SC upholds constitutional validity of Aadhaar, but with conditions applied

Aadhaar Card

The Supreme Court on Wednesday held the Aadhaar scheme constitutionally valid but struck down certain sections of the Aadhaar Act 2016, marking a historic day in a long-drawn legal battle against the government's controversial biometric identity project.

The apex court's five-judge Constitution bench headed by Chief Justice Dipak Misra said Aadhaar is meant to help benefits reach the marginalised sections of the society and takes into account the dignity of people not only from personal but also from the community point of view.

The top court added that Aadhaar means unique and it is better to be unique than be best.

However, the top court also read down certain sections of the Act. The national security exception under Section 33 has been struck down. Section 57 has also been read down, meaning private companies cannot insist on Aadhaar numbers of customers.

Aadhaar is not mandatory for school admissions, Justice Sikri said. Mobile companies and banks also cannot insist on Aadhaar linking.

There are three sets of judgements being pronounced on the issue.
The first of the three verdicts was pronounced by Justice A K Sikri who wrote the judgement for himself, CJI and Justice A M Khanwilkar.

Justice Sikri said robust data protection regime has to be brought in place as early as possible.

Justice Chandrachud and Justice A Bhushan, who are part of the bench, have written their individual opinions.

There are three sets of judgements being pronounced on the issue.

The Aadhaar initiative has seen several ups and downs since it was launched in 2009.

The first of the petitions against Aadhaar was filed in 2012, and continued well into the past year. The challenges range from ineffective welfare benefits delivery to questioning the entire Aadhaar Act and also the potential use of Aadhaar as a surveillance tool.

The number of petitions kept increasing and the Supreme Court heard a clutch of nearly 30 petitions against Aadhaar together.

The hearings lasted four months and were argued by several lawyers including Attorney General K.K. Venugopal, who represented the Centre, and senior advocates Kapil Sibal, P Chidambaram, Rakesh Dwivedi, Shyam Divan and Arvind Datar who argued for various parties.

On May 10 this year, the Supreme Court had reserved its verdict in the case after a 38-day long hearing.

Aadhaar was initially envisaged as an identity proof for welfare service delivery. However, in the past couple of years, it has become a mandatory document for linkage to and operation of every service used in daily life- from bank accounts to phone numbers, and passports to PAN cards.

In March, the Apex Court had indefinitely extended the deadline for Aadhaar linking with mobile phones, tatkaal passports and for opening bank accounts.

The government had passed the Aadhaar (Targeted Delivery of Financial and other Subsidies, benefits and services) Act, 2016 as a Money Bill in March of 2016.

A Bill proposed in Parliament can only be classified as a Money Bill under very specific circumstances defined in the Indian Constitution.

The opposition had claimed that the government passed the Aadhaar Act as a Money Bill to bypass the scrutiny of Rajya Sabha where it does not have a majority.

As a result, opposition leader of the Congress, Jairam Ramesh had filed a petition challenging the passing of the Aadhaar Act as a Money Bill.

There were other similar petitions that challenged the Constitutional validity of the Aadhaar Act.

The Aadhaar case hearings also led to a nine-judge Supreme Court bench, in August last year, ruling privacy a fundamental right in India.

The conversation in and around the hearings also brought to the fore the lack of a data protection rules in India.

A Committee headed by Justice BN Srikrishna released a data protection Bill in July end this year that has been mired in its own set of controversies.

The Supreme Court later rejected an offer made by the Centre to submit the data protection report in the Aadhaar case.