This is a case where the constitutional validity of The Aadhaar programme and regulation framed under the Aadhaar Act, 2016 are challenge. In this case the regulations framed under the Aadhaar Act, 2016 and the elements of the Aadhaar programme that continues to operate without taking into consideration the privacy policies as guaranteed by the constitution of India. Notifications issued under Section 7 of the Aadhaar Act in so far as they make Aadhaar mandatory for availing of certain benefits, services and subsidies; and actions which made Aadhaar mandatory even where the activity is not covered by Section 7 of the Act. It is submitted in this case that the Aadhaar project and Act are ultra vires on the following grounds:
The project and the Act violate the fundamental right to privacy;
The architecture of the Aadhaar project assists unavoidable surveillance by the State;
Due to the untrust worthiness of biometric technology, there are authentication failures which lead to the exclusion of individuals from welfare schemes.
Mandating identification by only one mode is highly disturbing, excessive and uneven and violates Articles 14, 19 and 21 and the procedure adopted by the State before and after the enactment of the law is violative of Articles 14 and 21 because there is no informed consent at the time of enrolment. UIDAI does not have control over the enrolling agencies and requesting entities that collect sensitive personal information which facilitates capture, storage and misuse of information.
The reasons submittedin order to prove that the provisions of the Aadhaar Act are unconstitutional are that the use of sensitive personal information under the Aadhaar Act must not be permitted because it is capable of being used to affect every aspect of an individual’s personal, professional, religious and social life. It is therefore violative of the individual freedoms guaranteed under Articles 19(1)(a) to 19(1)(g), 21 and 25 of the Constitution. Making Aadhaar mandatory unreasonably deprives citizens of basic rights and entitlements and infringes Article 21 of the Constitution. Use of Aadhaar as an exclusive identity for availing of subsidies, benefits and services is disproportionate and violates Article 14 for being arbitraryand discriminatory against persons otherwise entitled to such benefits. Other than these Collection and storage of data with the government under the Aadhaar Act is violative of the right to protection from self-incrimination, and the right to privacy and personal dignity under Article20(3) and Article 21 of the Constitution. To prescribe that Aadhaar is the only identity that enables a person to receive privileges is contrary to the right of an individual under the Constitution to identify the person through other prescribed documentation such as electoral rolls or passports. The Aadhaar project violates dignity under Article 21 of the Constitution.After hearing all the contentions laid before the court it is held that the Aadhaar Act creates a statutory framework for obtaining a unique identity number, which is capable of being used for any purpose, among which availing benefits, subsidies and services is just one purpose provided under Section 7. Clause (e) of Article 110(1) requires that a Money Bill must deal with the declaring of any expenditure to be expenditure charged on the Consolidated Fund of India. Section 7 fails to fulfill this requirement. Section 7 does not declare the expenditure incurred to be a charge on the Consolidated Fund. It only provides that in the case of such services, benefits or subsidies Aadhaar can be made mandatory to avail oft hem. Moreover provisions of Aadhaar Act do not lie within the scope of sub-clauses (a) to (g) of Article 110(1). Thus, the Aadhaar Act is declared unconstitutional for failing to meet the necessary requirements to have been certified as a Money Bill under Article 110(1).Adequate norms must be laid down for each step from the collection to retention of biometric data. At the time of collection,individuals must be informed and the retention period must be justified.

READ JUDGEMENT