Supreme Court's Aadhaar Ruling: Voluntary Use, Limited Scope, Privacy Protection

The Supreme Court acknowledged the complexities of the Aadhaar scheme and the right to privacy, directing the matter to a larger bench for resolution. The interim order mandates Aadhaar to be voluntary and limits its use to designated social benefit programs, striking a balance between governance requirements and privacy protection.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Right to Privacy under Indian Constitution
2. Legality and implications of the Aadhaar Card Scheme
3. Interim relief and injunctions concerning the Aadhaar scheme

Detailed Analysis:

1. Right to Privacy under Indian Constitution
The core issue revolves around whether the right to privacy is a fundamental right under the Indian Constitution. The petitioners argue that the collection of biometric data under the Aadhaar scheme violates the right to privacy, which they claim is implied under Article 21 and other articles in Part III of the Constitution. The Attorney General contends that previous judgments in M.P. Sharma v. Satish Chandra (1954) and Kharak Singh v. State of U.P. (1963) cast doubt on the existence of such a right. These cases, decided by larger benches, did not recognize privacy as a fundamental right, thus creating a divergence in judicial opinions. Subsequent cases like Gobind v. State of M.P. (1975), R. Rajagopal v. State of Tamil Nadu (1994), and PUCL v. Union of India (1997) have, however, inferred a right to privacy from Article 21. The petitioners argue that the observations in M.P. Sharma and Kharak Singh are not binding and have been implicitly overruled by later judgments, particularly post-Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India (1978).

2. Legality and Implications of the Aadhaar Card Scheme
The Aadhaar scheme, which involves collecting demographic and biometric data, is challenged on the grounds of violating privacy rights. The petitioners assert that the scheme's implementation without explicit legal backing infringes on personal liberties. The Attorney General argues that the scheme is crucial for effective governance and the distribution of social benefits like MGNREGA, PDS, and LPG subsidies. The Court acknowledges the importance of the scheme but emphasizes the need to balance it against potential privacy infringements. The Court notes the apparent contradiction in judicial precedents and the necessity for a larger bench to resolve these issues definitively.

3. Interim Relief and Injunctions Concerning the Aadhaar Scheme
The petitioners sought interim relief to restrain the government from collecting biometric data and issuing Aadhaar cards, citing privacy breaches. The Attorney General countered that no injunction had been previously granted, and significant resources had already been invested in the scheme, with Aadhaar cards issued to about 90% of the population. The Court, considering the balance of interests, directed that Aadhaar cards should be issued on a consensual basis and not be mandatory for obtaining benefits. The Court also ordered that Aadhaar data should not be used for purposes other than specified social benefit schemes and criminal investigations as directed by a court.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court recognized the complexity and significance of the issues surrounding the Aadhaar scheme and the right to privacy. It directed that the matter be placed before a larger bench to settle the legal position on the right to privacy and its implications on the Aadhaar scheme. The interim order ensures that Aadhaar remains voluntary and restricts its use to specific social benefit schemes, thereby balancing governance needs with privacy concerns.

---