TEAM CODE -

02

IN THE HONOURABLE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Writ Petition no :- 494/ 2012

IN THE MATTER OF

JUSTICE K.S PUTTASWAMY & OTHERS.............PETITIONER

VS

UNION OF INDIA........................RESPONDENT

Moot memorial on behalf of the petitioner

1|Pag
e
 INDEX

SL.NO Topic Page

1
List of Abbreviation 3

2
Index of Authorities 4

3
Statement of Jurisdiction 5

4
Statement of fact 6

5
Issue raised 9

6
Summary of arguments 10

7
Arguments advanced 11

8
Prayer 16

2|Pag
e
 List of Abbreviations

 Aadhaar – Unique Identification Number project by UIDAI

 UIDAI – Unique Identification Authority of India

 SC – Supreme Court

 GOI – Government of India

 IT Act – Information Technology Act

 NPR – National Population Register

 NAC – National Advisory Council

 DBT – Direct Benefit Transfer

 PAN – Permanent Account Number

 LPG – Liquefied Petroleum Gas

 KYC – Know Your Customer

 CJI – Chief Justice of India

 RTI – Right to Information

 MP – Member of Parliament

 NGO – Non-Governmental Organization

 PIL – Public Interest Litigation

 DAG – Deputy Attorney General

 AG – Attorney General

 IPC – Indian Penal Code

 CRZ – Coastal Regulation Zone

3|Pag
e
 INDEX OF AUTHORITIES
STATUTES & PROVISIONS

Constitution of India :-
1. Article 14 - Right to equality.

2. Article 19(1)(a) & 19(1)(d) – Freedom of expression and

movement.
3. Article 21 – Right to life and personal liberty.

CASE LAWS

 M.P. Sharma v. Satish Chandra, AIR 1954 SC 300

 Kharak Singh v. State of U.P., AIR 1963 SC 1295
 Gobind v. State of M.P., (1975) 2 SCC 148
 Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India, (1978) 1 SCC 248
 Justice K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India, (2017) 10 SCC 1
 Rustom Cavasji Cooper vs. Union of India ((1970) 1 SCC
248 AIR 564.

4|Pag
e
 STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION
The petitioners have invoked the jurisdiction of the Hon’ble Supreme Court under
Article 32 of the Constitution of India for the enforcement of fundamental rights
guaranteed under Part III, specifically Articles 14, 19, and 21.

Article 32 (1) guarantees the right to move the Supreme Court, by appropriate
proceedings, for the enforcement of the fundamental rights enumerated in the
constitution. Article 32 (2) empowers the Supreme Court to issue appropriate orders or
direction, or writs including writs in the nature of habeas corpus, mandamus,
prohibition, quo-warranto and certiorari, whichever may be appropriate, for the
enforcement of the petitioner fundamental rights. Writs does not lie to create establish a
legal right but to enforce fundamental rights that has already been established.

Right of access to the Supreme Court under article 32 is a fundamental rights itself.
Article 32 (1) provides a very important safeguards for the protection of the
fundamental rights of the citizens of India. Article 32 provides a guaranteed, quick and
summary remedy for enforcing the fundamental rights because a person can go straight
to the Supreme Court without having to undergo the dilatory process of proceeding
from the lower to the higher court as he has to do in other ordinary legislation.

The Supreme Court has entertain a number of petitions under article 32 complaining of
functions of fundamental rights of individuals, or of weak or oppressed groups who are
enable themselves to take the initiative to vindicate their own rights.

The Supreme Court has ruled that to exercise its jurisdiction under article 32, it is not
necessary that the affected person should personally approach the court. The court can
itself cognizance of the matter and proceed suo-motu or on a petition of any public
spirited individual or body.

The Hon’ble Supreme Court’s decision in Puttaswamy case established that the right to
privacy is a fundamental right, protecting individuals from unwarranted state or private
interference in their personal lives. This recognition has significant implications for the
enforcement of right under under article 32, this judgment emphasized that the
right to privacy is an inherent part of the right to life and personal liberty
guaranteed under article 21.

