Aadhaar case

Also called: Puttaswamy Aadhaar judgment · Topic: Transparency, Accountability and e-Governance · NCERT: Beyond NCERT

Meaning

The Aadhaar case (K.S. Puttaswamy v Union of India, 26 September 2018) is a five-judge Constitution Bench judgment. By a 4:1 vote, it upheld the Aadhaar Act, 2016, including Aadhaar for welfare paid from the Consolidated Fund and PAN–Aadhaar linking. It struck down private use of Aadhaar under s.57 and the national-security disclosure rule in s.33(2). It also held that Aadhaar cannot be made compulsory for bank accounts, mobile SIMs or school admissions.

• It matters because it was the first big test of Aadhaar against the right to privacy, which the Supreme Court had declared in 2017.
• It set the rule that every Aadhaar requirement must pass the proportionality test.

Explanation

Background: from the privacy case to the Aadhaar case

• UIDAI (Unique Identification Authority of India) gives Aadhaar numbers and checks identity.
• It was set up in January 2009 by executive notification. This is a government order, not a law passed by Parliament.

• It became a statutory body (a body created by an Act of Parliament) only through the Aadhaar Act, 2016.

• Aadhaar is a 12-digit random number given to every resident, not only to citizens. It is linked to two kinds of data:

• demographic data: name, date of birth, gender and address;

• biometric data: ten fingerprints, two iris scans and a face photo.

• Puttaswamy (2017) is the privacy case. A nine-judge bench held that privacy is a fundamental right under Article 21 and Part III as a whole.

• The 2018 Aadhaar case then asked one question: does Aadhaar break this right?

The test used: proportionality

The Court allows a limit on privacy only if it passes all four steps:

1. Law: an actual law must back it. An executive order or a private contract is not enough.
2. Legitimate aim: it must serve a proper public purpose, such as stopping leakage in welfare.
3. Necessity: it must really be needed to meet that aim.
4. Balance: the good it does must outweigh the harm to the person's rights.

The bench and the votes

• Majority (4): Sikri J wrote for Misra CJI, Khanwilkar J and himself. Bhushan J agreed.
• Dissent (1): Chandrachud J.

What the Court decided

Outcome	Provision or use
Upheld	The Act as a whole, including s.7: Aadhaar may be required for subsidies paid from the Consolidated Fund of India (Article 266)
Upheld	PAN–Aadhaar linking under s.139AA of the Income-tax Act, 1961
Upheld	Passing the Act as a Money Bill (by the majority)
Struck down	s.57: any body, including a private company, could use Aadhaar under a mere contract. Aadhaar can now be required only where a law shows that its use is necessary and proportionate [3]
Struck down	s.33(2): disclosure of data for national security on a Joint Secretary's order
Read down	s.47: individuals, not only UIDAI, can now complain to a court about offences under the Act. "Read down" means the Court narrowed the section's meaning instead of removing it
Not mandatory	Bank accounts: the PMLA (Maintenance of Records) Rules 2005 required this linking. The Court held that it failed proportionality and violated privacy [3]
Not mandatory	Mobile SIM linking was held unconstitutional [3]
Not mandatory	School admissions, and the CBSE, NEET and UGC exams
Data limit	Authentication logs (records of each time Aadhaar is checked) can be kept for at most 6 months, not the 5 years earlier allowed

Chandrachud J's dissent

• Money Bill: he called the use of the money bill route a "fraud on the Constitution".
• A money bill is a bill only about taxes, government borrowing or spending from the Consolidated Fund.
• Using this route meant the bill skipped the Rajya Sabha.

• This harms bicameralism, the system in which Parliament has two Houses.

• Surveillance: the system makes it possible for the state to profile and track citizens.

• Exclusion: when fingerprints fail, people lose their food and pensions, and the Act gives them no proper remedy.

In the Constitution and practice

• Constitutional base:
• Article 21: privacy is part of the right to life and personal liberty, following Puttaswamy (2017).
• Article 110: the Aadhaar Act, 2016 was passed as a money bill.
  • Under Article 110(3), the Lok Sabha Speaker's decision that a bill is a money bill is final.
  • The Rajya Sabha can only make recommendations within 14 days.
  • The government did not have a majority in the Rajya Sabha, so critics said this route was used to get around it.

• Article 266: the Consolidated Fund of India. Under s.7, Aadhaar can be required only for benefits paid from this Fund.

• The law that was tested: the Aadhaar (Targeted Delivery of Financial and Other Subsidies, Benefits and Services) Act, 2016.

