INTRODUCTION

Aadhaar is a twelve-digit unique identification number issued by the central government to citizens in India. It records and verifies demographic and biometric data, and is not meant to replace existing identification documents like PAN cards, driving licenses, and passports. Financial institutions, banks, and telecom companies can use Aadhaar as a know-your-customer (KYC) verification mode and maintain profiles.

The Supreme Court ruled that the government cannot make Aadhaar mandatory for all welfare schemes, but it can be used for some welfare schemes and non-welfare schemes. The government has released a list of mandatory schemes, including those for iron ore, limestone, and beedi workers, welfare schemes under the integrated department of horticulture and Janani Suraksha Yojana, training under the Ministry of Women and Child Development Services, benefits under the Grih Kalyan Kendra scheme, and financial support under the National Women Development Scheme.

In summary, Aadhaar is a unique identification number issued by the central government to citizens, allowing them to access welfare schemes, benefit from Integrated Child Development Services, and receive financial support under various schemes.

THE BEGINNING AND PROGRESSION OF THE AADHAAR CASE

The Aadhaar scheme was introduced by the UPA government in 2006-07, aiming to provide unique identification for below-poverty families. The scheme was approved by the then government and constituted the Unique Identification Authority of India (UIDAI) in September 2009. The first chairman of UIDAI was Nandan M. Nilekani. In 2012, retired justice K S Puttaswamy filed a writ petition in the Supreme Court of India, challenging the mandatory issuance of Aadhaar cards and the government’s plans to link biometric IDs with various government schemes. The Supreme Court ruled that no citizen should suffer for not having an Aadhaar card, even when mandatory for availing certain benefits. In 2014, the Supreme Court asked agencies to revoke orders making Aadhaar mandatory for availing benefits. In 2016, the Modi government made the linkage of mobile numbers with Aadhaar mandatory. In June 2016, guidelines were issued to states to link Aadhaar with domicile and caste certificates. In September 2017, the constitutional bench upheld the validity of Aadhaar but struck down the provision making linking Aadhaar with bank accounts, school admissions, and mobile phones mandatory. In January 2018, a five-judge bench began the hearing on the Aadhaar case again. The Supreme Court completed the final hearing on May 10, 2018, and reserved its verdict.

THE ULTIMATE JUDGMENT ON AADHAAR

The Supreme Court has upheld the validity of the Aadhaar card, stating that it does not violate the right to privacy when a person agrees to share their biometric data. However, the court barred private companies from using the Aadhaar card for KYC authentication, while maintaining that it will still be used for other purposes such as PAN card and ITR filing.

The case of K.S Puttaswamy v. Union of India involved a five-member constitutional judge bench headed by then Chief Justice of India Deepak Misra. The court ruled that aadhaar would be mandatory for filing income tax returns and allotment of Permanent Account Number (PAN), making it mandatory for taxpayers or those in need of PAN cards.

The court also ruled that aadhaar is no longer a requirement for students appearing for CBSE, NEET, and UGC exams, and schools are no longer allowed to seek aadhaar for admission purposes. The court struck down section 57 of the Aadhaar Act, ensuring no private entity or company can now seek aadhaar details from its employees.

The court also struck down the National Security Exception under the Aadhaar Act, which indirectly provided greater privacy to an individual’s aadhaar data by restricting government access to it. The court made a special exception to children and held that no child should be denied of governmental schemes if they do not have aadhaar.

EXPLANATION OF RIGHT TO PRIVACY

The Aadhaar Act of 2016 required the collection and usage of citizens’ personal data, with the government claiming it would benefit millions of poor people by providing education, public benefits, subsidies, food, home, and shelter. The government also claimed that Aadhaar would put an end to negative elements in society like corruption, money laundering, and terror funding. However, the Supreme Court expressed concern about the risks of personal information falling into the hands of private entities and service providers, leading to dire consequences.

National schemes like Aadhaar, DNA profiling, Crime and Criminal tracking network and system (CCTNS), National Intelligence Grid (NATGRID), Rashtriya Swasthya Bima Yojana (RSBY), brain mapping, reproductive rights of women, and privileged communication involve the collection of personal data, including bodily samples, fingerprints, and iris scans, and the need for electronic storage. This may lead to data leakage, and the Supreme Court has been asking the government to establish a robust mechanism for data protection.

The government has constituted a committee of experts led by former Supreme Court judge B N Srikrishna to identify key data protection issues and suggest a draft data protection bill.

THE OPINIONS OF VARIOUS JUDGES HAVE BEEN GATHERED.

The Supreme Court in India upheld the validity of the Aadhaar card, despite some provisions related to personnel data disclosure, private company use of the Aadhaar ecosystem, and offence cognisance. The majority opinion was given by Deepak Misra, A.K. Sikri, and Khanwilkar, while justice Chandrachud and Ashok Bhushan gave dissenting opinions.

The court determined that once biometric information is received and issued, there is no possibility of obtaining a duplicate card as the information remains intact with the UIDAI. If a second attempt is made for enrollment, the biometric data will match the existing information, resulting in the rejection of the second attempt. This led to the creation of the Unique Identification (UID) card.

The court adopted the concept of ‘just, fair and reasonable test’, aligning with the reasonable restrictions provided under article 19 of the Indian Constitution. The court dismissed arguments that the Aadhaar created a surveillance state, stating that minimal biometric data like iris scanning and fingerprints are collected during enrollment, and the UIDAI does not collect location, purpose, and transaction details.

The court also held that not all matters pertaining to an individual fall under the ambit of inheriting the right of privacy, and only those with a reasonable expectation of privacy are protected under article 21 of the Indian Constitution. They laid down a triple test for determining the reasonableness of invasion of privacy, concluding that the Aadhaar act is backed by a statute and serves the legitimate state aim. The court considered three significant tests: the existence of law, the test of proportionality, and a legitimate state interest.

IS AADHAAR IN JEOPARDY?

The Aadhaar Act, which was initially intended to serve the interests of rural and marginalized populations by enabling them to access entitlements and governmental schemes, has been found to be making these schemes even more difficult. Social scientist Reetika Khera believes that the Aadhaar is worse than the disease itself. A study in October 2017 revealed that approximately 500 million subscribers had already linked their Aadhaar with their mobile numbers. This raises questions about the government’s decision to force people to link their mobile numbers with Aadhaar and who is responsible for this.

The link between Aadhaar and personal details like bank accounts and health insurance is also concerning, as it leads to the creation of a digital profile based on aggregated data, which can be misused. The new e-Aadhaar password, which consists of the first four letters of a person’s name and their year of birth, is also a concern.

The Karnataka government pointed out that its department had faltered in issuance of Aadhaar cards, with most departments not having the knowledge to seed Aadhaar into the database. Complaints were registered throughout the state regarding the mismatch in the number of Aadhaars issued, which had surpassed the total population of the state. Some activists argue that the introduction of the Karnataka Aadhaar Act would further increase cases where genuine beneficiaries are denied services.

CONCLUSION

The Aadhaar case has undergone numerous changes since its inception, focusing on issues such as citizen protection, justice interests, and privacy. Interpretations of the case vary from person to person, and the arguments of the five judges have varied. Three judges upheld the constitutional validity of Aadhaar, while Justice Chandrachud strongly disagreed with the majority judgement. There is a need for changes to address the loopholes in the Aadhaar case, as it could threaten an individual’s right to privacy. Additionally, it is crucial to assess if Aadhaar is serving its intended purpose and if not, a mechanism should be adopted to ensure its true purpose. A thorough analysis of the case, analyzing its merits and faults, and addressing the negative aspects is necessary to ensure the Aadhaar case serves its intended purpose.