KS Puttaswamy v UOI – judgement analysis

2. introduction to aadhaar and aadhaar ideology

3. criticism of aadhaar: progressin towards surveillance state is the view of petitioners

4. Intelligentsia also divided on opinion alongside common people. Court shall base its judgement on
objective examination notwithstsanding an emotions

5. information of petitioners and the petition

6. account of events in chronological order

7. 7-21- succession of events in chronological order.

22. People’s Union for Civil Liberties (PDS Matter) v. Union of India & Ors.2, effectiveness of
PDS system

23. State of Kerala & Ors. v. President, Parent Teachers Association SNVUP School and Ors.
Bogus admissions case. Unique identification marked necessary.

24. structure of aadhaar and how it operates

25. introduction of aadhaar bill

26. salient features

27. approval of act and objective

28. notable definitions under section 2 of the act

29. 29-42 contents of aaahdhar act

43. brief summary of paras 29-42

44. process of enrolment

45. core argument against aadhar: forces one to enroll and reference to puttaswamy 1
judgement
46. core argument of respondents- It is emphasised that there is no data collection in
respect of religion, caste, tribe, language records of entitlement, income or medical history
of the applicant at the time of Aadhaar enrolment.

47. 47-49 aadhar authentication service

50. measures for protection of privacy: reference to ABIS system (Automated biometric
Identification System)

51. Technology and Architecture Review Board

52. 52-54 answers of the respondents to questions posed by petitioners

55. summary of the scheme

56. aadhar gives identity to persons and also empowers marginalized sectors

57. scheme maybe benevolent but has to pass through the muster of constitutionality. And
petitioners are challenging its constitutionality in paragraphs 58-71

72. approach of the court in handling present case

73. 73-79 Scope of Judicial review

80. in the forefront is the right to privacy and that forms the main pillar on which the edifice
of arguments is substantially constructed 27. Inbuilt in this right to privacy is the right to live
with dignity, which is a postulate of right to privacy. In the process, discussion leads to the
issue of proportionality, viz. whether measures taken under the Aadhaar Act satisfy the
doctrine of proportionality.

81. contours of right to privacy

82. 3 forms of privacy and that privacy is a fundamental right and it had always been a
natural right.

83. 3 forms of privacy elaborated, dignity derived from article 14, 19, 21

84. privacy as a FR

85. approaches which contribute to right to privacy since court deems its difficult to
precisely define the denominator of privacy

86. 86-96 scope of privacy and its restrictions

97. right to choose and right of self-determination are accepted facets of human dignity

98. supreme court on protection of death convicts

99. 3 models of dignity- theological, philosophical and constitutional

100. concept In KS puttaswamy 1 judgement

101. furtherance of concept of dignity in Indian judgements

102. facets of euthanasia

103. summary of concept of dignity in paras above.

104. change in idea of dignity from theological approach to philosophical approach

105. ingredients of dignity

106. dworkin’s principles of dignity

107. proeffesor baxi on dignity is empowerment

108. concept of ‘respect’ in dignity

109. common goof or public good aspect of dignity brought in by respondents

110. Christopher McCrudden, an Oxford Academic, in his article ‘Human Dignity and Judicial
Interpretation of Human Rights’ 47 published in the European Journal of International Law
on September 01, 2008 traces the evolution of concept of human dignity.

111. Kant expounded the theory that humans should be treated as an end in themselves
and not merely as a means to an end with ability to choose their destiny.

114. UDHR and dignity

115. humanistic concept of dignity

116. socio-economic rights into human dignity,

117. parameters on which state’s actions shall be judged

118. doctrine of proportionality

119. here is a growing awareness of the practical importance of the principle of
proportionality for rights adjudication and it has sparked a wave of academic scholarship as
well.

120. test of proportionality accepted by most jurists and german constitutional board

121. issues which arise while undertaking the exercise of proportionality inquiry.

122. Canadian court’s take on proportionality contrasting to the one stated above

123. problems with German test

124. solutions to the problems

125-126. 4 prospects of proportionality which need to be looked after

127. issues

128. arguments

129. argument of surveillance

130- 143. Arguments of petitioners wrt surveillance

144- 149 reply of respondents

150. segregation of surveillance from privacy and analyzing availability of data.

151. Insofar as issue (a) above is concerned, after going through the various aspects of the
Aadhaar project, the provisions of the Aadhaar Act and the manner in which it operates, it
is difficult to accept the argument of the petitioners. The respondents have explained that
the enrolment and authentication processes are strongly regulated so that data is secure.

152. salient features

153. it is very difficult to create profile of a person simply on the basis of biometric and
demographic information stored in CIDR.

154. Issue (b) relates to data protection. According to the petitioners there is no data
protection and there is a likelihood of misuse of data/personal information of the
individuals.

155. The question to be determined is whether the safeguards provided for the protection
of personal biometric data in the Aadhaar Act
156. Alvin toffler’s artile and his explanation of conversion of society from agriculture
based, to industry based, to knowledge based

157. speech of Benjamin Netanyahu, prime minister of Israel

158. continuation of 157

159. adantages/disadvantages of data

160- 162- continuation

163. existing data protection laws in india

164. biometric info under IT act

165. section 72A of IT act

166- 169 EUGDPR European Union general data protection regulation

170. importance of informational privacy

171. Kaul, J cited GDPR

172. There are numerous case laws – both American and European – presented by the
petitioners and the respondents with respect to 70 Regulation

173. The European Human Rights legislations have both explicitly and through case laws
recognized the right to informational privacy and data protection

174.