Abstract
The Aadhaar project aimed to provide every Indian citizen with a distinct identity number that could be readily verified and was strong enough to prevent duplication. The primary goal is to guarantee that the government uses digital identity to offer benefits, services, and subsidies in a targeted manner.
Keywords: Right to privacy, Aadhaar act, Constitution of India, Data Security ,PAN ,personal data disclosure
Introduction
In India, the notion of the right to privacy dates back to the 1800s, when Indian courts recognized and protected this right. Notably, these courts upheld a pardanashin woman’s right to use her balcony free from her neighbours’ prying eyes. The law pertaining to the right to privacy has developed over time, and Article 21 of the Indian Constitution finally incorporates this body of knowledge. The essential feature of personal liberty is the right to privacy, as further affirmed by the Apex Court.
Previously, a variety of identity documents, such as a voter ID, driver’s license, or ration card, were required in order to receive certain government subsidies, perks, and services. Nevertheless, because it was simple to falsify these documents, benefits and subsidies were improperly directed toward recipients who were not eligible. 2009 saw the launch of the Aadhaar project as a solution to these issues. It was intended to serve as a distinctive identity number based on biometrics to assist in identifying those who qualify. Because it used distinctive traits like fingerprints and iris scans to confirm a person’s identification, it was regarded as a more trustworthy ID proof.
Notifications from the government have made Aadhaar required for a number of schemes, including the Midday Meal program and LPG subsidies. Additionally, the Finance Act of 2017, which amended the Income Tax Act of 1961, was passed by Parliament and mandated the use of Aadhaar in order to file income tax returns and apply for PAN cards4.
.
A person must provide their biometric data, which includes a photo, ten fingerprint and iris scans, and demographic data to the Unique Identification Authority of India (UIDAI) in order to receive an Aadhaar number .
The Aadhaar Act, 2016 offers certain protections for data security and privacy, notwithstanding the lack of comprehensive legislation in India. For example, it prohibits the sharing of an individual’s identification details and authentication records with third parties by UIDAI and its officers. Furthermore, it forbids using someone else’s information without that person’s permission. Additionally, this statute prohibits the sharing of iris scans and fingerprints with third parties. Penalties apply when these provisions are broken.6. We investigate this topic in this work, posing queries and making recommendations.
Research Methodology
This study adopts a qualitative research design to examine the dynamic and evolving nature of the Aadhaar Act. It explores existing regulations, legislative provisions, and the roles of key stakeholders, identifying challenges and suggesting recommendations for enhancing its implementation and impact. This approach aims to deepen understanding of the Aadhaar system’s complexities, legal implications, and societal consequences, with the goal of informing policy improvements and legal frameworks.
Method
Main arguments and privacy question
Although Aadhaar is being widely accepted as a whole, around 90 percent of Indian citizens placed under the UIDAI database, several questions have been brought up due to its nature and the diversity of the country as a whole over the years.
Privacy: Some have claimed whether the right to privacy, protected by Article 21 of the Constitution, that upholds the right to life and personal liberty, is violated when personally identifiable information is collected without the appropriate precautions being taken. The Supreme Court ruled in August 2015 that, in order to evaluate whether or not Aadhaar violates the basic right to privacy, an even bigger bench has to be assembled. But as of June 2017, there was still no comparable bigger. bench.
Mandatory vs. Voluntary: If Aadhaar should be required for government services and benefits is another matter. Aadhaar is permitted to be utilized for 7 specific programs, notably the PM’s Jan Dhan Yojana, PDS distribution of food, LPG distribution, and MGNREGA wage payments, according to interim rulings made by the Supreme Court in 2015.
After the Aadhaar Act, 2016 was enacted, the government began making Aadhaar mandatory for various schemes, resulting in additional petitions challenging these notifications. These cases are still unresolved.
Linking Aadhaar with PAN: Once Aadhaar became required in 2017 in order to file ITR along with registering for PANs, new petitions were filed in the Supreme Court. The new rule has stated that failing get the Aadhaar linked with PAN will deem the PAN invalid. The government argued that this would reduce tax fraud and evasion by actualizing identification, However, those who filed the petition contended that such an amendment might violate essential rights including the freedom to practice one’s profession and the right to equality. A more recent ruling tackled this problem.
Money Bill: The final issue concerns how the Aadhaar Act, 2016 was passed. It was actually designated as a Money Bill, which only requires approval from the Lok Sabha, while only non-binding recommendations could be made by the Rajya Sabha. The recommendations of the Rajya Sabha in regard to the Aadhaar Act was deemed as non-binding. The Aadhaar Act, according to its detractors, shouldn’t be considered a Money Bill. It is due to the fact that it contains clauses irrelevant to taxes and spending by the government.
Aadhaar and Right to Privacy
Initially, privacy was seen as a privilege granted to citizens, similar to freedom. However, with various cases heard by the Supreme Court, the concept has changed continuously. The first Supreme Court judgment stating that privacy was not a fundamental right was in the case of M P Sharma v. Satish Chandra.
