A Rajkot 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 Rajkot scheme raises constitutional concerns, particularly in light of the Supreme Court's ruling in 2018 regarding the use of Aadhaar.

In the landmark judgement of Justice K.S. Puttaswamy (Retd.) vs. Union of India (2018), the Supreme Court held that while Aadhaar is not unconstitutional, its mandatory linking to various services is subject to strict scrutiny and must meet certain criteria:

• Right to Privacy: The Supreme Court recognized the right to privacy as a fundamental right under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. The linking of Aadhaar must not violate this right.
• Informed Consent: The Court emphasized that Aadhaar should be linked only with informed consent of the individual. Mandatory linking could infringe upon personal autonomy.
• Proportionality Test: Any law or scheme that mandates linking must pass the test of proportionality, ensuring that the measures taken are necessary and not excessive in relation to the objectives sought.
• Legislative Backing: The Supreme Court ruled that the use of Aadhaar must have legislative backing, and any requirement for linking Aadhaar to services must be authorized by law.

In light of these principles, the Rajkot scheme's requirement to link Aadhaar to your mobile number can be challenged on several grounds:

• Lack of Legislation: If the Rajkot scheme does not have adequate legislative support, it may be deemed unconstitutional.
• Violation of Privacy: If the linking of Aadhaar compromises your personal data without clear benefits, it may infringe your right to privacy.
• No Informed Consent: If you were not adequately informed about the implications of linking your Aadhaar, it could be contested as coercive.

Consequently, individuals who feel compelled to link their Aadhaar to mobile numbers under the Rajkot scheme should consider seeking legal recourse through public interest litigation or individual petitions, arguing that such a requirement contravenes the Supreme Court's directives and infringes upon their fundamental rights.