Aadhaar leak can influence polls, says SC

Leak of Aadhaar data can influence the outcome of an election, the Supreme Court said on Tuesday even as the Cambridge Analytica data controversy came up as a reference in the top court.

A five- judge Constitution Bench headed by CJI Dipak Misra, hearing clutch of petitions challenging Aadhaar, referred to the Cambridge Analytica controversy and said that these are not “imaginary apprehensions” and, in the absence of robust data protection law, the issue of misuse of information becomes relevant.

“The real apprehension is that elections are swayed using data analytics. These problems are symptomatic of the world we live in,” said the bench, also comprising Justices A. K. Sikri, A. M. Khanwilkar, D. Y. Chandrachud and Ashok Bhushan.

Justice Chandrachud asked counsel Rakesh Diwedi, appearing for UIDAI and Gujarat government, “Can democracy survive where Aadhaar data is used to influence the electoral outcome. We have seen this happening. What is the nature of safeguards available in the absence of data protection law?”

Justice Chandrachud told the counsel, “One area of concern is the potential interface of the data which is available… There is a big entity which is controlling the data now”. “Please do not bring Cambridge

Can democracy survive where Aadhaar data is used to influence the electoral outcome? We have seen this happening. What is the nature of safeguards available in the absence of data protection law? — Supreme Court

Please remove the fear and phobia created by petitioners of sharing of data... Collection of data under Aadhaar is not an atomic bomb. Authentication is an algorithm which is one- to- one and there is no question of sharing of information with anyone — Rakesh Diwedi, UIDAI counsel

Analytica into this. The UIDAI simply does not have the learning algorithms like Facebook, Google to analyse details of users,” said Mr Dwivedi, assuring that Aadhaar data is protected and safe from leakage.

Mr Dwivedi said that technology is advancing and we have limitations of understanding the technological developments.

Justice Chandrachud told the counsel, “Merely because of limitations of knowledge we can’t have a blinkered view of reality; because we are going to lay down a law which will affect the future generation”.

Mr Diwedi said, “Please remove the fear and phobia created by petitioners of sharing of data once the requesting entity seeks authentication. Collection of data under Aadhaar is not an atomic bomb. Authentication is an algorithm which is onetoone and there is no question of sharing of information with anyone.”

He said the moment the data collected by requesting entities for authentication is submitted, it is encrypted and there is no possibility of leakage. He also pointed out that not a single person had come to the court complaining that benefit is denied for authentication failure.

Justice Chandrachud countered and said, “Don’t be so philosophical about it. It is not that every person should come to court. You must have an administrative mechanism by which benefit is not denied to anyone for authentication failure.”

The petitioners had argued that a smart card is better than Aadhaar as it is less intrusive. Refuting this argument, Mr Diwedi said, “They want smart card because institutions like Google doesn’t want Aadhaar to succeed. I ( UIDAI) want people of this country to trust me. We don’t want scare mongering to succeed. I have to ensure that the data is not shared and their information is secure.”

The petitioners contended that individual human beings are numbered with the use of Aadhaar as Hitler did and he had to face the consequences. Mr Diwedi said it is not that human beings are numbered but every individual is identified by means of a number.

“Hitler counted citizens to identify Jews, Christians etc. here, we do not seek details like caste, creed and religion from the citizens, he said, adding that the history of numbers began in India and “numbers are beautiful and fascinating”.

Justice Chandrachud pointed out that the petitioners’ contention is when the Constitution recognises an umbrella of multiple identities why should Aadhaar be made compulsory for availing the benefit.

He said whether it is a private insurance company or a mutual fund, Aadhaar data has to be provided and everyone signs a contract accepting sharing of information.

Mr Diwedi said the necessity of bringing Aadhaar as an identity was to ensure that frauds, which were taking place in the public distribution system, grant of land to villagers and grant of benefits to workers were plugged.

“Aadhaar is not a panacea for all ills. But this document is the starting point and not the end point,” he said.