A welcome judgment
Aadhaar cannot be an instrument of coercion
The Supreme Court delivered its decision on the constitutionality of the Aadhaar unique identification system on Wednesday, in one of the most anticipated judgments of recent years. Since it was introduced under the United Progressive Alliance in its second term, Aadhaar has been used across the government and the private sector as a form of easy identification. The State has claimed numerous benefits, especially to the exchequer, from its ability to cut down on duplication and leakage in welfare payments. But serious questions about its constitutionality and its overuse remained, especially given the Supreme Court’s resounding affirmation that Indians have a fundamental right to privacy. This debate has been settled — for now — by the judgment of the five-judge bench which, by a four to one majority, upheld the Aadhaar Act as constitutional but severely restricted the parameters for its use.
These limitations on the use of Aadhaar are a welcome step. The Unique ID project was conceptualised as one that would be strictly voluntary. But over the years, this was no longer the case, as both public and private sectors — telecom companies, banks, government welfare schemes — increasingly sought to make the use of Aadhaar mandatory for service provisioning. This is unacceptable, the Supreme Court has pointed out, stating that Aadhaar would be voluntary, with an option to exit. The Court’s denial of the coercive use of Aadhaar is a strike in favour of individual freedom, and deserves praise. The apex court has also struck down Section 57 of the Aadhaar Act which allowed private entities to avail Aadhaar data. Henceforth, neither individuals nor corporate entities such as mobile companies, banks and schools etc. will be able to demand Aadhaar from any individual.
The Court, however, ruled that Aadhaar will continue to be mandatory for Statesponsored welfare schemes such as direct benefit transfers and the public distribution system. But it also stated that no such beneficiary would be denied just because of the failure of the authentication process, a criticism that many social activists have made. Taxpayers, too, will have to link their Permanent Account Numbers to their Aadhaar numbers. Of course, the focus would now shift to the implementation of this ruling. The ball is now in the government’s court. It must ensure that all such excessive demands are stopped, or it will be in contempt of court. The Supreme Court, too, must follow up on its judgment — it is unfortunate that in the past the government has with impunity extended the use of Aadhaar in defiance of previous Supreme Court stays on such actions.
There will be allied concerns when it comes to implementation though. For instance, many businesses such as the emerging fintech companies are likely to be affected adversely with the decision. Similarly, with respect to access to welfare schemes, it is possible that questions of exclusion and discrimination may be raised again. In that context, the views of the sole dissenting judge, Justice Chandrachud, might have far-reaching ramifications. In particular, he took a strong exception to the Aadhaar Act bypassing the Rajya Sabha, where the government did not have a majority, by posing as a money bill. As a result, he held the Act unconstitutional. The truth is that the framers of the Constitution gave the Rajya Sabha the right to block legislation unrelated to taxation or spending. What should worry Indians is the Supreme Court’s acceptance of this subversion through the majority judgment as it will open the door to further such actions by a government with a majority in the Lok Sabha.