A Guide to Litigating Identity Systems a) The Mauritian Supreme Court identifies the lack of judicial oversight over the data-sharing regime in which the Mauritian identity system would operate as particularly problematic, citing it as a reason for the court’s decision to hold the storage regime to be unconstitutional.260 b) Justice Batts of the Jamaican Supreme Court finds that the lack of a hearing procedure to be used when Jamaican identity system data is disclosed to security services renders the provision unconstitutional.261 c) The majority opinion in the Aadhaar judgment applies a judicial process safeguard in its determination that the national security data-sharing provisions of the Aadhaar system are unconstitutional.262 Additionally, the majority finds that Section 47 of the Aadhaar system’s enacting legislation (which allowed only the government to lodge a complaint alleging a violation of the system legislation in court) should be amended to allow for an individual’s right to file a claim and initiate proceedings when their rights are violated.263 d) The dissenting opinion in the Aadhaar judgment similarly finds Section 47 of the system’s enacting legislation unconstitutional because it “fails to provide a mechanism to individuals to seek efficacious remedies for violation of their right to privacy.”264 260 Madhewoo, 2015 SCJ 177 at 32–33. 261 Opinion of Justice Batts, ¶ 366. 262 Aadhaar Judgment, ¶ 447 at 559. 263 Aadhaar Judgment, ¶ 353 at 427. 264 Aadhaar Judgment, ¶ 339(14)(f) of dissent. 59