A Amritsar scheme forced me to link Aadhaar to my mobile number. Is this constitutional after the Supreme Court ruling?

Detailed Legal Analysis

The requirement to link Aadhaar to your mobile number under the Amritsar scheme raises constitutional concerns following the Supreme Court's ruling on the matter.

In the landmark judgment delivered on September 26, 2018, in the case of Justice K.S. Puttaswamy (Retd.) vs. Union of India, the Supreme Court held that the Aadhaar Act, 2016, is constitutional but with significant limitations. The court ruled that:

• The Aadhaar number cannot be made mandatory for services that are not related to welfare schemes or subsidies provided by the government.
• Linking Aadhaar to mobile numbers is not permitted as it violates the right to privacy enshrined under Article 21 of the Indian Constitution.
• Section 7 of the Aadhaar Act, which mandates Aadhaar for availing of benefits, does not extend to services like mobile phone subscriptions.

Given this ruling, the imposition of linking Aadhaar to mobile numbers can be considered unconstitutional unless it is directly connected to welfare benefits provided by the government. Therefore, if the Amritsar scheme enforces this requirement without a valid legislative basis, it may contravene the Supreme Court's decision.

Key points to consider regarding the constitutional implications include:

• The Supreme Court's recognition of the right to privacy, which protects individuals from unwarranted intrusion by the state.
• Legislative provisions that govern the use of Aadhaar, specifically the limitations imposed by the Aadhaar Act.
• The necessity for any scheme or law to align with the principles laid down by the Supreme Court regarding personal data protection and privacy rights.

In conclusion, while the Aadhaar Act has been upheld for certain purposes, the forced linkage of Aadhaar to mobile numbers under the Amritsar scheme is likely unconstitutional. Individuals affected by this requirement may seek legal redress by approaching the courts, citing the Supreme Court's judgment and the right to privacy as grounds for their case.