The Supreme Court of India [official website] on Wednesday upheld in-part [text, PDF] the constitutionality of the world’s largest biometric database system, which contains personal information of more than a billion Indians, saying the benefits of the system outweigh the costs to individual freedoms.

The system is called the Unique Identification Authority of India (UIAI). The court explained the system as “unique,” saying: “UIDAI claims that not only is it a foolproof method of identifying a person, it is also an instrument whereby a person can enter into any transaction without needing any other document in support. It has become a symbol of digital economy and has enabled multiple avenues for a common man.” The card that is issued to each person is called a “Aadhaar,” which means “foundation” or “base,” is used to identify individuals and track their movements and actions, essentially creating a profile of the person, so that no other individual can impersonate another. Additionally, the court explained a second purpose for the system, saying:

[I]n addition to enabling any resident to obtain such unique identification proof, it is also to empower marginalised section of the society, particularly those who are illiterate and living in abject poverty or without any shelter etc. It gives identity to such persons also. Moreover, with the aid of Aadhaar card, they can claim various privileges and benefits etc. which are actually meant for these people.

Though citizens are not required to get an Aadhaar, some authorities throughout India attempted to mandate it. In response, the government passed interim orders to clarify the voluntariness of applying for an Aadhaar, and to note that illegal immigrants may not receive an Aadhaar.

The petitioners challenged the system, saying it created a “surveillance” system in India, and violated individuals’ rights to privacy. In a 567-page judgment, the court validated the arguments but also laid groundwork for the system to meet constitutional standards, ultimately acknowledging that data protection is a strong government and individual concern that would not violate a person’s right to privacy if properly constructed and voluntary for citizens. The court set forth stringent guidelines that the system must implement to protect individual autonomy, including a provision which limits entities that can request an individual’s Aadhaar number. For example, a bank is prohibited from requesting an Aadhaar number for an individual attempting to open a bank account. Though the system is aimed to protect legitimate interest and there is a need for such a system, the legislature must first amend the governing provisions to clarify issues and limit possible constitutional violations.