Myanmar: Human Rights Analysis of Biometric Digital ID Systems reach the populace for whom they are meant”, was a legitimate aim.85 However, the Court still placed important limits on the Act out of concern for privacy. In particular, the Court decided that a provision permitting government entities and private actors to use an Aadhaar number to establish someone’s identity for “any purpose” was not valid, holding that it provided too much scope to invade user privacy. It also struck down a rule linking Aadhaar with SIM card registration and bank accounts. Based in part on the Court’s decision in the 2017 case, as well as public concern about the privacy impacts of Aadhaar, a Data Protection Bill is under currently consideration in India’s Parliament.86 Mandatory Nature and Impacts on Vulnerable Groups Aadhaar was initially meant to be voluntary but the scope of the project increased with the Aadhaar Act of 2016 and subsequent licensing agreements making enrolment effectively mandatory to access a wide range of services, such as government funding, pensions, banking, insurance and telecommunications.87 This led to denial of services to persons without an Aadhaar number or who experienced technical issues with the system. For example, impoverished families were denied food rations because they did not have an Aadhaar number, it had not been properly linked to their food ration card or their biometrics authentication failed. Elsewhere, children without Aadhaar numbers lost access to free meals, enrolment in government schools or scholarships.88 In its 2018 Supreme Court judgment, the Court imposed limits on the use of Aadhaar, finding that it could only be made mandatory to access Consolidated Fund of India benefits and file income taxes. Private companies, schools, banks and telecom companies could not make Aadhaar compulsory for their services.89 Furthermore, the Court ruled that Aadhaar should not be compulsory for the University Grants Commission, the National Eligibility and Entrance Test, the Central Board of Secondary Education exams and school admissions. Despite this judgment, there are continued issues with Aadhaar being widely viewed and effectively treated as mandatory to access a range of services.90 Aadhaar has not been accessible or user-friendly for everyone. Authentication sometimes failed due to poor internet connections.91 Persons whose fingerprints are worn or have had cataract surgery have trouble with the fingerprint and iris scan. Most estimates of ID system authentication failures are around five percent, but some estimates are as high as ten percent; either way, this is a 85 Puttaswamy v. India, 2018, note 81, para. 266. Anirudh Burman and Suyash Rai, What is in India’s Sweeping Personal Data Protection Bill?, 9 March 2020, Carnegie India. Available at: https://carnegieindia.org/2020/03/09/what-is-in-india-s-sweeping-personal-dataprotection-bill-pub-80985. 87 Human Rights Watch, India: Top Court OK’s Biometric ID Program, 27 September 2018. Available at: https://www.hrw.org/news/2018/09/27/india-top-court-oks-biometric-id-program. 88 Ibid. 89 Ibid. 90 State of Aadhaar, Top 10 Insights, available at: https://stateofaadhaar.in/top-10-insights.php; and Human Rights Watch, India: Identification Project Threatens Rights, 13 January 2018, available at: https://www.hrw.org/news/2018/01/13/india-identification-project-threatens-rights. 91 Human Rights Watch, ibid. 86 - 15 -