Authored By: Nitya Ramachandran
Government Law College, Coimbatore
TITLE OF THE CASE
Justice K.S. Puttaswamy (Retd.) & Anr. v. Union of India & Ors.
Citation: AIR 2017 SC 4161
Year of Judgment: 2017
BENCH
Supreme Court of India – Justice S Abdul Nazeer, Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul, Justice D Y Chandrachud, Justice Abhay Manohar Sapre, Justice Rohinton Fali Nariman, Justice R K Agrawal, Justice S A Bobde, Justice J Chelameswar, Justice Jagdish Singh Khehar (9-judge bench)
RELEVANT FACTS OF THE CASE
The challenge primarily concerned the Aadhaar project (which translates to ‘foundation’ or ‘base’). The Aadhaar number was a 12-digit identification number issued by the UIDAI to the residents of India. The Aadhaar project was linked with several welfare schemes, with a view to streamline the process of service delivery and remove false beneficiaries. In accordance with an administrative act approved in 2009, the Aadhaar scheme, subsequently enforced through Executive order, was challenged by a petition from Justice K.S. Puttaswamy, a retired Judge of Karnataka High Court and others related to its constitutionality, asserting that it infringed the fundamental right of privacy under Article 21 of the Constitution.
Meanwhile, in 2016, Parliament enacted the Aadhaar (Targeted Delivery of Financial and Other Subsidies, Benefits and Services) Act, 2016, which was passed as a Money Bill. The petitioners also challenged the constitutional validity (vires) of this Act itself. The central issues surrounding the controversy involved whether the Aadhaar system, due to its requirement for collecting and storing minimal identity information (including biometric data like fingerprints and iris scans) for enrolment and authentication, constitutes a serious invasion of the Right to Privacy and holds the potential to create a surveillance state.
The petitions also challenged the validity of various aspects of the Aadhaar scheme, including:
Sections of the Aadhaar Act (e.g., Sections 7, 8, 29, 33, 57, and 59).
Mandatory linking of Aadhaar for non-welfare schemes, such as bank accounts (under PMLA Rules) and mobile phone numbers (DoT Circular).
Section 139AA of the Income Tax Act, which mandated linking Aadhaar to PAN.
The manner in which the Aadhaar Act was passed as a Money Bill.
The retrospective validation provision (Section 59).
ISSUES INVOLVED
Whether Right to Privacy, though not expressly provided, is a Fundamental Right guaranteed under Article 21 of the Indian Constitution
Whether the proposed Aadhaar scheme violates the Right to Privacy
ARGUMENTS OF THE PARTIES
ARGUMENTS BY THE PETITONER
The central contention was that the Aadhaar is a significant violation of the right to privacy since its design and scheme make it prone to evolve into a surveillance state by tracking the life profile and movement of each person through the collection of data from transactions through Aadhaar.
The Act does not satisfy the proportionality test because privacy intrusion is excessive and unnecessary as there are other means available for individual identification (ie. passport, voter ID, smart card).
The mandatory use of Aadhaar unreasonably denies persons entitlements on grounds that have no sufficient causal connection with their right to be able to access their entitlements, resulting in systematic exclusion from welfare schemes, and in violation of Article 21 (right to dignity and right to life).
The centralized storage of sensitive personal information (biometric data) in the Central Identities Data Repository (CIDR) is particularly susceptible to misuse. Once a biometric system has been hacked, it is hacked forever. Similarly, there was no informed consent given upon enrollment related to data usage.
The Aadhaar Bill was incorrectly certified as a Money Bill, thereby illegally excluding the Rajya Sabha from the legislative process and undermining the separation of powers.
Other specific sections, including those allowing private entities and bodies corporate authentication to be sought for “any purpose,” and disclosure in the interest of national security, faced challenges for being unconstitutional on the basis of over breadth or lack of safeguards.
ARGUMENTS BY THE RESPONDENT
The basic aim of the Act is to deliver subsidies, benefits, and services funded from the Consolidated Fund of India in an efficient, transparent and targeted manner. This purpose advances a proper State aim to prevent wastage of resources due to fake/bogus beneficiaries and prevent the generation of black money, money laundering, and tax evasion.
