Create a custom practice set
Pick category, difficulty, number of questions, and time limit. Start instantly with your own quiz.
Generate QuizGK Question
In the Aadhaar judgment (Puttaswamy, 2018), the Supreme Court struck down mandatory Aadhaar linking for bank accounts and mobile numbers because:
- Aadhaar technology is inherently flawed
- The privacy intrusion was disproportionate to the stated aims, failing the proportionality test
- Parliament lacked authority to mandate Aadhaar linking
- Aadhaar violates federal principles by centralizing identity verification
Answer: The privacy intrusion was disproportionate to the stated aims, failing the proportionality test
Puttaswamy (2018) proportionality and Aadhaar exclusions: (a) Context: Challenge to mandatory Aadhaar linking requirements for various services, (b) Proportionality analysis for struck down uses: (i) Legitimate aim: Prevent fraud, ensure security in banking, telecom sectors, (ii) Rational connection: Aadhaar authentication may reduce identity fraud, but not only means, (iii) Necessity: Less restrictive alternatives available (e.g., KYC through other documents, targeted verification), (iv) Balancing: Privacy intrusion (mass collection, profiling risks) outweighed benefits for bank accounts, mobile numbers, (c) Upheld uses: (i) Authentication for welfare schemes funded from Consolidated Fund: Benefits (efficient welfare delivery) outweigh privacy intrusion for targeted beneficiaries, (ii) PAN-Aadhaar linking for tax purposes: Benefits (curbing tax evasion, black money) outweigh privacy intrusion for tax compliance, (d) Rationale: (i) Calibrated balancing: Proportionality enables nuanced assessment of privacy restrictions, not absolute prohibition or unlimited state power, (ii) Rights protection: Ensures restrictions justified, not arbitrary; core privacy protected against disproportionate intrusion, (iii) Welfare efficiency: Enables efficient welfare delivery while protecting privacy through calibrated safeguards, (e) Illustrates sophisticated judicial review: Proportionality test enables courts to balance rights vs. state interests; ensures restrictions are justified, necessary, balanced, not arbitrary or overbroad.