Abstract

Hon’ble Mr. Justice Dr. Dhananjaya Yashwant Chandrachud's dissent in the Aadhaar verdict offers a convincing examination of the ethical, legal, and constitutional implications of Bharat's biometric identification scheme. While the majority upheld the constitutionality of Aadhaar, his dissent challenges the basic assumptions of biometric accuracy, privacy, and government monitoring. He claims that the Aadhaar framework disproportionately affects marginalised individuals, leading to systematic exclusion and perhaps serving as a tool for state control rather than merely identification. His dissent exposes Aadhaar's reliance on unsupported claims about its efficacy and draws attention to its constitutional problems. He raises concerns about the basic right to privacy, data security vulnerabilities, and the unjust burden placed on individuals to verify their identity. In addition, he criticised the government for failing to demonstrate a sufficient state interest, which the proportionality test requires, making the mandatory nature of Aadhaar unlawful. This study critically examines Justice Chandrachud's dissent and its implications for digital governance, privacy jurisprudence, and constitutional interpretation. This study argues that his dissent is a crucial line of defence against the state's unchecked exploitation of technology to expand its power. By examining his assertions on exclusion, surveillance, and judicial excess, this study contributes to the broader discussion on digital rights and constitutional safeguards against governmental overreach.

Keywords