The right to life encompasses the right to food, shelter, and dignity. Providing substantively for these socio-economic rights can reasonably justify the minimal invasion to privacy. They argued that the right to privacy must be weighed against the positive obligation of the State to provide socio-economic rights for the deprived, and in the case of a conflict of the two rights, welfare would prevail.
Only minimal identity information is collected (demographic and core biometrics). The UIDAI has a statutory prohibition to collect information on the purpose for which authentication was performed or the location of that authentication; it is statutorily impossible to profile or be subjected to constant surveillance.
The Act passes the proportionality test, as there is a reasonable connection between the means (unique identification through Aadhaar) and the legitimate objects (targeted delivery). They contended that the courts should not utilize the “least intrusive test,” as it involves a technical dimension that is beyond the capability of the court.
The Aadhaar Act should rightly be certified as a Money Bill because the heart/ pith and substance of the Bill deal solely with expenditure out of the Consolidated Fund of India. They argued that the Speaker’s determination on a Money Bill is generally final, and a court cannot review it.
JUDGMENT
The Supreme Court, by a majority decision generally upheld the constitutional validity of the Aadhaar Act, 2016, but struck down or read down several key provisions.
Following were upheld as constitutional –
Passing the Aadhaar Act as a Money Bill
Section 7 of the Act regarding welfare or targeted delivery, as it satisfied the threefold test for limiting privacy
Disclosures made under judicial order were read down to require that the individual concerned must be given an opportunity to be heard.
Linking Aadhaar to PAN was upheld
Following were held to be unconstitutional –
The portion which enabled any body corporate or individual to seek authentication (use Aadhaar for establishing identity for “any purpose” pursuant to “any contract”)
For school admission, Aadhaar is not compulsory. Children enrolled under Aadhaar with parental consent must be given an option to exit the scheme upon attaining majority
Circular mandating linking of mobile numbers with Aadhaar, was held to be illegal and unconstitutional as it was not backed by any law, and was quashed
LEGAL REASONING
The majority opinion was guided by two major principles: the recognition of the Right to Privacy as a fundamental right, and the application of the Proportionality Test to statutory restraints on that right.
Right to Privacy is Fundamental but not absolute —
The right to privacy is a fundamental right (informational privacy, physical autonomy, and privacy of choice). However, this right is not absolute and can be limited. Only those matters over which there is a reasonable expectation of privacy are protected under Article 21.
Triple Test for Limiting Privacy –
Any statutory invasion of privacy must satisfy a threefold test:
The action must be sanctioned by a valid law (Legality).
It must serve a legitimate State aim. This aim includes targeted delivery of benefits/subsidies to prevent dissipation of scarce public resources.
The extent of interference must be proportional to the need for interference (Proportionality).
Proportionality Satisfied by Section 7 –
The core purpose of the Aadhaar Act (Section 7—targeted welfare delivery from the Consolidated Fund of India) satisfied the proportionality test. The intrusion on privacy was deemed minimal, and the law was seen as having a rational nexus to the legitimate goal of empowering the poor and ensuring dignity (a competing facet of Article 21).
Proportionality Violated by Private/Mandatory Use –
Provisions allowing the extensive, mandatory, and unsupervised use of Aadhaar by private entities (Section 57 part struck down) or for non-welfare services were disproportionate and therefore violated the right to privacy. These restrictions were arbitrary and failed the necessity stage of the proportionality test (as less intrusive alternatives existed or the State failed to demonstrate necessity).
Judicial Review of Money Bill –
The decision established that the Speaker’s certification of a Bill as a Money Bill is not immune from judicial review if the certification suffers from constitutional illegality or substantive irregularity. However, the majority held that the Act was validly passed as a Money Bill in this specific instance.
CONCLUSION
This is an important case that leads to constitutional challenges of extensive Indian legislation, including legal texts prohibiting same-sex relationships and laws banishing the consumption of beef and alcohol in numerous Indian States. The case also segues into larger significance as various privacy campaigners leverage the case to pursue the constitutional issue of privacy in different countries. Since the 2017 judgment, the fundamental right to privacy has been cited as precedent in various landmark judgments. The case has struck a balance between need and protection in the nation, therefore, seeking to uphold the true purpose of the Indian Constitution.
