THE child rights activist Shantha Sinha, who had challenged the constitutionality of Aadhaar, sees “some relief” in the September 26 judgment of the Supreme Court, which ruled against its mandatory linkage to several key services. But, she feels that Aadhaar continues to be a potential mechanism for surveillance in the absence of a robust data protection regime. Shantha Sinha, who received the Ramon Magsaysay Award in 2003 for community leadership, also expressed concern about the problems confronting the disabled and the marginalised, and pressed for their speedy redress. Excerpts from the interview.

The Supreme Court judgment has limited the government’s push to make Aadhaar mandatory for access to key services such as having bank accounts and mobile connections and for admission in schools. Is this verdict a partial victory?

To the extent that citizens have been spared from mandatorily linking the Aadhaar card to access services like bank accounts and mobile connections, there has been some relief. It is a welcome step that all entitlements enjoyed by children do not necessitate linkage to Aadhaar. There is a need to give wide publicity to the judgment as one is witness to innumerable instances of children being denied admission to hostels, midday meal programmes, scholarships and other benefits for want of Aadhaar.

The judgment stipulates that “Aadhaar empowers the marginalised section of the society and gives them an identity.....” This is in stark contrast to arguments that the Aadhaar programme seeks to set up a surveillance state.

There have been occasions when the data collected through Aadhaar, even if it is “minimal demographic and biometric data”, have been leaked at the cost of the privacy and autonomy of the individual. It is not clear how and when the government will set up a “robust data protection regime”. Until this is corrected, the argument of a surveillance state holds ground. In this connection, I am afraid linking PAN to Aadhaar is also risky.

It is unclear how the marginalised sections would be empowered through the issuance of Aadhaar, especially when there is a trust deficit as far as the poor are concerned. It certainly does not give them dignity or empower them if they must prove that they are citizens every time they make a rightful claim to their entitlements.

The onus of responsibility for correcting the leakages in the system does not lie with the poor. There is a need for correction of the governance mechanism.

The judgment is silent on what will happen to the data and Aadhaar numbers that telecom companies, banks and other private entities have in their possession currently. Does the safety of the data remain a big concern?

I agree that striking down Section 57, which allowed anyone, including private entities, from using the Aadhaar number, is one of the positive aspects of the judgment. Citizens will now be able to refuse demands for Aadhaar by all sorts of agents such as mobile companies, who had no business asking for it in the first place. Several concerns relating to data protection, surveillance, and so on by private entities have been addressed to a large extent.

However, it is still not clear how this will be regulated and who is to be excluded. The government also needs to issue orders on destroying the data that the private companies have collected.

The National Platform for the Rights of the Disabled has expressed concern that the verdict will adversely affect the community. How does the authentication criteria mandated by Aadhaar threaten the constitutional guarantees of the specially abled? The UIDAI claims that authentication failure does not mean exclusion or denial of subsidies, benefits or services.

I fully endorse the concerns expressed by the National Platform for the Rights of the Disabled. The difficulties faced by them from the stage of enrolment, which is a cumbersome procedure, the issue of biometrics and accessing their claims to services are unimaginable.

Indeed, these are problems that confront the marginalised sections as well. There are innumerable instances of failure of authentication, and thus, denial of services to the poor.

The judgment looks at these issues as technical problems and they would be resolved over a period of time. Why must the disabled and the poor go through anxiety and loss of dignity in the meantime?

Linking Aadhaar with different databases runs the risk of individual profiling and, as Justice Chandrachud pointed out, “could also be used to influence the decision-making of the electorate in choosing candidates for electoral offices”. Have the issues of rights and privacy been trivialised?

It seems that there is a huge potential for misusing the data that are beyond the purpose of UID.