2015 (8) TMI 526 - SC - Indian Laws

Constitutional Validity of use of Aadhaar card Right to Privacy Respondent while relying upon decision of Supreme court in M.P. Sharma & Others v. Satish Chandra & Others 1954 (3) TMI 1 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA and Kharak Singh v. State of U.P. & Others 1962 (12) TMI 67 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA contended that legal position regarding existence of fundamental right to privacy is doubtful Therefore such matters were required to be heard and decided by larger bench of at least five Judges as these matters throw up for debate important questions, in view of mandate contained under Article 145(3) of Constitution Whether there is any right to privacy guaranteed under our Constitution Held that - Current court is of opinion that institutional integrity and judicial discipline require that pronouncement made by larger Benches cannot be ignored by smaller Benches without appropriately explaining reasons for not following pronouncements made by such larger Benches Therefore, to give quietus to kind of controversy raised once for all, it is better that ratio decidendi of M.P. Sharma case and Kharak Singh was scrutinized and jurisprudential correctness of decisions where right to privacy was either asserted or referred be examined and authoritatively decided by Bench of appropriate strength - Matters referred before court of Chief Justice of India for appropriate orders. Till matter is finally decided by larger Bench, UOI directed to give wide publicity in electronic and print media that it was not mandatory for citizen to obtain Aadhaar card Information obtained by UID Authority shall not be used for any other purpose, except for purpose of criminal investigation.

Summary

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.