5|Pag
e
 STATEMENTS OF FACTS
The Government of India launched the Unique Identification (UID)
project with the aim of providing a unique identification number to all
residents, initially focusing on Below Poverty Line (BPL) families. The
project was intended to help improve the targeting and delivery of
government welfare schemes by eliminating duplication and verifying
beneficiaries more accurately.
To begin this effort, a committee was set up, which recommended the
creation of a centralized unique identification database. It was decided
that the project would be implemented in three phases to ensure
gradual and structured rollout across
the country.
In January 2009, the Planning Commission of India passed a
notification to formally establish the Unique Identification Authority of
India (UIDAI), the central agency tasked with implementing the UID
project. UIDAI was entrusted with
issuing a 12-digit Aadhaar number based on biometric (fingerprints and
iris scans) and demographic data collected from residents. By 2010, the
government introduced the National Identification Authority of India Bill,
which aimed to
provide statutory backing to the UIDAI. However, the bill was not
passed at that time.
Despite the absence of a formal law, the Aadhaar program expanded
rapidly and began to be used for several government schemes and
services. However, concerns about privacy, data security, and
surveillance began to surface as the government started promoting
Aadhaar’s use across various sectors.
The legal battle over Aadhaar began in November 2012, when Justice
(Retd.) K.S. Puttaswamy, a former judge of the Karnataka High Court,
and Mr. Paresh Sharma filed a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) in the
Supreme Court of India, registered as Writ Petition (Civil) No. 494 of
2012. The petition challenged the constitutional validity of the Aadhaar
scheme.

6|Pag
e
The central argument in this PIL was that Aadhaar violated the
fundamental rights of Indian citizens, particularly the right to privacy
under Article 21 of the
Constitution. It was argued that collecting sensitive biometric data
without a clear legal framework or adequate safeguards opened the
door to surveillance and data misuse. Over time, the Supreme Court
issued a series of interim orders, some of

7|Pag
e
which clarified that Aadhaar was not mandatory for availing essential
services like subsidies and pensions.
In 2016, the government passed the Aadhaar (Targeted Delivery of
Financial and Other Subsidies, Benefits and Services) Act. This law gave
statutory backing to the project and defined how Aadhaar could be used
for welfare delivery. However, this led to renewed legal challenges.
Petitioners filed a new writ petition questioning
the vires (legal validity) of the Aadhaar Act itself, arguing that the Act still
violated privacy and fundamental rights.
A major point of contention arose from the fact that the Aadhaar Act
was passed as a Money Bill under Article 110 of the Constitution, which
meant it only required approval from the Lok Sabha and bypassed the
Rajya Sabha, where the government lacked a majority. Critics argued
that Aadhaar had provisions that went beyond the financial scope of a
Money Bill and thus should have gone through both houses of
Parliament.
In May 2017, Jairam Ramesh, a former Union Minister and senior
Congress leader, filed a petition in the Supreme Court specifically
challenging the government's
decision to treat the Aadhaar Bill as a Money Bill. This added a new
constitutional dimension to the ongoing Aadhaar litigation.
A landmark development occurred on August 24, 2017, when a 9-judge
Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court unanimously ruled that the
right to
privacy is a fundamental right, protected under Article 21. This ruling
was crucial, as it laid down the constitutional basis for evaluating
Aadhaar’s impact on privacy and personal freedom.
Subsequently, on January 17, 2018, a 5-judge Constitution Bench of
the Supreme Court began final hearings in the Aadhaar case. The
Court heard extensive
arguments from both sides on Aadhaar's constitutionality, its impact on
privacy, and its use in linking services like bank accounts and mobile
phones.

8|Pag
e
On April 25, 2018, the Supreme Court expressed concern about the
government's directive to link Aadhaar with mobile numbers, asking
whether such mandatory linkage was justified or proportionate. The
Court concluded hearings and reserved its verdict on May 10, 2018.

9|Pag
e
Finally, on the historic day of September 26, 2018, the Supreme Court
delivered its judgment. By a 4:1 majority, the Court upheld the
constitutional validity of the Aadhaar scheme, recognizing it as serving a
legitimate state interest in ensuring that government subsidies and
benefits reached the intended beneficiaries.
However, the Court struck down several key provisions of the Aadhaar
Act:
 It invalidated the mandatory linking of Aadhaar with bank
accounts, mobile numbers, and school admissions.
 It prohibited private entities such as telecom companies from
demanding Aadhaar data.
 It struck down Section 57 of the Aadhaar Act, which
allowed private companies to use Aadhaar
authentication.

10 | P a g
e
11 | P a g
e
 ISSUES RAISED

1. Wheather the aadhar project violates the right to privacy of the

citizens and it is unconstitutional ?

2. Wheather the right to privacy is a fundamental right under Article 21

given In part III of Indian Constitution ?

3. Wheather the aadhar act’s provision mandating the linking of aadhar

with mobile numbers, bank accounts, ans school admissions be struck
down ?

12 | P a g
e
 SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS
Wheather the aadhar project violates the right to privacy of the citizens and it is
unconstitutional ?