• How Parliament responded: the Aadhaar and Other Laws (Amendment) Act, 2019
• It was first brought as the 2018 Bill [4]. It was then issued as an Ordinance in 2019 under Article 123 (a temporary law made by the President when Parliament is not sitting). After that it was passed as an Act.
• s.57 was omitted, so private use under a mere contract ended [4].
• Banks (through changes to the PMLA) and telecom companies (through changes to the Telegraph Act) may use Aadhaar for KYC on a voluntary basis, and only with the person's consent [4].
• Offline verification (by QR code or a paper or XML file) was recognised in law.

• A child enrolled by their parents can choose to cancel their Aadhaar on turning 18.

• Rojer Mathew v South Indian Bank (2019)

• This bench doubted how the Aadhaar case had dealt with the Money Bill question.

• It referred the matter to a seven-judge bench, which is still pending as of the latest available information.

• Good Governance (SWIK) Amendment Rules, January 2025

• Under these rules, government and non-government entities may use Aadhaar authentication for public-interest purposes [1].
• They cover new sectors such as e-commerce, travel, tourism, hospitality and health services [1].
• An entity applies to the concerned Ministry or Department [1] through the swik.meity.gov.in portal [2]. MeitY approves on UIDAI's advice.
• Private use comes back through government approval, not through private contracts, which the 2018 judgment had ruled out.

Don't confuse with

• Puttaswamy (2017), the privacy case: a nine-judge bench declared privacy a fundamental right. The Aadhaar case (2018) was a five-judge bench that applied that right to Aadhaar. Both cases carry the name K.S. Puttaswamy v Union of India.
• Struck down vs "not mandatory": s.57 and s.33(2) were struck down, meaning they were removed as unconstitutional. Bank and SIM linking were held not mandatory. After the 2019 Amendment, banks and telecom companies may still use Aadhaar voluntarily, with consent [4].
• The Money Bill ruling vs the dissent: the majority upheld passing the Act as a money bill. Only Chandrachud J called it a "fraud on the Constitution". Rojer Mathew (2019) sent the question to a seven-judge bench.
• s.57 (2016) vs the SWIK Rules (2025): s.57 let anyone use Aadhaar under a contract. The 2025 Rules allow private use only after government approval [1].

Prelims Hooks

• Aadhaar case, 26 September 2018: five judges, 4:1. Chandrachud J dissented.
• Upheld: s.7 (subsidies paid from the Consolidated Fund of India), PAN–Aadhaar linking under s.139AA of the Income-tax Act, 1961, and passing the Act as a Money Bill.
• Struck down: s.57 (private use under a contract) [3] and s.33(2) (national-security disclosure on a Joint Secretary's order). s.47 was read down.
• Not mandatory: bank accounts, mobile SIMs, school admissions, and the CBSE, NEET and UGC exams. Authentication logs can be kept for at most 6 months.
• Trap: the majority did not strike down the Money Bill route. The doubt went to a seven-judge bench in Rojer Mathew (2019).
• 2019 Amendment: s.57 omitted; voluntary, consent-based KYC by banks and telecom companies; children may opt out at 18 [4].

Mains Points

• Welfare efficiency vs privacy:
• For: Aadhaar-based DBT cuts out ghost and duplicate beneficiaries, people who are fake, dead or listed twice.
• Against: biometric failure can shut genuine people out of welfare (exclusion error), and a central database raises the risk of surveillance.

• Balance: the 2018 judgment answered this with the proportionality test. Every Aadhaar requirement needs a law, a legitimate aim, necessity and balance.

• Money Bill and bicameralism:

• Passing the Aadhaar Act as a money bill raises the question of whether courts can review the Speaker's certificate under Article 110(3).

• Chandrachud J's dissent and the Rojer Mathew reference show that this is still an open constitutional question.

• Function creep after 2025:

• "Function creep" means a tool built for welfare slowly spreading to many other uses.
• The SWIK Rules reopen private authentication through government approval, not a law passed by Parliament [1].
• It is open to debate whether this meets the 2018 demand for a law that shows necessity.
• Possible reforms: independent audit, a strong regulator under the DPDP Act, 2023, and offline fallbacks so that no one is excluded.

Related concepts

• Aadhaar
• Unique Identification Authority of India
• Direct Benefit Transfer
• JAM trinity
• Digital public infrastructure
• India Stack

Read more

• Aadhaar, DBT and digital public infrastructure