Justice K.S. Puttaswamy (Retd.) v. Union of India (Aadhaar case)
Background
A large batch of writ petitions, transferred cases and contempt petitions (led by retired Justice K.S. Puttaswamy) challenged the Aadhaar scheme, a biometric unique-identity project begun administratively in 2009 and later backed by the Aadhaar (Targeted Delivery of Financial and Other Subsidies, Benefits and Services) Act, 2016, as an unconstitutional invasion of citizens' right to privacy and a step toward a surveillance state. The challenges covered the Act's passage as a "Money Bill," mandatory linking of Aadhaar to bank accounts and mobile numbers, use of Aadhaar for welfare benefits, children's enrolment, and provisions allowing private companies and law-enforcement access to Aadhaar data, following four months of detailed hearings.
Decision Breakdown
By majority, the Court upheld the core constitutional validity of the Aadhaar Act, holding that it satisfied the three-fold privacy test (legality, necessity, proportionality) laid down in the earlier Puttaswamy privacy judgment, did not create an architecture for pervasive surveillance, and was validly passed as a Money Bill. However, the majority struck down the part of Section 57 that allowed the State or any body corporate/person to use Aadhaar authentication "in pursuant to any contract," held that compulsory linking of Aadhaar with bank accounts failed the proportionality test and violated privacy, and quashed the Department of Telecommunications circular mandating Aadhaar-mobile number linking as lacking statutory backing. Justice Ashok Bhushan concurred with the outcome but recorded his own detailed set of conclusions (including upholding Sections 7, 29, 33, 47 and 59 of the Act), while Justice D.Y. Chandrachud dissented in full, holding that the entire Aadhaar scheme, including its passage as a Money Bill, was unconstitutional and that the architecture itself posed unacceptable risks to privacy and the vulnerable.
Lesson Learnt
A government identity scheme tied to welfare benefits can be constitutionally valid even while individual provisions within it (like mandatory bank/mobile linking or allowing private commercial use) are struck down: courts can uphold a law's core while excising specific overreaching provisions, and even a split, multi-opinion Constitution Bench ruling can still produce one binding majority outcome.