TEAM CODE- 02

IN THE HON’BLE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Civil Writ Petition No. – 494/2012

IN THE MATTER OF

JUSTICE K.S. PUTTASWAMY & ANR................................ PETITIONER

Vs.

UNION OF INDIA & ORS .................................................... RESPONDENT

MOOT MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT

Page | - 1 -
 TABLE OF CONTENTS

1. TABLE OF ABBREVIATION………………………………………………………. 2
2. TABLE OF AUTHORITIES …………………………………………………………. 3
3. STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION………………………………………………… 4
4. STATEMENT OF FACTS …………………………………………………………… 5-7
5. ISSUES RAISED ………………………………………………………………………… 8
6. SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS……………………………………………………. 9
7. ARGUMENTS ADVANCED ……………………………………………………… 10 -13
8. PRAYER …………………………………………………………………………………. 14

Page -1
 TABLE OF ABBREVIATION

 S C-------------------- Supreme Court

 H C------------------- High Court
 Sec------------------- Section
 Art------------------- Article
 VS ------------------- Verses
 Cons---------------- Constitution
 Hon’ble-------------Honourable
 U/S------------------ Under Section
 UIDAI ---------------Unique Identification Authority of India
 IPC -------------------Indian Penal Code
 Govt ----------------Government

Page -2
 TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
1. CASE LAW: -
 Gobind vs. State of M. P (1975)
 District Register & Collector vs. Canara Bank (2005)
 Peoples Union for Civil Liberties vs. Union of India (1997)
 A.K.Gopalan vs. state of Madras (1950)
 Selvi vs. State of Karnataka (2010)

2. STATUTES: -
 The Aadhaar Act, 2016.
 Indian Penal Code, 1860.
 The Constitution of India, 1950.
 Indian Evidence Act, 1872.

3. BOOK / DICTIONARY/ Commentaries: -

 Dr. J.N. Pandey – constitution law of India.
 Black Law Dictionary, 7th Edition (1999)
 The Telegraph Act, 1885.

Page -3
 STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION

The Respondent submits that this hon’ble court has the jurisdiction to entrain
and decide the present writ petition under Art -32 of the constitution of India.
It is respectfully submitted that the issues raised in the petition pertain to the
interpretation and enforcement of fundamental rights guaranteed under part-
III of the constitution particularly Art- 14, 19, 21.
The jurisdiction of this hon’ble court is invoked appropriately under Art- 32 as
the matter involves substantial question of constitution law and public
importance.

Page -4
 STATEMENT OF FACTS
‘Aadhaar’ was introduced as a card from which a person can be identified. It
was issued as an ‘Unique Identity’ and the authority who issues the card and
enrolled a person is known as Unique Identification Authority of India (UIDAI).
UIDAI was established in 2009. The main aim behind the implementation of
Unique Identification Scheme (UIS) was to provide a unique identity number
which is unique in nature and as everyone will have only one identity with no
chance of duplication. UIDAI has secured the enrolment of almost 1.1 billion
people in this country.
In January 2009, the Aadhaar scheme was launched by the government in
order to create the world’s largest unique identification system. The Govt. of
India initiated a project titled ‘Unique Identification for BPL Families’. UIDAI
was entrusted with issuing a 12-digit Aadhaar number based on biometric and
demographic data collected from residents. By 2010, the govt. introduced the
National Identification Authority of India Bill, which aim 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 govt. schemes and service. However,
concerns about privacy, data security, and surveillance began to surface as the
govt. started promoting Aadhaar’s use across various sector.
The case was brought by a retired high court judge K.S. Puttaswamy who filed
a writ petition in 2012 against the Union of India, i.e. govt. of India challenging
the government’s Aadhaar card scheme violates the right to privacy establish
in the constitution of India.
The central argument in this PIL was that Aadhaar violated the fundamental
rights of Indian citizens, particularly the right to privacy under Art-21 of cons. It
was argued that collecting sensitive biometric data without a clear legal
framework or adequate safeguards opened the door to surveillance and data
misuse. Overtime the SC issued a series of interim orders, some of which
clarified that Aadhaar was not mandatory for availing essential service like
subsidies and pensions.

