Judgment on Case 2: Justice Tejas Singh v.
Union of Indovia
NAME OF THE CASE: Justice Tejas Singh v. Union of Indovia
NAME OF THE PARTICIPANTS: Nandini Saini and Riya Mehta
FACTS OF THE CASE: Justice Tejas Singh, a retired judge, filed a
petition challenging the constitutionality of the Aadhaar scheme
implemented by the government of Indova. He argued that the
scheme, which collects biometric and demographic data from citizens,
infringes on the right to privacy, contending that privacy is a
fundamental aspect of the right to life and personal liberty under
Article 21 of the Indovian Constitution.
PRECEDENTS REFERRED:
K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India: In this landmark
judgment, the Supreme Court of India recognized the right to
privacy as a fundamental right under Article 21 of the
Constitution. This case established that the right to privacy is
intrinsic to the exercise of other fundamental rights, aligning
with Justice Singh’s argument that privacy is a component of
human dignity.
Indra Sawhney v. Union of India: This case highlights the
importance of proportionality in state actions regarding
reservations and serves as a precedent for evaluating whether
the Aadhaar scheme meets the test of proportionality concerning
privacy rights.
ACTS AND THEIR SECTIONS REFERRED TO:
Article 21: Protection of Life and Personal Liberty
Article 14: Right to Equality
Article 19: Protection of Certain Rights Regarding Freedom of
Speech, etc
The Aadhaar (Targeted Delivery of Financial and Other
Subsidies, Benefits and Services) Act, 2016: This Act provides
the legal framework for the Aadhar scheme.
THE JUDGMENT:
After considering the arguments presented by both the petitioner and
the respondent, the court arrives at the following conclusions:
a) Recognition of the Right to Privacy: This court acknowledges the
petitioner’s assertion that the right to privacy, while not explicitly
stated, is inherent within the framework of Articles 14, 19, and 21 of
the Indovian Constitution. In line with the ruling in K.S. Puttaswamy
v. Union of India, the right to privacy is now recognized as a
fundamental right, integral to personal liberty and human dignity.
b) Scope of Restriction by State Action: The court reiterates that
while fundamental rights are not absolute, any state action infringing
upon them must be justifiable. The state must demonstrate that such
actions are proportionate and reasonable, serving a legitimate state
interest without being overly invasive.
c) Evaluation of the Aadhar Scheme: The Aadhaar scheme aims to
enhance the efficiency of welfare delivery. However, the court finds
that the collection of biometric data raises substantial privacy
concerns. The arguments presented by the respondent regarding the
reduction of leakages in subsidy distribution are noted; however, the
court emphasizes that less intrusive alternatives could be explored to
achieve similar objectives without compromising individual privacy.
The proportionality test indicates that the Aadhaar scheme, as
currently implemented, does not sufficiently safeguard individual
privacy rights. The scheme risks creating a surveillance society that
undermines the principles of democracy and autonomy that the
Constitution seeks to uphold.
CONCLUSION:
In light of the above considerations, the court rules that:
1. The right to privacy is recognized as a fundamental right under the
Indovian Constitution.
2. The Aadhaar scheme, as it currently stands, infringes upon this
right without adequate justification.
3. The state must reassess the Aadhaar scheme to ensure it aligns with
the principles of proportionality and reasonableness, safeguarding
citizens' privacy while achieving legitimate state objectives.
FINAL ORDER:
The court hereby directs the Union of Indovia to undertake a
comprehensive review of the Aadhaar scheme to ensure compliance
with the recognized right to privacy, considering less invasive
alternatives for achieving state objectives.
