The Supreme Court today pronounced a landmark verdict on Aadhaar Card. It said that Aadhaar identification in unparalleled and it empowers the marginalised sections of the society. Three out of five judges upheld the legality of Aadhaar programme.?
The Supreme Court said that the number given to a person is unique and that only minimum possible data has been obtained from the citizens.
Justice Sikri, while reading out the verdict, observed:
- Aadhaar eliminates duplication
- Enrollment fool-proof?
- Minimal data collected for establishing identity?
- Uniqueness the fundamental difference between Aadhaar and other ID proofs
- No authentication data will be kept for more than 6 months
- Aadhaar scheme has been declared Constitutionally valid
The Supreme Court added that the main plank of challenge is that Aadhaar infringes right to privacy. The apex court struck down Section 57 of the Aadhaar Act, saying that private companies seeking Aadhaar number is unconstitutional. It means that mobile network providers, private banks cannot compel people to link Aadhaar for their services.
For a record 38 days, the Supreme Court heard close to 27 petitions that had challenged the constitutional validity of Aadhaar and called it a violation of the right to privacy of citizens.
BCCL/Representational Image
More than one billion Indians have already signed up for Aadhaar, set up to be a secure form of digital identification for citizens to access public services. The government declared the 12-digit Unique Identification Number as compulsory for accessing services including bank accounts, PAN cards, cellphone services, passport and even driving licenses.
The Aadhaar Card was made the all-encompassing proof of identity and residence, above all identity proofs.
Also read: Should You Have Aadhaar & Be Forced To Link It Everywhere?
Later, there were concerns about privacy, data security and alternative for citizens in the wake of data leaks.
Petitioners and activists argued that the Aadhaar has been built on a massive database of fingerprints and iris scans and cannot be made mandatory. Petitioners argued that the massive Aadhaar database can easily be compromised, pointing out that a law that "impacts human life can't remain a law".
The government had defended the Aadhaar card on several grounds - the biggest being that it ensured efficient distribution of benefits to millions and prevented siphoning of funds. It insisted that the Aadhaar is safe and cannot be breached.
Hearing in the Aadhaar case started in January and went on for 38 days - making it the second longest after the Keshavananda Bharti case, which questioned if parliament's power to amend the Constitution was unlimited, to the extent of taking away all fundamental rights. The hearing went on for five months in 1973.