DATE: 29/10/2025
COURT: High Court of Meghalaya
BENCH: Chief Justice Soumen Sen and Justice
W. Diengdoh
FACTS:
A Public Interest Litigation (PIL) was
filed challenging the notification dated 31.10.2023 issued by the Government of
Meghalaya, which made it mandatory for SC/ST students seeking financial
assistance or scholarships under state welfare schemes to furnish proof of
possession of an Aadhaar number or undergo Aadhaar authentication. The
petitioner contended that this notification violated the exemptions granted to
Meghalaya residents, as per press releases and government communications from
2017, which stated that Aadhaar was optional and not mandatory in the state. It
was argued that insisting on Aadhaar for availing scholarships deprived several
students, especially minors, of essential educational benefits, contrary to the
Supreme Court’s rulings in K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India and subsequent
judgments affirming privacy and autonomy as constitutional rights.
The State of Meghalaya and the Union of
India defended the notification, arguing that Section 7 of the Aadhaar
(Targeted Delivery of Financial and Other Subsidies, Benefits and Services)
Act, 2016 permitted the use of Aadhaar for welfare schemes to ensure targeted
delivery of benefits. They maintained that Aadhaar was designed to empower the
marginalized and prevent leakages in welfare distribution. However, the
petitioner stressed that making Aadhaar mandatory for children, particularly
for scholarships and educational benefits, was unconstitutional and
inconsistent with the Supreme Court’s observations that no person should be
denied benefits for lack of Aadhaar authentication.
ISSUES:
The primary issue before the Court was
whether the State of Meghalaya could legally insist on the mandatory production
of an Aadhaar card as a prerequisite for SC/ST students to receive post-matric
scholarship benefits, despite existing exemptions and Supreme Court rulings
protecting the rights and privacy of individuals, especially minors, who lack
Aadhaar enrolment.
JUDGEMENT WITH REASONING:
The Meghalaya High Court held that the
notification dated 31.10.2023 could not be enforced insofar as it made Aadhaar
mandatory for SC/ST students up to the post-matriculation level (i.e., up to 18
years of age). It directed that no student should be denied the benefit of
financial assistance for lack of an Aadhaar number. Instead, such students
could establish their identity through other reliable documents such as birth
certificates or authenticated proof of residence. The PIL was disposed of
accordingly, with no order as to costs.
The Court based its reasoning primarily on
the Supreme Court’s authoritative pronouncements in K.S. Puttaswamy & Ors.
v. Union of India & Ors. (2019) 1 SCC 1, which clarified that while Aadhaar
could be used for welfare schemes under Section 7 of the Aadhaar Act, no
deserving individual should be denied benefits for want of Aadhaar
authentication. The Supreme Court had specifically noted in paragraph 512.6
that children who cannot produce an Aadhaar number must still receive benefits
upon verification through alternative documents. Moreover, enrolment of minors
under Aadhaar must be with parental consent, and upon reaching majority, they
should have the option to withdraw from the Aadhaar framework. Therefore, the
insistence on Aadhaar as a mandatory condition for scholarship eligibility was
contrary to constitutional principles and the binding directions of the apex
court.
The Court emphasized that children have a
fundamental right to education under Article 21-A of the Constitution, and
access to educational benefits cannot be treated as a discretionary privilege
dependent on Aadhaar enrolment. Making Aadhaar mandatory for students
undermines their right to privacy and dignity, as recognized in Puttaswamy
(2017), and imposes an unreasonable administrative burden that could exclude
genuine beneficiaries. The High Court reaffirmed that governance measures must
balance technological efficiency with constitutional protections, ensuring that
welfare schemes remain inclusive and accessible. Consequently, the notification
was partially struck down to the extent it violated these principles, while
still allowing the State to verify student identity through non-Aadhaar means.
ANALYSIS:
The Meghalaya High Court’s ruling
underscores the balance between administrative efficiency and constitutional
safeguards, particularly the right to privacy, autonomy, and education. By
holding that Aadhaar cannot be made mandatory for SC/ST students below 18 years
of age to access scholarship benefits, the Court reaffirmed the fundamental
principle that welfare delivery mechanisms must not exclude individuals based
on procedural or technological barriers. The judgment aligns with the Supreme
Court’s decision in K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India (2019), where it was
clarified that Section 7 of the Aadhaar Act allows Aadhaar-based verification
but does not sanction denial of benefits in its absence. The High Court
recognized that compelling minors to enroll in Aadhaar without informed consent
or parental involvement contradicts the statutory and constitutional framework
meant to protect children’s rights.
Furthermore, the decision highlights the
judiciary’s role in ensuring that welfare governance remains inclusive and
non-discriminatory. The Court’s insistence on alternative identity verification
methods ensures that educational benefits, which flow from the right to
education under Article 21-A, are accessible to all eligible students,
regardless of technological enrolment status. This approach reinforces the
principle of proportionality, ensuring that State action in the name of
efficiency does not trample fundamental rights. The judgment serves as a
reminder that constitutional guarantees must guide the design and
implementation of welfare policies, emphasizing that technology should function
as a facilitator of rights, not a gatekeeper to them.
info@adhwaitha.com