Page- 5
The case came before a three-judge Bench of the court which, on 11 August
2015, ordered that the matter should be referred to a large Bench of the court.
The Aadhaar Act was passed in 2016. In 2016, the govt. passed the Aadhaar
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 Art 110 of the constitution, which meant it only
required approval from the Lok Sabha and by passed the Rajya Sabha, where
the government lacked a majority. Critics argued that Aadhaar had provision
that went beyond the financial scope of a Money Bill and thus should have
gone through both houses of Parliament. On 18 July 2017, a five -judge cons.
Bench ordered the matter to be heard by a nine -judge Bench to determine
whether there was a fundamental right to privacy within the constitution.
under sec-7 of the act, which made Aadhaar mandatory for obtaining various
benefits, have been all the subject of legal challenges even after the Aadhaar
Scheme received statutory.
Unique identified for BPL Families was a project which was initiates by the
government of India. A committee was set up for the project. The challenge
was made before the nine-judge bench of the supreme court ascertaining
whether the right to privacy was guaranteed as an independent fundamental
right.
Jairam Ramesh who was the formal union minister and congress leader moved
SC in may 2017. He challenged the decision to treat the Aadhaar Bill as a
money bill. On April 25,2018 the SC expressed concern about the govt’s
directive to link Aadhaar with mobile number, asking whether such mandatory
linkage was justified or proportionate. The court concluded hearings and
reserved its verdict on May 10,2018.
Finally, on the historic day of September 26,2018, the SC delivered its
judgement. 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 govt. subsidies and benefits reached the intended beneficiaries.
Page -6
However, the court struck down several key provision of the Aadhaar Act:
 It invalidated the mandatory linking of Aadhaar with Bank accounts, mobile
number and school admission.
 It prohibited private entities such as telecom companies from demanding
Aadhaar Data.
 It struck down Sec-57 of the Aadhaar Act, which allowed private companies
to use Aadhaar authentication.

Page -7
 ISSUE RAISED

1. Whether the right to privacy is a fundamental right under Article 21 of part

III of the Indian constitution?
2. Whether the Aadhaar project violates the right to privacy of citizens un-
constitutional?
3. Whether the Aadhaar Act’s mandating the linking of Aadhaar with mobile
number, bank account and school admission should be struck down?
4. Whether the Aadhaar Scheme is necessary for national security and
preventing identify theft?

page-8
 SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS
 Whether the right to privacy is a fundamental right under Article 21 of
part III of the Indian constitution?
The right to privacy has been recognized as a fundamental right under Art- 21
of the Indian constitution. As established in the case of K.S.Puttaswamy vs.
Union of India (2017). However, the respondent submits that while privacy is a
fundamental right, it is not an absolute and is subject to reasonable restriction.
The right to privacy is reasonable and necessary to achieve the goal of ensuring
targeted welfare distribution and eliminating fraud.
 Whether the Aadhaar project violates the right to privacy of citizens un-
constitutional?
The Aadhaar Scheme does not violate the right to privacy and is not un-
constitutional. The Aadhaar Act 2016 is a carefully drafted piece of legislation
aimed at achieving transparency, accountability and efficient delivery of
welfare service. The Aadhaar system is implemented with strict safe guards to
protect the privacy and security of individual Data, including biometric Data.
 Whether the Aadhaar Act’s mandating the linking of Aadhaar with mobile
number, bank account and school admission should be struck down?
The provision of the Aadhaar Act mandating the linking of Aadhaar with mobile
number, bank accounts and school admission are lawful and justifiable. Its aim
to promote financial inclusion, reduce fraud and ensure the proper identified
of individual for the efficient delivery of public service.
 Whether the Aadhaar Scheme is necessary for national security and
preventing identify theft?
The Aadhaar Scheme is necessary for national security and prevent theft.