The Indian Supreme Court held in M P Sharma v. Satish Chandra, a matter concerning the search and confiscation of papers belonging to the Dalmia group, that the right to privacy was not a basic component of the Indian Constitution. similar to the 4th Amendment of the US Constitution. The judgment drew parallels between American and Indian perspectives in regard to privacy.
Nine years later, the right to privacy was met through again in Kharak Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh. An accused dacoit named Kharak Singh became the target of inquiry, home inspections, covert picketing, and monitoring. When he challenged against these actions, the court ruled, following previous judgments, that the right to privacy was not a fundamental right. However, Justice Subba Rao dissented, argued that whileEven if the right to privacy wasn’t listed as a fundamental right in the Constitution, it was nevertheless a crucial component of individual freedom.
Ultimately, the court decided in Govind v. State of Madhya Pradesh that, as guaranteed by Article 21 of the Constitution, the right to privacy is a fundamental right. This decision, made by a smaller three-judge bench, stated that the right to privacy is not unconditional and can be impeded by laws.
The inception and chronology of Aadhaar case
- 2006-07: The UPA government developed a plan for the distinctive identification of families living under the poverty threshold, which resulted in the Aadhaar scheme’s acceptance.
- September 2009: For the purpose of to distribute Aadhaar cards, the national government created the Unique Identification Authority of India (UIDAI), and Nandan M. Nilekani was named as its inaugural chairman.
- 2012: A writ suit was brought in the Supreme Court by former Justice K S Puttaswamy, who argued that the government’s approach of requiring Aadhaar cards and associating biometric IDs with different schemes was an infringement on private rights and equality.
- September 23, 2013: For a limited time, the Supreme Court decided that no citizen ought to be penalized for not having an Aadhaar card, even if it was a prerequisite for getting certain perks.
- March 24, 2014: The SC ordered agencies to withdraw any mandates making Aadhaar mandatory for benefits.
- February-March 2016: The Modi administration read the Supreme Court’s ruling in Lokniti Foundation v. Union of India, which addressed verification of identity, to require cellphone numbers to be linked to Aadhaar..
- June 2016: Instructions for linking Aadhaar alongside caste and residency documents were released by the federal government to state governments.
- September 2017: After ruling against the forced linking of Aadhaar with bank accounts, school admissions, and cell phones, a constitutional court started proceedings about the legality of Aadhaar.
- January 2018: Resuming deliberations concerning the Aadhaar lawsuit is a five-judge panel.
- May 10, 2018: The SC concluded the last round of arguments in the Aadhaar dispute and postponed rendering a decision.
Intricacies of the Supreme Court Judgement:
A five-judge Supreme Court bench had upheld Aadhaar’s constitutional validity, with a few caveats pertaining to the disclosure of personal information, Aadhaar’s use in the private sector, and its recognition of criminal offenses.
SC’s Judgment
- Does Aadhaar turn India into a surveillance state?
The Court has ruled that neither the Aadhaar Act’s provisions nor its design tend to establish a surveillance state. Iris and fingerprints are the only biometric information gathered during the enrolment procedure. The transaction’s location, goal, or other specifics are not gathered by the Unique Identification Authority of India (UIDAI). Consequently, the transaction’s goal is not preserved. - Aadhaar and Privacy
The Court decided that the Aadhaar Act satisfied the standards outlined in the Privacy ruling for evaluating whether or not the invasion of privacy was acceptable. It decided that the Aadhaar Act, which is the statute supporting the Aadhaar scheme, is in place. Additionally, it fulfills a legal state purpose, namely to guarantee that social benefit programs reach the community that deserves them.
- .Aadhaar as the Money Bill
The decision of the Speaker of the Lok Sabha to designate the Aadhaar Act as the Money Bill was affirmed by the Court. The Court reasoned that the primary goal of the Aadhaar Act is to provide grants, subsidies, or other forms of assistance to underprivileged groups in society, using funding provided by the Consolidated Fund of India.
- Aadhar for Services
Using the Doctrine of Proportionality, the Supreme Court maintained the Aadhaar for government services. According to the idea of proportionality, the kind and degree of state intervention that impedes an individual’s ability to exercise their rights must be commensurate with the intended outcome.
- Disclosure of Data Protection and Disclosure
The jury found that sufficient identification safeguards are in effect to protect biometric information. According to UIDAI rules, Registered Devices (RDs) must be used for all inquiries about authentication. - Aadhaar Child Support
The approval of the child’s parents or legal guardian is required for the enrollment of youngsters under the Aadhaar Act. - Aadhaar connecting to PAN and for submitting income tax returns
- Aadhaar’s connection to mobile phones and banking
While the majority of the bench upheld the constitutional validity of the Aadhaar Act, Justice Chandrachud strongly dissented from the bench in his opinion and further laid strong contention to establish that Aadhaar is unconstitutional in its very nature.
Review of Literature
- The Constitution of India : The Constitution of India guarantees the right to privacy as an integral part of personal liberty under Art 21, which protects the right to life and personal liberty. This fundamental right has been interpreted and reinforced through various judicial rulings, shaping the legal landscape around privacy in India. The Constitution balances this right with the state’s authority to enforce laws that are just, fair, and in the public interest.
