This Case Commentary is written by Rajyashri Mandal, a Third-year law student of Department of Law, University of Calcutta

CASE DETAILS:

COURT- SUPREME COURT

BENCH- 5 BENCH JUDGES; JUSTICE DIPAK MISRA, A.K. SIKRI, A.M. KKHAN WILKAR, D.Y. CHANDRACHUD, ASHOK BHUSHAN

CASE TYPE- CIVIL ORIGINAL JUSTICE, WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO. 494 OF 2012

DECIDED ON- 26th SEPTEMBER 2018

PARTIES-

Appellant: JUSTICE K.S. PUTTASWAMY (RETD)

Respondent: UNION OF INDIA

CITATION- AIR 2018 SC (SUPP) 1841, 2019 (1) SCC 1

Abstract

The Case of KS Puttaswamy v. Union of India,2018 was a landmark judgment. On the 26th September 2018, the Supreme Court of India decided the case. It is regarded as a landmark decision that gives clarity on the constitutional validity of the AADHAAR Act. The Unique Identification Authority of India (UIDIA) launched the AADHAAR implementation program to ensure corruption-less welfare scheme implementation. The AADHAAR (Targeted Delivery of Financial and Other Subsidies, Benefits, and Services) Act,2016, formalized the scheme. The case also decided the angle of the right to privacy on the issue of the AADHAAR project. In this case, the Supreme Court regards the right to privacy as a Fundamental Right.

Facts Of This Case

The Indian Government introduced the AADHAAR project in 2009. This project aims to provide a unique identification number to every Indian resident. It primarily provides welfare benefits efficiently. The Aadhaar number is linked with the individual's demographic information. It includes name, age, address, etc., and an individual's biometric which includes a fingerprint and an iris scan. The data of the individuals is stored in a centralized database. In the year of 2016, the Aadhaar Act became statutory. The act focused on delivering subsidies and welfare schemes to the citizens. At the initial stage, the Aadhaar was promoted as a voluntary scheme. In the latter times, the government made it compulsory to use Aadhaar to avail of various services like the Public Distribution System, LPG subsidies, filing of income tax returns, and other governmental services. Karnataka High Court retired judge K. S. Puttaswamy instituted a writ petition in 2012 under Section 13 of the Indian Telecommunication Act stating that Aadhaar violated an individual’s right to privacy. Another issue was there were Constitutionality of the Aadhaar Act regarding the fact that the Aadhaar Act was passed as a money bill and thus it needed approval from only the lower house of the Indian Parliament.

Issues Raised on This Case

This case raised several legal and constitutional issues relating to the Aadhaar scheme. The key issues are the following -

I) Right to Privacy - Did the collection of biometric data and personal information not violate the Fundamental privacy rights?

II) Exclusion of Marginalized Communities - Whether making Aadhaar mandatory for welfare schemes and subsidies led to the exclusion of the poor and marginalized section of society.

III) Constitutionality of the Aadhaar Act - Whether the Aadhaar (targeted delivery of financial and other subsidies, benefits, and services) Act,2016 was constitutionally valid, where the act passed as a money bill?

IV) Proportionality Test - Whether the instruction on privacy was proportionate to the state's objectives of welfare delivery.

V) Data Security and Privacy Concern - Whether personal and biometric data are protected under the Aadhaar system.

Contention On Behalf of The Appellate

The major contentions on the behalf of the appellate were,

1. The first one was the Right to Privacy and that the Aadhaar scheme violated this right. The attaining of biometric data and demographic information in the absence of proper measures infringed on the right to privacy.

2. The applicant argued that the Aadhaar would be incapable of preventing fraud in welfare schemes and improving the efficiency of providing legitimate services. The appellants suggested alternative ways like smart cards and decentralized identity verification systems which would not hamper privacy.

3. The applicants argued that the scheme may hamper the Right to Life and Right to Dignity. If a needy citizen of India fails to receive essential services such as Rations, Pensions, or any other subsidy due to the failure of biometric errors or inaccessibility to Aadhaar. It leads to the situation of social injustice.

4. The petitioner also argued that there was a risk of hacked or leaked centrally stored data.

5. Furthermore, there was a risk, that the government may be able to use Aadhaar data for mass surveillance.

Contentions On Behalf of The Respondent

The major contentions were,

1. The respondents argued that mandating the Aadhaar would play a vital role in ensuring good governance and economic development.

2. The Aadhaar scheme implements direct benefit transfers to ensure transparency of governance.

3. The respondent group acknowledged privacy as a fundamental right. They argued in this case that this right is not absolute it is followed with reasonable restrictions. In this case, Aadhaar served a legitimate state interest which included the economic welfare of the marginalized community of the society.

4. They argued that the Aadhaar scheme passed the test of proportionality. It limited privacy infringement which was justified by the greater public interest in ensuring the efficacy of welfare distribution.

5. They assured the court that UIDIA had implemented a multi-layered security architecture.

6. Respondents said the data of Aadhaar was solely used for authentication purposes and could not be misused for any improper purposes.

