Aadhaar case: How Supreme Court addressed petitioners’ arguments on surveillance, privacy
The majority view of Chief Justice Dipak Misra, Justices A K Sikri and A M Khanwilkar concluded that “the architecture of Aadhaar as well as the provisions of the Aadhaar Act do not tend to create a surveillance state”.
At an Aadhaar service centre in New Delhi on Wednesday. (Photo: Tashi Tobgyal)
Advertisement
The main argument of the petitioners in the case was that Aadhaar can result in creation of a surveillance state where daily transactions are recorded and that “profiling” will be used to stifle dissent and influence political decision- making. However, the majority view of Chief Justice Dipak Misra, Justices A K Sikri and A M Khanwilkar concluded that “the architecture of Aadhaar as well as the provisions of the Aadhaar Act do not tend to create a surveillance state”.
“During the enrolment process, minimal biometric data in the form of iris and fingerprints is collected. The Authority does not collect purpose, location or details of transaction. Thus, it is purpose blind. The information collected, as aforesaid, remains in silos. Merging of silos is prohibited. The requesting agency is provided answer only in ‘Yes’ or ‘No’ about the authentication of the person concerned. The authentication process is not exposed to the Internet world,” Justice Sikri said.
You have exhausted your monthly limit of free stories.
Read more stories for free with an Express account.
To support its conclusion, it further said that law has mandated use of “Registered Devices (RD)” for all authentication requests. The bench pointed out that RD service “encapsulates the biometric capture, signing and encryption of biometrics all within it.” “Therefore, introduction of RD in Aadhaar authentication system rules out any possibility of use of stored biometric and replay of biometrics captured from other source. Requesting entities are not legally allowed to store biometrics captured for Aadhaar authentication under Regulation 17(1)(a) of the Authentication Regulations,” the majority judgment said.
It further pointed out that the unique device code — registered device code used for authentication — “does not get any information related to the IP address or the GPS location”. “The Authority would only know from which device the authentication has happened, through which AUA/ASA etc. It does not receive any information about at what location the authentication device is deployed, its IP address and its operator and the purpose of authentication. Further, the authority or any entity under its control is statutorily barred from collecting, keeping or maintaining any information about the purpose of authentication under Section 32(3) of the Aadhaar Act,” the bench said.
The other main argument of the petitioner was that the law violates fundamental right to privacy. Addressing this, the majority judgment points to the Section 7 of the Act. It states that this provision is “aimed at offering subsidies, benefits or services to the marginalised section of the society for whom such welfare schemes have been formulated from time to time” — which is “an aspect of social justice” as mandated in Constitution.
“…we find that the inroads into the privacy rights where these individuals are made to part with their biometric information, is minimal. It is coupled with the fact that there is no data collection on the movements of such individuals, when they avail benefits under Section 7 of the Act thereby ruling out the possibility of creating their profiles. In fact, this technology becomes a vital tool of ensuring good governance in a social welfare state. We, therefore, are of the opinion that the Aadhaar Act meets the test of balancing as well,” the court said.
Kaunain Sheriff M is an award-winning investigative journalist and the National Health Editor at The Indian Express. He is the author of Johnson & Johnson Files: The Indian Secrets of a Global Giant, an investigation into one of the world’s most powerful pharmaceutical companies.
With over a decade of experience, Kaunain brings deep expertise in three areas of investigative journalism: law, health, and data. He currently leads The Indian Express newsroom’s in-depth coverage of health.
His work has earned some of the most prestigious honours in journalism, including the Ramnath Goenka Award for Excellence in Journalism, the Society of Publishers in Asia (SOPA) Award, and the Mumbai Press Club’s Red Ink Award.
Kaunain has also collaborated on major global investigations. He was part of the Implant Files project with the International Consortium of Investigative Journalists (ICIJ), which exposed malpractices in the medical device industry across the world. He also contributed to an international investigation that uncovered how a Chinese big-data firm was monitoring thousands of prominent Indian individuals and institutions in real time.
Over the years, he has reported on several high-profile criminal trials, including the Hashimpura massacre, the 2G spectrum scam, and the coal block allocation case. Within The Indian Express, he has been honoured three times with the Indian Express Excellence Award for his investigations—on the anti-Sikh riots, the Vyapam exam scam, and the abuse of the National Security Act in Uttar Pradesh. ... Read More
