Introduction

The K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India case, also known as the Aadhaar judgment, stands as a landmark ruling by the Supreme Court of India on the right to privacy and the constitutionality of the Aadhaar scheme. Delivered on September 26, 2018, the judgment has had far-reaching implications for individual privacy rights, data security, and the interaction between state powers and personal freedoms in India.

 

Background of the Case

The Aadhaar project, initiated in 2009 by the Unique Identification Authority of India (UIDAI), sought to issue a 12-digit unique identification number to every Indian resident based on their biometric and demographic data. Although the project aimed to streamline government benefits and reduce fraud, it raised serious privacy concerns. In 2012, retired Justice K.S. Puttaswamy (retired judge from the Karnataka High Court)  filed a petition questioning the constitutionality of Aadhaar on privacy grounds. This led to a lengthy legal battle that ultimately became a historic judicial examination of privacy rights under Article 21 of Constitution of India.

A key precursor to the 2018 decision was the landmark 2017 judgment in K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India, in which a nine-judge bench of the Supreme Court declared the right to privacy a fundamental right under the Indian Constitution. This ruling established the constitutional foundation for addressing the validity of Aadhaar in the subsequent 2018 case.

 

Facts of the Case

The petitioners in K.S. Puttaswamy (Retd.) and Anr. v. Union of India and Ors. argued that the Aadhaar scheme violated the right to privacy, as it required individuals to submit sensitive biometric information such as fingerprints and iris scans, which the state could then store and access. They contended that the Aadhaar Act, 2016 (enacted to provide statutory support to Aadhaar), was unconstitutional, as it:

• Compelled individuals to obtain an Aadhaar number for accessing welfare benefits and essential services.
• Enabled the potential misuse of personal data, as the government and private entities would have access to individuals’ personal information.
• Did not adequately address concerns regarding data protection and the potential for surveillance by the state.

 

Issues Raised

The Supreme Court bench, comprising five judges, examined several critical issues in the case:

1. Right to Privacy and Aadhaar: Whether the mandatory collection of biometric and demographic data under Aadhaar infringed on individuals’ fundamental right to privacy under Article 21 of the Constitution.
2. Proportionality and Necessity: Whether the Aadhaar scheme’s benefits outweighed the intrusion on privacy, and if the scheme satisfied the proportionality test established by the Court’s 2017 ruling on privacy.
3. Legality of Compulsory Use: Whether it was constitutionally valid to make Aadhaar mandatory for accessing government benefits and services, as well as for linking with private services, such as bank accounts and mobile numbers.
4. Data Security and Surveillance: Whether the Aadhaar Act adequately protected individuals from data leaks, potential misuse of biometric data, and mass surveillance by the state.

 

Judgment

The Supreme Court delivered a split verdict, with four judges ruling in favour of the Aadhaar scheme’s constitutionality and one dissenting judge, Justice D.Y. Chandrachud, opposing it. The key highlights of the judgment were as follows:

1. Constitutionality of Aadhaar: The Court upheld the constitutionality of the Aadhaar scheme, stating that it served a legitimate state interest by providing a secure and efficient means of identification to access welfare benefits. The majority opinion held that Aadhaar’s utility outweighed the privacy concerns raised by the petitioners, particularly in preventing leakage and duplication in welfare schemes.
2. Right to Privacy: The Court reaffirmed that the right to privacy is a fundamental right under Article 21. It ruled that while the Aadhaar scheme did impact privacy, this was justified by the government’s interest in ensuring social welfare.
3. Proportionality Test: The Court applied the proportionality test and concluded that Aadhaar passed this test, as the scheme was designed to achieve a legitimate state aim (disbursing welfare benefits) and had in-built safeguards to prevent privacy violations. However, the Court imposed certain restrictions to balance privacy concerns with Aadhaar’s benefits.
4. Private Use of Aadhaar: The Court struck down provisions that mandated Aadhaar linking for private services, such as opening bank accounts, obtaining SIM cards, and admission to educational institutions. The Court held that Aadhaar should not be mandatory for services provided by private entities and should be restricted to government welfare schemes.
5. Data Protection and Security: The Court emphasized the need for robust data protection laws to prevent misuse of personal data. It directed the government to ensure strict security protocols and minimal retention of data to protect individuals' information.

 

Impugned Sections and Their Ruling

Several sections of the Aadhaar Act, 2016 were reviewed by the Court, including:

• Section 57: This provision permitted private entities to require Aadhaar for identification purposes. The Court struck down Section 57, ruling that Aadhaar should not be used for authentication by private entities.
• Section 33(1) and Section 33(2): These sections permitted the disclosure of Aadhaar data in certain cases, such as for national security. The Court upheld the validity of Section 33(1), but limited the application of Section 33(2), requiring an authority at a high judicial level for allowing access to Aadhaar data in the interest of national security.
• Section 47: This provision restricted individuals from filing complaints regarding Aadhaar misuse, allowing only UIDAI to lodge complaints. The Court recommended changes to this provision to enable individuals to address grievances directly.

 

Dissenting Opinion

Justice D.Y. Chandrachud, in his dissenting opinion, argued that the Aadhaar scheme was unconstitutional and violated the right to privacy. He reasoned that the Aadhaar Act was passed as a Money Bill, which he viewed as an improper use of legislative procedure. He also expressed concerns that the scheme could lead to surveillance and compromise the autonomy of individuals. Justice Chandrachud argued that the Aadhaar Act should be struck down in its entirety due to its significant privacy implications.

 

Impact and Implications

The 2018 K.S. Puttaswamy judgment has significantly influenced the discourse on privacy and data protection in India. The verdict led to the restriction of Aadhaar’s use for private services, limiting its mandatory linkage to government welfare schemes. The ruling underscored the importance of data security and the necessity for a comprehensive data protection framework in India.

 

Conclusion

The K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India case marked a crucial step in developing privacy jurisprudence in India, reflecting the Court’s balancing act between safeguarding individual rights and supporting state welfare objectives. This landmark judgment has had a lasting impact on Indian society by strengthening privacy protections and reinforcing the need for data security in the digital age. The case serves as a critical milestone in India’s constitutional history, underscoring the role of the judiciary in upholding the fundamental rights enshrined in the Constitution

You can also read the latest judgment by visiting [Blog].
For more information, visit [ALEC Enquiry].