The Supreme Court's engagement with Aadhaar — from the 2018 Puttaswamy judgment to the 2026 issuance norms plea — reflects an evolving judicial approach to technology and rights. Discuss.

Q. The Supreme Court's engagement with Aadhaar — from the 2018 Puttaswamy judgment to the 2026 issuance norms plea — reflects an evolving judicial approach to technology and rights. (15 marks, 250-350 words)

Aadhaar, the 12-digit identity now held by nearly 144 crore residents under the Aadhaar Act, 2016, has been shaped as much by litigation as by legislation. From Puttaswamy (2018) to the 2026 issuance-norms plea, the Court's focus has shifted from privacy to identity integrity.

Phase I — Privacy and proportionality (2018) - In Justice K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India, a Constitution Bench upheld the Act 4:1 but struck down Section 57, barring compulsory authentication by private entities [1]. - It applied a proportionality test, balancing Article 21 privacy against welfare delivery, and held children cannot be compelled to enrol [1].

Phase II — Dialogic follow-through (2019) - The Aadhaar and Other Laws (Amendment) Act, 2019 legislated the Court's logic: voluntary use, offline verification, and mandatory authentication only by a law of Parliament [2]. - This illustrates judicial review reshaping statute rather than merely invalidating it.

Phase III — Security and identity integrity (2026) - In May 2026, a Bench headed by CJI Surya Kant asked the Centre to examine a plea to restrict fresh enrolments largely to children, tightening adult eligibility [3]. - The trigger is structural: eligibility rests on residency — 182 days in the preceding 12 months — not citizenship [4], with 87,000 fake documents seized in Mumbai cited as evidence [3]. - Significantly, the Court itself noted forgery networks operating from abroad, cautioning against treating Aadhaar reform as a standalone security fix [3].

Continuity and limits - The direction is at notice stage, not a verdict on merit; UIDAI, a statutory body under MeitY, retains regulatory space to act [5]. - Exclusion remains the counterweight — 55 crore Jan Dhan accounts and 85 crore ration beneficiaries depend on Aadhaar seeding [3].

The trajectory is therefore not a reversal but a widening lens: from protecting the individual against the State's database, to protecting the database's credibility for the individual. A calibrated response — stricter verification with statutory safeguards against exclusion — would best honour both the proportionality standard of Puttaswamy and the inclusive promise of Article 21.

(~325 words)

Sources: 1. Justice K.S. Puttaswamy (Retd.) v. Union of India, W.P. (C) No. 494/2012, judgment dated 26 Sept 2018 — Supreme Court of India — Aadhaar Act upheld 4:1; Section 57 struck down; proportionality; children not compelled 2. The Aadhaar and Other Laws (Amendment) Bill, 2019 — PRS Legislative Research — voluntary use, offline verification, mandatory authentication only by parliamentary law 3. "SC asks Centre to examine plea on revising Aadhaar issuance norms" — The Hindu, 5 May 2026 — CJI Surya Kant Bench; plea to restrict adult enrolment; 87,000 fake documents in Mumbai; overseas forgery networks; 144 crore enrolments; 55 crore Jan Dhan and 85 crore ration linkages 4. Aadhaar Enrolment — UIDAI — 182-day residency eligibility; enrolment free of cost 5. About UIDAI — Unique Identification Authority of India — statutory authority from 12 July 2016 under MeitY