Aadhar Card Scheme – Right to Privacy – Judicial Discipline – View expressed by smaller benches without explaining reasons for not following pronouncements of larger Benches – Matter referred to larger Bench – Constitution of India Article 141.

The collection by the Govt. of biometric data of residents under Aadhar Card Scheme challenged to be violative of the right to privacy.

The Court directed that the Union of India shall give wide publicity in the electronic and print media including radio and television networks that it is not mandatory for a citizen to obtain an Aadhar card. The production of an Aadhar card will not be a condition for obtaining any benefits otherwise due to a citizen. The Unique Identification Number or the Aadhar card will not be used by the Govt. for any purpose other than the PDS Scheme and in particular for the purpose of distribution of food grains, etc. and cooking fuel, such as kerosene. The Aadhar card may also be used for the purpose of the LPG Distribution Scheme. The information about an individual obtained by the Unique Identification Authority of India while issuing an Aadhar card shall not be used for any other purpose, save as above or as may be directed by a Court for the purpose of criminal investigation.

The Hon’ble Court was of the opinion that the cases on hand raise far reaching questions of importance involving interpretation of the Constitution. What is at stake is the amplitude of the fundamental rights including that precious and inalienable right under Article 21. If the observations made in M. P. Sharma (AIR 1954 SC 300) and Kharak Singh (AIR 1963 SC 1295) are to be read literally and accepted as the law of this country, the fundamental rights guaranteed under the Constitution of India and more particularly right to liberty under Article 21 would be denuded of vigour and vitality. The Hon’ble Court was also of the opinion that the institutional integrity and judicial discipline require that pronouncement made by larger Benches of the Court cannot be ignored by the smaller Benches without appropriately explaining the reasons for not following the pronouncements made by such larger Benches. The Hon’ble Court was of the opinion that there appeared to be certain amount of apparent unresolved contradiction in the law declared by the Court.