A Guide to Litigating Identity Systems MADHEWOO V. THE STATE OF MAURITIUS AND ANOR 14. The first case in the recent line of national identity systems cases is Madhewoo v. The State of Mauritius and Anor.1 This case, decided by the Mauritian Supreme Court in 2015, upheld the collection of fingerprint data as part of a national identity card scheme, but rejected a centralised database for the storage of this data in the system.2 The Mauritian court found that privacy rights guaranteed by the Mauritian Constitution’s provisions governing searches were implicated by the system.3 With respect to the collection of fingerprints, the court found that the potential infringement was outweighed by the interests in avoiding identity fraud furthered by the scheme.4 In relation to the storage of fingerprint data, however, the court found that the lack of protections and judicial oversight in the proposed system outweighed the benefits of the storage regime.5 At the conclusion of the Supreme Court’s review, the Mauritian national identity system therefore consists of a mandatory identity card scheme where fingerprints are collected only for the initial verification of a cardholder’s identity when the card is issued. The fingerprint data is not retained in a central database after that point, but the cards are required for the use of public services. The case was appealed to the Privy Council in 2016, but the Council upheld the Supreme Court’s judgment and supported its reasoning.6 1 Madhewoo v. The State of Mauritius and Anor, 2015 SCJ 177 http://ionnews.mu/wp-content/uploads/2015/05/Biometric-ID-Card_Madhewoo-vs-State.pdf 2 Madhewoo, 2015 SCJ 177 at 28, 34. 3 Madhewoo, 2015 SCJ 177 at 23. 4 Madhewoo, 2015 SCJ 177 at 28. 5 Madhewoo, 2015 SCJ 177 at 34. 6 Madhewoo v. The State of Mauritius and another, 2016 Privy Council No. 0006 . 10