Myanmar: Human Rights Analysis of Biometric Digital ID Systems government to verify a person’s identity but also by private actors, for example to authenticate the identity of an employee or a customer.78 The entire project is overseen by the Unique Identification Authority of India (UIDAI). India began implementation of Aadhaar in 2010. As enrolment reached one billion in 2016, the system received a firm basis in law with the passage of the Aadhaar Act.79 The fact that the project did not have a clear legal basis until 2016 was a major concern, resulting in serious questions over a lack of legal protections around the use of the collected biometric data, a number of legal challenges and confusion over aspects of its implementation.80 In addition, after the adoption of the 2016 Act, it was subject to a constitutional challenge. In 2017, the Supreme Court, in a landmark ruling, affirmed that the right to privacy was constitutionally protected in India.81 Then, in 2018, in a judgment addressing Aadhaar more particularly, the Court found that the Aadhaar Act in general was constitutional but placed a number of limits on its scope and application, discussed further below.82 Aadhaar has had some notable successes. Its use is now widespread – one estimate says 95% of adults have Aadhaar and use it once a month – and, for some of the poorest residents in India, it is the only form of ID that they have.83 Some research indicates that Aadhaar has facilitated access to services for more people. For example, the proportion of women who have bank accounts has grown substantially. Government officials also argue that the programme has allowed them to promote better targeting so that government services, such as food subsidies, healthcare and pensions, reach the intended beneficiaries.84 On the other hand, the programme has been controversial. Some of the concerns raised can serve as key lessons for any similar system in Myanmar. Privacy India’s Supreme Court recognised the right to privacy in 2017 and called on the government to enact stronger data protection rules. However, in its 2018 judgment, it still found that that the Aadhaar Act was constitutional. The majority held that the Act, overall, did not violate the right to privacy, finding that the purpose of the Act, namely to ensure that government benefits “actually 78 Sushil Kambampati, Aadhaar: the Indian Biometric ID System has Potential but Presents Many Concerns, 14 February 2018, Heinrich Boll Stiftung. Available at: https://www.boell.de/en/2018/02/07/aadhaar-indian-biometricid-system-has-potential-presents-many-concerns. 79 Privacy International, note 76. 80 Sushil Kambampati, note 78; and Privacy International, Biometrics: Friend of Foe of Privacy, 2017, p. 10, available at: https://www.privacyinternational.org/sites/default/files/2017-11/Biometrics_Friend_or_foe.pdf. 81 Puttaswamy v. India, 2017. Available at: https://main.sci.gov.in/supremecourt/2012/35071/35071_2012_Judgement_24-Aug-2017.pdf. 82 Puttaswamy v. India, 2018. Available at: https://scobserverproduction.s3.amazonaws.com/uploads/case_document/document_upload/457/Aadhaar_35071_2012_FullJudgemen t-1-567.pdf. 83 Sushil Kambampati, note 78; and State of Aadhaar, Top 10 Insights. Available at: https://stateofaadhaar.in/top-10insights.php. 84 OECD, Case Study: Aadhaar – India, 2018. Available at: https://www.oecd.org/gov/innovative-government/Indiacase-study-UAE-report-2018.pdf. - 14 -