The Right to Privacy is a Fundamental Right

Privacy is essential for the dignity, autonomy, and liberty of individuals.
The framers of the Constitution intended to protect evolving notions of liberty,
encompassing privacy.
Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India expanded Article 21 to include varied rights
including privacy.

Wheather the right to privacy is a fundamental right under Article 21 given In part
III of Indian Constitution ?

Aadhaar Scheme Violates the Right to Privacy

Collection of sensitive biometric data (fingerprints, iris scans) without informed
consent infringes on bodily and informational privacy.
Aadhaar leads to profiling, surveillance, and chilling effects on free speech and
association.
The scheme lacks transparency and accountability, contravening constitutional
principles.

Wheather the aadhar act’s provision mandating the linking of aadhar with mobile
numbers, bank accounts, ans school admissions be srtuck down ?

Aadhaar Lacks Adequate Safeguards and Fails the Test of Proportionality

Any infringement of fundamental rights must satisfy the test of legality, necessity,
and proportionality.
The Aadhaar Act permits private entities to access personal data without strict
safeguards.

The State must adopt the least intrusive means — mandatory linking of services to
Aadhaar fails this criterion.

13 | P a g
e
 ARGUMENTS ADVANCED
1. Wheather the aadhar project violates the right to privacy of
the citizens and it is unconstitutional ?
1. Right to Privacy is a Fundamental Right:
o The petitioners argued that the right to privacy is inherent in Articles
14 (Right to Equality), 19 (Right to Freedom), and 21 (Right to Life
and Personal Liberty) of the Indian Constitution.
o They contended that Aadhaar, by collecting biometric
and demographic data, infringes upon this fundamental
right.
o The Petitioners argued that A.K. Gopalan, which construed each
provision contained in the Chapter on fundamental rights as
embodying a distinct protection, was held not to be good law by an
eleven Judge Bench in Rustom Cavasji Cooper vs. Union of India ((1970) 1
SCC 248 AIR 564). Hence, the Petitioners submitted that the basis of the
two earlier decisions was not valid. It was also urged that in the seven
Judge Bench decision in Maneka Gandhi vs. Union of India ((1978) 1 SCR
(2) 621, the minority judgment of Justice Subba Rao in Kharak Singh was
specifically approved while the decision of the majority was overruled.
2. Invasive Biometric Collection:
o The mandatory collection of iris scans, fingerprints, and demographic
data without sufficient safeguards was argued to be intrusive and
disproportionate.
o The petitioners claimed that this kind of data collection creates
a surveillance state, where the government can monitor
citizens’ activities.
3. Lack of Informed Consent :
o Citizens were allegedly coerced into enrolling in
Aadhaar to access essential services (like food rations,
pensions, and scholarships), which violated their
autonomy and consent.

o There was no clear opt-out mechanism, making it

practically mandatory.
14 | P a g
e
15 | P a g
e
 4. Risk of Data Misuse and Breach:
o Petitioners expressed concerns about data leaks,
misuse of personal data, and lack of
adequate security safeguards.
o The Aadhaar architecture lacked an independent data
protection law, placing citizens’ personal data at risk.
5. Fails the Proportionality Test:
o The petitioners relied on the “proportionality
doctrine”, arguing that even if privacy is not absolute,
the Aadhaar system:
 Lacked a legitimate aim that justified such wide-
scale data collection,
 Was not the least restrictive method,
 And had no adequate safeguards or oversight.
6. Chilling Effect on Freedom:
o They contended that Aadhaar enables mass
surveillance, which may have a chilling effect on the
exercise of freedom of speech and association.
7. Violation of Equality (Article 14):
o Aadhaar was seen as discriminatory, especially for
marginalized groups who struggled with biometric
authentication and were
denied welfare benefits as a result.

2. Wheather the right to privacy is a fundamental right

under Article 21 given In part III of Indian Constitution ?
1. Inherent in the Right to Life and Personal Liberty (Article 21):
o The petitioners strongly argued that privacy is intrinsic to the right to

16 | P a g
e
 life and personal liberty, which is guaranteed under Article 21 of the
Constitution.
o They emphasized that without privacy, dignity and liberty

17 | P a g
e
 become meaningless—and hence, privacy must be
constitutionally protected.
2. Supported by Precedents and Evolution of Case Law:
o Petitioners pointed out that while early judgments like M.P. Sharma
(1954) SC 300 and Kharak Singh (1963) SC 1295 questioned privacy as
a fundamental right, later Supreme Court judgments have recognized
and reinforced it, including:
 Gobind v. State of M.P. (1975) AIR 1378 SCR (3) 946 1975 SCC (2)
148
 R. Rajagopal v. State of Tamil Nadu (1994) AIR 264, SCC (6) 632
 People’s Union for Civil Liberties (PUCL) v. Union of India (1997)
AIR 1997 SC 568
o They argued that the doctrine of progressive interpretation of
the Constitution allows for the recognition of new rights as
fundamental, based on evolving standards of liberty and dignity.

