ForumIAS announcing GS Foundation Program for UPSC CSE 2025-26 from 27th May. Click Here for more information.
Aadhaar gets thumbs up from Supreme Court
News:
- SC uphold the passage of Aadhaar Act as a Money Bill.
Important Facts:
2. SC says the Bills is a reasonable restriction on individual privacy that fulfils the government’s aim to provide dignity to a large and marginalized population is valid.
3. In its judgement SC has made clear distinction where Aadhaar will be Mandatory and where it is not necessary.
Application where Aadhaar linking is not Necessary:
- To link mobile phone numbers with Aadhaar
- Bank accounts to Aadhaar numbers.
- Schools have been barred from making the submission of the Aadhaar number mandatory.
- Not necessary for children aged between six and 14 under the Sarva Shiksha Abhiyan as right to education
- Statutory bodies like CBSE and UGC cannot ask students to produce their Aadhaar cards for examinations like NEET and JEE
Aadhaar Link is Necessary for:
- To plug leakages in subsidy schemes and to have better targeting of welfare benefits
- PAN Card for filing Income tax return.
4. However, there are several arguments made by dissenting voices, arguing that Adhaar Act is unconstitutional and it is against the fundamental right of Privacy and Dignity of Individual.
Dissenting argument against the Aadhaar Act
5. Not a Money Bill
- Law about an identity proof, Aadhaar, cannot be possibly passed as Money Bill.
- A Money Bill must deal with the declaring of any expenditure charged on the Consolidated Fund of India.
- Section 7 of the Act does not declare the expenditure incurred to be a charge on the Consolidated Fund.
- Rajya Sabha’s Authority has been superseded and that this constitutes a fraud on the Constitution.
Supreme Court observation:
- It is Vital to ensure that government aid reached the targeted beneficiaries which may be extended with the support of the Consolidated Fund of India under the scope of Article 110.
6. Breach of Privacy
- It violates the right to Privacy.
- Grand project to harvest personal data for commercial exploitation by private parties and profiling by the state.
Supreme Court observation
- Minimal biometric information could not amount to invasion of privacy.
- Neither individuals profiled nor their movements traced when Aadhaar is used to avail government benefits
- Struck down the provision for disclosure of Aadhaar information for national security reasons on the orders of an officer not below a Joint Secretary.
- Aadhaar information on the orders of a District Judge cannot be done now without giving the person concerned an opportunity to be heard.
7. Act will create Surveillance State
- Aadhaar regime would facilitate the birth of a “surveillance state”, thereby allowing the creation of a comprehensive profile of an individual.
Supreme Court observation:
- It is very difficult to create a profile of a person simply on the basis of biometric and demographic information.
8. Issues with Data Administration
- Problem is with the storage of Data by UIDAI. Act violates widely recognized data minimization principles which mandates the deletion of personal data once the purpose is fulfilled.
Supreme Court Observation:
- Adhaar card does not capture the data on Race, Caste, Tribe, Ethnicity, Language etc. and uses only demographic information which is not sensitive.
- Court has ordered authentication records should not be retained for more than six months
- Act Prohibited the creation of a Metadata for transactions
9. Benefits sought by the Supreme Court in its judgement:
- To plug leakages in subsidy schemes and to have better targeting of welfare benefits
- To prevent denial of rights and legal entitlements to marginalized section of society who are dependent on the government schemes and benefits.
- To bring in regulations for an effective mechanism for delivery of public oriented services.
