What Is The Supreme Court’s View On Aadhaar Privacy?

The Supreme Court of India’s 2017-2018 rulings on Aadhaar are landmark in shaping privacy jurisprudence in India. In the case of Justice K.S. Puttaswamy (Retd.) vs. Union of India, the Court affirmed that privacy is a fundamental right under Article 21 of the Constitution. It subsequently examined Aadhaar’s legality and privacy impact, laying down a nuanced framework balancing individual privacy with the government’s need for efficient welfare delivery and identification.

Supreme Court’s Detailed View on Aadhaar Privacy

Privacy as a Fundamental Right:
The Supreme Court declared privacy a fundamental right, providing the constitutional foundation to scrutinize Aadhaar’s impact on individual freedoms, data protection, and autonomy. This judgment overturned previous ambiguities, ensuring privacy protections apply to digital and biometric data.

Conditional Constitutionality of Aadhaar:
While upholding Aadhaar’s constitutionality, the Court imposed significant limitations:

• Aadhaar is mandatory only for welfare schemes and government subsidies to ensure efficient targeting and prevent leakages.
• The government cannot make Aadhaar compulsory for services like bank accounts, mobile connections, or school admissions, protecting individuals from exclusion or coercion.
• Private entities cannot demand Aadhaar for any service unless explicitly authorized by law or with clear, voluntary user consent.

Data Protection and Security Obligations:
The Court underscored the necessity of strong data security, requiring UIDAI to implement robust encryption, anonymization, and access controls. Unauthorized access, data leaks, or misuse would violate privacy rights and attract penalties.

Purpose Limitation and Data Minimization:
Aadhaar data must be collected and processed strictly for specific lawful purposes. The Court stressed that data collected for one purpose (such as subsidy delivery) cannot be repurposed without consent, safeguarding against function creep and mass surveillance.

Consent and Transparency:
Consent must be informed, explicit, and voluntary, particularly when Aadhaar data is shared with private or third-party agencies. Transparency in data practices ensures users understand how their data is used.

Right to Remedies and Legal Recourse:
The Court affirmed individuals’ right to challenge unauthorized or unlawful use of Aadhaar data, enabling legal remedies, complaints to UIDAI, or judicial interventions.

Concerns over Surveillance and Privacy:
The Court acknowledged risks of surveillance and potential misuse of biometric data but balanced these concerns by mandating stringent safeguards and legal checks on government and private use.

Impact on Digital Identity and Governance:
Aadhaar is recognized as a powerful tool for digital identity, streamlining governance and public services, but its deployment must never undermine privacy or fundamental rights.

Example

Scenario:
A bank requests Aadhaar details for opening a new account.

Steps:

• Based on the Supreme Court ruling, the bank cannot make Aadhaar mandatory for account opening.
• If a customer chooses to provide Aadhaar voluntarily, the bank must clearly inform them about the purpose and obtain explicit consent.
• The bank must implement adequate security measures to protect Aadhaar data from unauthorized access.
• Customers can opt for alternative identification methods and are entitled to legal remedies if their Aadhaar data is misused or leaked.
• Any violation by the bank can be challenged before regulatory authorities or courts as per the Court’s directions.

This example illustrates the Supreme Court’s careful balancing of Aadhaar’s utility with robust privacy protections, ensuring fundamental rights are not compromised.