3. Privacy as a Multi-Faceted Right:

o Privacy was argued to be a composite of several overlapping rights:
 Bodily privacy (control over one’s own body),
 Informational privacy (control over personal data),
 Decisional autonomy (freedom to make personal decisions,
such as marriage, procreation, religion, and sexual
orientation).
o Thus, privacy underpins and strengthens other rights in Part III
(Articles 14, 19, and 21).
4. Constitutional Morality and Human Dignity:
o The petitioners relied on the concept of constitutional
morality, arguing that the Constitution must be interpreted to
protect
individual dignity, autonomy, and choice, all of which require a
protected zone of privacy.
5. International Human Rights Norms:

18 | P a g
e
19 | P a g
e
 o Reference was made to international covenants like the
International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) and
comparative constitutional law from jurisdictions like the USA,
UK,
Canada, and South Africa, all of which recognize privacy as a basic human
right.
6. Critique of Previous Rulings (M.P. Sharma & Kharak Singh):
o Petitioners urged the Court to overrule the earlier rulings in M.P.
Sharma and Kharak Singh, which denied privacy as a fundamental
right, claiming those were outdated and inconsistent with the modern
understanding of liberty.

3. Wheather the aadhar act’s provision mandating the linking

of aadhar with mobile numbers, bank accounts, and school
admissions be srtuck down ?
1. Violation of Right to Privacy:
 The petitioners argued that forcing individuals to link Aadhaar with mobile
numbers, bank accounts, or school admissions amounted to a violation of
their fundamental right to privacy, as recognized in the 2017 Puttaswamy
judgment (which declared the right to privacy a fundamental right under
Article 21).
 They claimed such linking enabled mass surveillance by the State
and created a centralized database that could be easily misused.
2. Lack of Legislative Backing (especially for mobile numbers):
 The linking of Aadhaar with mobile numbers was mandated by a
Department of Telecommunications (DoT) circular, not by legislation
passed by Parliament.
 The applicants contended this lacked the force of law and
was, therefore, unconstitutional.
3. Disproportionate and Arbitrary:
 It was argued that mandatory linking was disproportionate to the aims
(like preventing fraud or improving service delivery).

20 | P a g
e
 Such measures failed to pass the three-fold test of legality, necessity, and

21 | P a g
e
 proportionality required to justify restrictions on fundamental rights.
4. Exclusion and Discrimination:
 Mandatory Aadhaar led to the exclusion of marginalized sections of
society (e.g., people without Aadhaar due to documentation or biometric
failures).
 This was especially harmful in school admissions, as children were
denied education — violating Article 21A (Right to Education).
5. Bank Accounts and Financial Autonomy:
 Petitioners argued that making Aadhaar mandatory for bank accounts
threatened financial autonomy and inclusion, especially for those unable or
unwilling to get an Aadhaar number.
 It was also alleged to create an Orwellian surveillance State
with complete financial tracking of individuals.

22 | P a g
e
23 | P a g
e
 PRAYER

It is most respectfully prayed that this Hon’ble Court may be

pleased to:
1.That the Hon'ble Court may declare that the Right to Privacy is a
fundamental right protected under Article 21 of the Constitution of
India, read with Articles 14, 19, and Part III of the Constitution, and is
an intrinsic part of the right to life and personal liberty.
2.That the Hon'ble Court may affirm that the Right to Privacy
encompasses the protection of personal autonomy, dignity, and the
freedom to make choices concerning one's life, free from
unwarranted State interference.
3.That the Hon'ble Court may overrule the judgments in M.P. Sharma
v. Satish Chandra (1954) and Kharak Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh
(1962) to the extent they deny the existence of the Right to Privacy as
a fundamental right.
4.That the Hon'ble Court may lay down clear guidelines and
principles to ensure that any State action infringing upon the Right to
Privacy is proportional, necessary, and justifiable in a democratic
society.
5.That the Hon'ble Court may direct the Union of India to establish a
robust data protection framework to safeguard citizens' personal
information from misuse by both State and non-State actors.
6. That the Hon'ble Court may grant such other reliefs as it deems fit
and proper in the interest of justice.
AND FOR THIS ACT OF KINDNESS, THE PETITIONERS SHALL EVER PRAY.

SIGNATURE OF
PETITIONER

24 | P a g
e
25 | P a g
e