7. They justified the constitutionality of the Aadhaar Act, of 2016 because the act primarily dealt with financial aspects. The primary purpose of the act was to facilitate direct benefit transfers (DBT). The respondents also defined that private entities like banks and telecom companies would be able to use only for verification purposes.

8. The respondent refused saying that the Aadhaar scheme used for increasing the efficiency of public services it is not led to the exclusion of marginalized communities.

9. The respondents argued that the Aadhaar scheme did not violate Fundamental Rights including the Right to Life under Article 21 and the Right to Equality under Article 14 of the Indian Constitution. They asserted that the scheme was implemented in a non-discriminatory manner.

Related Provisions

Below we discuss the used legal provisions, in this case, those are-

I) Right to Equality (Article 14): this article of the constitution guarantees equality before the law and equal protection of the law. If the Aadhaar mandate Indians may face discrimination on their ability to access Aadhaar.

II) Protection of Certain Rights Regarding Freedom of Speech, etc. (Article 19): this article guarantees the right to pursue any profession or take any occupation. Implementing Aadhaar in permitting business-related activities may restrict this fundamental right.

III) Right to Life and Personal Liberty Text (under Article 21): this article covers a wide range of rights; it guarantees basic human rights to develop his life and exercise personal liberty it also includes the right to privacy which may face challenges from the Aadhaar implementation.

IV) Definition of Money Bill, (Article 110): The Article explains what the meaning of a Money Bill is and clarifies that a Money Bill can be moved only in the Lok Sabha. In the same regard, The Aadhaar (Targeted Delivery of Financial and Other Subsidies, Benefits and Services) Act 2016, was passed as a money Bill under Article 110. it is about the art-making process that the appellants challenge this fundamentally. However, the respondents defended that Aadhaar primarily deals with financial matters.

Key Elements of The Judgement

In the case of Justice K.S. Puttaswamy (Retd.) v. Union of India delivered on September 26 of the year 2018 by 5 judges, Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court of India. The remarkable landmark ruling that addressed the constitutionality of the Aadhaar Act (2016) and various aspects related to privacy as well as data protection, and the mandatory use of Aadhaar. The bench, comprising 5 judges, delivered a split verdict (4:1). Justice Chandrachud delivered a dissenting opinion.

Key elements of the Judgement were –

I) Aadhaar Act (2016) & its constitutionality -The Supreme Court in the majority (4:1) upheld the Aadhaar Act, 2016, and the Aadhaar scheme. The bench asserted that it complied with the proportionality test as well as the said test together with the legitimate aim test and the reasonableness test.

II) Privacy - In this given case, the Supreme Court adjudicated the Right to Privacy to be a fuzzy right under Article 21 of the Constitution. It is not fixed and immutable and there is the ability to reduce it. The biometric data includes fingerprints together with iris scans which were Constitutional compliant.

III) Test of Proportionality - The present study revealed that most of the cases applied the proportionality test. It states that any violation of any of the rights in the charter must Promote and Protect; that the infringement must Serve as a legitimate aim.

IV) Money Bill- This important act the Aadhaar Act was passed in the Indian Parliament as a Money Bill according to the provisions of Article 110 of its Constitution. It meant they would not need approval from the Rajya Sabha about the Act. Most of them agreed with the decision to allow the Aadhaar Act to be passed as a Money Bill. They assert that the degree of the Act was to regulate the distribution of government subsidies and that is quite within the realm of finance and therefore a Money Bill. Justice Chandrachud did not share this view and he argued that the Aadhaar Act could not have been passed as a Money Bill and then went on to point out that the provisions of the Act are beyond the realm of finance and other related spheres such as governance and regulation which cannot be dealt by the money committee and therefore requires wider debate in both the House of Parliament.

V) No need for Children’s Aadhaar Enrolment - The Supreme Court held that kids cannot be forced to enroll for Aadhaar. So, it could not be used for school enrolment or mid-day meal programs.

VII) Uphold linking guidelines between Aadhaar and PAN card - The Hon’ble court gives constitutional validity to the process of linking PAN card with Aadhaar under Section 139AA of the Income Tax Act.

VIII) No Surveillance - They both dismissed the argument that Aadhaar facilitated the government’s spying on its citizens end masse. It ruled that Aadhaar’s framework was not a measure to track or even monitor because the data gathered by it was for identification or authentication and not for tracking the people.

IX) Key Sections of the Aadhaar Act, 2016 replied. those are-

Section 57 (Aadhaar use by private entities) – Struck down.

Section 47 (complaints and grievances) – Concerns raised, but not struck down.

Conclusion

In brief, the judgment upheld the constitutional validity of the Aadhaar Act,2016. On this judgment, the judges upheld the right to privacy but allowed the Aadhaar scheme to look at the function of government welfare schemes. The court also struck down some sections of the Aadhaar Act that may concern the privacy of the citizens.

REFERENCES:

• Key Highlights of the Aadhaar Judgment • Software Freedom Law Center, India (sflc. in)

• Justice K.S.Puttaswamy(Retd) vs Union Of India on 26 September 2018 (indiankanoon.org)

• https://main.sci.gov.in/supremecourt/2012/35071/35071_2012_Judgement