot be mandatory for school admissions as elementary education is a fundamental right, not a state benefit under Section 7.
7. Is Aadhaar-PAN linking mandatory for income tax purposes?
Yes. The Court upheld Section 139AA mandating Aadhaar-PAN linkage, finding it serves the legitimate aim of curbing tax evasion and constitutes proportionate means.
8. What is the proportionality test applied in this judgment?
The proportionality test requires restrictions on fundamental rights to satisfy four components: legitimate goal, suitable means, necessity (no less restrictive alternatives), and proportionate balancing between public benefit and individual rights infringement.
9. What was Justice Chandrachud’s dissenting view?
Justice Chandrachud dissented completely, finding the entire Aadhaar Act unconstitutional on grounds including Money Bill passage violating bicameralism, surveillance architecture threatening privacy, and inadequate data protection safeguards.
10. How does this judgment affect future digital governance initiatives?
The judgment establishes that all technological systems require constitutional scrutiny, must satisfy proportionality tests, and cannot override fundamental rights merely for administrative efficiency, creating precedent for evaluating future digital initiatives.
