Not needed for NEET, UGC, CBSE & school admissions

NEWDELHI:AADHAAR will no longer be mandatory for the National Eligibility cum Entrance Test (NEET) and other exams conducted by the University Grants Commission (UGC) and the Central Board of Secondary Education (CBSE), the Supreme Court said Wednesday. It also held that there was no need to provide the 12-digit unique identification number for school admissions.

In its application form for 2018, CBSE, which conducts NEET, said: “All the Indian citizen candidates should possess Aadhaar card...”

Next year, a National Testing Agency will conduct the test.

“Insofar as the school admissions of children are concerned, requirement of Aadhaar would not be compulsory as it is neither a service nor subsidy. Further, having regard to the fact that a child between the age of six and 14 years has the fundamental right to education... school admission cannot be treated as ‘benefit’ as well,” the top court held.

The SC also said: “Benefits to children between six and 14 years under Sarva Shiksha Abhiyan, likewise, shall not require mandatory Aadhaar enrolment.”

But for welfare schemes covered by Section 7 of the Aadhaar Act, giving Aadhaar number would be “subject to the consent of the parents”. Officials said the Midday Meal scheme was likely to be covered under the clause but meals could not be denied if children were unable to furnish Aad- haar number. “The verdict is being studied against each scheme and greater clarity will emerge soon,” said a senior HRD official requesting anonymity.

The SC also reiterated that “no child shall be denied benefit of any of these schemes if, for some reasons, she is not able to produce the Aadhaar number...”

The court said unless the government proved the scholarship money was drawn from the Consolidated Fund of India, it could not insist on Aadhaar. “Funds for scholarships is largely drawn from the Consolidated Fund of India so, going by that, we can ask them to furnish Aadhaar but no one will be denied any benefits... They will be asked to show other proof of identity,” said an official.

“It is a big relief for parents as many schools in Delhi and NCR don’t even accept online application forms without Aadhaar number...,” said Sumit Vohra, who runs an admission portal.

DATA SECURITY

The court expressed trust in UIDAI systems and said the Central Identities Data Repository (CIDR) — central database where biometrics and demographics are stored — is secure.

On technical questions concerning data security, the judges extensively referred to UIDAI CEO Ajay Bhushan Pandey’s presentation on Aadhaar’s architecture that he made before the court. “There are sufficient authentication security measures taken,” the court noted, quoting specific slide numbers from Pandey’s presentation, adding that UIDAI “has sufficient defence mechanism”.

The court mentioned newspaper reports that suggested that “some people could hack the website of Cidr”—which the UIDAI denies. But those reports were not taken into consideration as they appeared “after the conclusion of hearing in these cases” and the judges left that matter with “a hope that CIDR would find out the ways and means to curb any such tendency”.

Critics, however, take a more expansive view of Aadhaar data security, looking towards the entities on the periphery — such as a ration shop in a remote village — interacting with the central database. This ecosystem challenge was not the focus of Supreme Court judgment.

PRIVACY

Privacy concerns are a serious issue in the age of information, the judgment said.

The term “reasonable expectation of privacy” found repeated mention in the ruling, referring to court’s interpretation that an individual can’t expect privacy for all kinds of data. “Data such as medical information would be a category to which a reasonable expectation of privacy attaches,” the court said. But information collected during Aadhaar enrolment — demographics, face photos and biometrics — doesn’t meet that criterion, meaning such data won’t be protected by privacy, unless under special circumstances.

Demographic information “is readily provided by individuals globally for disclosing identity while relating with others and while seeking benefits whether provided by government or by private entities”; “face photographs are given by people for driving license, passport, voter id, school admissions”; fingerprint and iris scan do not deal “with the intimate or private sphere of the individual but are used solely for authentication”, the court said.

SURVEILLANCE

“We are of the view that it is very difficult to create the profile of a person simply on the basis of biometric and demographic information stored in CIDR,” the court said. While seeking Aadhaar authentication, neither the location of the person nor the purpose for which authentication is recorded, the court noted, concluding that “the threat to realtime surveillance and profiling may be far-fetched”.

The State Resident Data Hubs (SRDH) — databases maintained by state governments that are seededwithaadhaarnumbersby consolidating information from multiple government databases to create citizen profiles— did not find a mention in the judgment. The existence of SRDH had been one of the major criticisms of the identity project, that showcase the possibilities of Aadhaar-related profiling.

In his dissenting judgment, justice DY Chandrachud sided with the petitioners, and said Aadhaar was against the right to privacy as it enabled potential surveillance.

EMPOWERING CITIZENS

The court put in place judicial safeguards against misuse of individual data. It struck down Section 57, used by private companies to seek Aadhaar identification. It also struck down Section 33 (2), under which data could be requested for national security.

To obtain access to an individual’s Aadhaar data on grounds of national security, the court suggested an executive above jointsecretary rank (in the Centre) and a judge (preferably from a high court) must process such requests. A citizen whose Aadhaar-related information is sought by the government shall be afforded the opportunity of a proper hearing.

The court suggested that the act “needs a suitable amendment” to include the provision that a citizen can file complaints in case of a data breach or a rights violation. In the existing version, only the UIDAI had the authority do so.

The UIDAI could store authentication transaction data for a period of five years, but the court said “retention of this data for a period of six months is more than sufficient after which it needs to be deleted”, except in cases where its required to be maintained by a court or in connection with any pending dispute.

(Midday) meals can’t be denied if children are unable to furnish the Aadhaar number OFFICIALS