Page -9
 ARGUMENTS ADVANCED
 Whether the right to privacy is a fundamental right under Article 21 of
part III of the Indian constitution?

 Right to privacy as a fundamental right: - The right to privacy has been

recognized as a fundamental right under Art -21 of the Indian constitution.
The SC declared that privacy is intrinsic to life and personal liberty, and
therefore protected under Art 21. Article 21 of the constitution provide: -
“No person shall be deprived of his life and personal liberty except
according to procedure established by law”.
The court in Gobind vs. State of M P [ (1975) 2 SCC 148] acknowledged the
implied right to privacy under Art- 19 (1) (d) and 21 but emphasised that it is
not absolute. Privacy rights could be restricted if the law satisfied the
compelling state interest test. The court observed that some aspects of privacy
may warrant constitutional protection, but the state may intrude upon such
right if the invasion satisfies a compelling public interest and is justified by law.
 Restriction on privacy: - The Aadhaar project is a constitutionally valid
restriction on the right to privacy, justified by a legitimate aim – ensuring
efficient, transparent and inclusive delivery of subsidies and government
benefits while eliminating duplicity and identify fraud.
In People’s Union for Civil Liberties vs. Union of India, (1997) (SC-568)
Popularly known as ‘phone tapping case’, The Supreme Court held – sec-5(2) of
the Indian Telegraph Act,1885. Which authorised the central govt. or the state
govt. to tap telephone was a serious invasion of an individual right to privacy
which is part of the right to “life and personal liberty” enshrined under Art 21
of the constitution and it should not be resorted to by the state except in case
of requirement of public emergency or in the interest of public safety.
 Whether the Aadhaar project violates the right to privacy of citizens un-
constitutional?

 Not an Absolute Right: - The court held that similar to the right to life and
personal liberty, the right to privacy may be limited by a procedure
established by law. This right is not absolute.
Page -10
 The Aadhaar project serves a legitimate public purpose: - The Aadhaar
project serves legitimate public purpose, the targeted delivery of benefits
and service. Through Aadhaar, the govt.is able to ensure that subsidies,
welfare benefits, and service are provided to genuine beneficiaries thereby
reducing fraud and leakages in the system. The purpose is in alignment with
the constitutional values of justice, equality and welfare.
 Natural Right: - Privacy is also recognized as a natural right which inheres in
individuals and is thus inalienable.
 Safeguard the Data: - The Aadhaar Act has built in safeguard to protect the
privacy and security of individual Data. The collection of Biometric Data is
necessary for accurate identification and prevention of impersonation in
the distribution of welfare benefits.
In District Register & Collector vs. Canara Bank (2005), the right to privacy
can’t be asserted when an issue is included in public records, including court
documents.
In Selvi vs. State of Karnataka [ (2010) 7 SCC 263], while involuntary
narcoanalysis was held un-constitutional, the court recognised that certain
intrusions into personal autonomy are permissible when they serve a large
public interest, provided the individual’s consent and due process are
respected. Similarly, the Aadhaar Scheme involves voluntary enrolment and is
used to facilitate access to welfare, not to curtail liberties.
In A.K. Gopalan vs. State of Madras [(1950) SCR 88] while initially adopted a
narrow interpretation of personal liberty, later jurisprudence- especially post -
Maneka Gandhi – has evolved to recognize that liberty must be interpreted
broadly, but still within the framework of reasonable procedure established by
law.
 Whether the Aadhaar Act’s mandating the linking of Aadhaar with mobile
number, bank account and school admission should be struck down?
The provision requiring that the Linking of Aadhaar with Mobile Number, Bank
Accounts and School admission are both legitimate and necessary to achieve
public welfare and security goals.

