A Guide to Litigating Identity Systems JUSTICE K.S. PUTTASWAMY AND ANOTHER V. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS 15. The second case, and the most well-known, is the 2017 Aadhaar judgment from the Indian Supreme Court.7 The Aadhaar system is a massive identity system that incorporates iris scans, fingerprint data, and a unique identity number, requiring enrolment for access to a wide variety of government programmes and schemes.8 The judgment produced by the challenge to the system in 2017 included both the majority opinion that largely upheld the system and a dissenting opinion that strongly rejected the system’s constitutionality. Unlike the Mauritian judgment, which focused almost exclusively on right to privacy concerns, the Indian Supreme Court opinions developed other rights arguments relating to exclusion. The majority in the Aadhaar case upheld the system, finding potential privacy violations and exclusionary impacts of the system to be outweighed by the extension of identity to marginalised communities and the state’s interest in fighting corruption.9 The dissenting opinion rejected the system, arguing that infringement of the right to privacy and exclusionary impacts could not be overcome simply because the system was used to address other basic human needs.10 In the Aadhaar judgment, a number of other related issues are discussed, including the system’s potential exploitation for mass surveillance, the democratic processes through which it was established, and the possible spread of the system throughout public and private life. The majority and dissent occasionally find common ground, including judicial 7 Aadhaar Judgment, Justice K.S. Puttaswamy and Another v. Union of India and Others, Writ Petition (Civil) No. 494 of 2012 & connected matters (2018). 8 Aadhaar Judgment, ¶ 446 at 524. 9 Aadhaar Judgment, ¶ 308 at 376. 10 Aadhaar Judgment, ¶ 254 of dissent. 11