Opinion Private numbers

During its investigation of a rape case in Goa’s Vasco da Gama last year, the CBI had sought access to the UIDAI’s biometric database, presumably to tally with fingerprints found at the scene of crime. Despite concerns regarding privacy as well as the possibility of false matches implicating innocent citizens, the judicial magistrate in Vasco ordered the UIDAI to share its information with investigators.

On appeal, the Bombay High Court too agreed with the CBI’s request — that order has now been set aside by the SC. To its credit, the UIDAI has consistently maintained through the course of legal proceedings that the Aadhaar database is meant for “civilian and non-forensic purposes”. “Building a system that can search using latent fingerprints, quite like criminal database searches, is not within the constitutional and legal mandate and scope of UIDAI,” said the agency in its appeal to the SC.

For now, the SC has underlined that biometric information collected under the Aadhaar scheme is confidential. It has also reiterated its interim order of September 2013, and asked the government not to make an Aadhaar card mandatory for Indians to avail of services and welfare schemes. But the problem is this: unless the UIDAI is supported by legislation, courts will continue to be the final arbiters of its mandate. And such interventions need not always be for the better. In 2011, the Bombay High Court had disconcertingly ordered police stations in Maharashtra to note down the Aadhaar numbers of witnesses while recording their statements.

The collection of biometric data, both for the UIDAI and the National Population Register, is currently done through executive guidelines. The next government must make it a priority to codify a statutory right to privacy, and with it, outline a clear and explicit framework within which data collection agencies can operate. This will enable the Aadhaar scheme to deliver on its promises without being burdened by controversy and politicking.