Page -11
A. Mobile Number: - The linking of Aadhaar with mobile number ensures that
SIM Cards are issued only to legitimate individuals, preventing their misuse
for illegal activities including terrorism and fraud. This measure aligns with
national security concerns and the legitimate need to regulate
communication system for public safety.
B. Bank Accounts: - The linking of Aadhaar with bank accounts strengthens
the financial system by ensuring that subsidies and benefits reach genuine
beneficiaries. It helps in elimination duplicate entries, ghost accounts, and
other fraudulent practices in the financial sector.
C. School Admission: - Linking Aadhaar with school admission ensure that
educational benefits are appropriately targeted. It guarantees that
deserving students benefits from government Schemes, promoting equity
and inclusion.
D. Proportionality and the Balancing if Interest: -
This provision mandating the linking of Aadhaar are proportional, as they
are necessary to promote financial inclusion, enhance national security, and
ensure the fair distribution of public resources. In PUCL vs. Union of India
[1997], the Court emphasized the need for technology- driven reforms to
ensure efficiency in governance. The Aadhaar Act is aligned with this vision.
 Adequate safeguards in Place: - The Respondent submits that the Aadhaar
Act contain sufficient safeguard to protect individual privacy:
Section 7 of the Aadhaar Act ensure that Aadhaar is used only for welfare
schemes and public services.
Section 8 allows individuals to opt out of Aadhaar-based services that are
not related to welfare schemes. Thus, the Aadhaar system is designed to
protect while achieving significant public benefits, and there is no
disproportionate harm to individual rights.

 Whether the Aadhaar Scheme is necessary for national security and

preventing identify theft?
The Aadhaar provided a no bust mechanism to verify identity using biometrics.
It helped eliminate fake or duplicate identities in welfare and financial system,
reducing fraud and impersonation. Aadhaar enabled the creation of a single
residents. This reduced dependency on easily forged documents like nation
cards or driving licenses.
Page -12
Privacy can be subject to reasonable restrictions in the interest of national
security, public order and efficient service delivery. It balanced against the
public interest.
By ensuring accurate identify authentication, Aadhaar Could help track misuse
of subsidies, prevent short beneficiaries, and curb infiltration of anti-national
elements through fake ids.
 Aadhaar’s role in National Security and Theft Prevention: -
Identity Verification: Aadhaar provided a unique 12- digit identification
number linked to biometrics. This system helps verify identities and prevent
impersonation when accessing govt. service and benefits.
Fraud Prevention: By linking Aadhaar to various system, the government can
detect and prevent fraudulent claims in government program, bank accounts,
and welfare schemes.
Criminal Identification: Aadhaar can be used to identify criminals and
terrorists, especially when linked to mobile phone number, as they often use
disposable SIM Cards.
Data Security: Aadhaar uses strong encryption and access protocols, including
virtual IDS and biometric locking for consent management, to protect data.

Page -13
 PRAYER

In the light of the facts, issues, arguments presented, the respondent humbly
prays before the hon’ble SC for the following reliefs –
1. Hold that the Aadhaar Project does not violate the right to privacy of
citizens and is constitutionally valid, as the provisions of the Aadhar
Act,2016 are proportionate, necessary, and serve the legitimate public
interest of promoting efficiency, transparency, and good governance.
2. Declare that the right to privacy, while being a fundamental right under Art-
21 of the Indian Constitution, is not an absolute right and is subject to
reasonable restriction that are justified in the interest of national security,
public order, and efficient governance.
3. Uphold the constitutionality of the provision of the Aadhaar Act that
mandate the linking of Aadhaar with mobile number, bank accounts, and
school admission, as these provisions are lawful, justifiable, and serve the
goals of national security, financial integrity, and the targeted distribution
of welfare service.
4. Dismiss the Petitioner challenges to Aadhaar Act and its provision as
unfounded and affirm the constitutionality of the Aadhaar framework.
5. Pass any further order or directions that this hon’ble court deems fit and
proper in the interest of justice.

Respectfully Submitted

Counsel for the Respondent

(Union of India)

Page -14