Art 14: The right to equality under the law is guaranteed under this article. It declares that no one living on Indian territory may be denied justice before the law or equal protection under the law by the State. It guarantees that residents will not be subjected to bias on the basis of their place of birth, gender, race, religion, or caste.
Art 19: Article 19 provides certain freedoms to the citizens of India, subject to reasonable restrictions. It includes six freedoms.
2.Aadhaar (Targeted Delivery of Financial and Other Subsidies, Benefits and Services) Act 2016 : The Aadhaar Act of 2016 was enacted by the Indian Parliament to provide a legal framework for the issuance and use of Aadhaar numbers, which are unique biometric identifiers for residents of India. This act established the Unique Identification Authority of India (UIDAI) to oversee Aadhaar operations. It aimed to streamline service delivery, prevent identity fraud, and promote financial inclusion by linking Aadhaar to various government services and subsidies. The act also addressed concerns about privacy and security, outlining provisions for the protection of personal data collected under the Aadhaar system.
3.Section 139AA of the Income Tax Act, introduced through amendments in 2017, mandates the linkage of Aadhaar with PAN (Permanent Account Number) for filing income tax returns and for applying for a new PAN. It requires every individual to quote their Aadhaar number while filing tax returns and also when applying for PAN. The provision aims to curb tax evasion by ensuring that individuals cannot possess multiple PAN cards under different identities. The linkage deadline and enforcement have been subject to various judicial interpretations and challenges, particularly concerning its implications on privacy and constitutional rights.
4. The Aadhaar Regulations, 2016 establishes the Unique Identification Authority of India (UIDAI) to issue unique Aadhaar numbers based on biometric and demographic data. It mandates Aadhaar authentication for accessing subsidies and services, ensures data protection, and provides legal validity for Aadhaar as proof of identity and address. The Act has faced legal challenges, particularly regarding privacy concerns and mandatory Aadhaar linking, with the Supreme Court of India issuing judgments to balance these issues with constitutional rights.
Suggestions
Giving private companies the ability to access personal information of individuals would result in profiling, which in return would reveal a person’s opinions regarding politics. Since the information is so important to oneself, it should always belong to them. Failure to do such could worsen the problem..
Additionally, there would be a major possibility of invasion to the right to privacy if the Aadhaar gets integrated into each databases.
Despite being a lawful Act, the Aadhaar Act does not include any type of strong framework to secure citizens’ private data.
There is a need to educate citizens about their rights and the proper usage of Aadhaar. We must conduct awareness campaigns to inform people about how Aadhaar works, their rights, regarding data privacy, and how to seek redressal in case of grievances.
Conclusion
From a thorough analysis of the Aadhaar case, it becomes evident that the case has undergone numerous changes since its inception. A number of important topics were covered, such as preserving the idea of privacy, advancing the principles of justice, and safeguarding the citizens.
When considering perspectives on the Aadhaar case, it is clear that interpretations vary significantly from person to person. This diversity of views was also evident in the arguments presented by the five-judge bench. The view held by most, shared by Chief Justice Deepak Misra and Justices A.K. Sikri and A.M. Khanwilkar, upheld the constitutional validity of Aadhaar. In contrast, Justice D.Y. Chandrachud strongly dissented, presenting arguments that fundamentally opposed the majority’s stance.
Justice Chandrachud’s dissenting opinion highlighted significant concerns regarding the potential misuse of Aadhaar and its implications for individual privacy. He argued that the Act did not adequately safeguard against the risks of surveillance and data breaches, thus posing a serious threat to the right to privacy. This stark difference in judicial opinions underscores the complexity and contentious nature of the Aadhaar debate.
There is a pressing need to address the loopholes and deficiencies identified in the Aadhaar system. Without substantial reforms, Aadhaar could continue to pose a threat to individual privacy rights. It is crucial to ensure that Aadhaar genuinely serves its intended purpose of facilitating the efficient delivery of government services and subsidies. This necessitates a thorough evaluation of the system to determine whether it meets its objectives effectively.
To achieve this, a detailed examination of the merits and demerits of the Aadhaar system is essential. Policymakers must analyze the system’s shortcomings and implement corrective measures to address them. This includes enhancing data protection mechanisms, ensuring robust oversight to prevent misuse, and fostering greater transparency in Aadhaar’s operations.
Furthermore, it is vital to continuously assess the impact of Aadhaar on citizens’ lives and make necessary adjustments to align it with evolving privacy standards and technological advancements. The goal should be to create a balanced framework that upholds both the benefits of Aadhaar and the fundamental rights of individuals.
In conclusion, the Aadhaar case has been a pivotal moment in India’s legal landscape, sparking intense debates and judicial scrutiny. Moving forward, it is imperative to refine the Aadhaar system to ensure it fulfills its intended purpose while safeguarding the privacy and rights of citizens. This requires a collaborative effort from the judiciary, policymakers, and civil society to create a more secure and effective Aadhaar framework.
Bishakha Saha
Shyambazar Law College, University of Calcutta