A Guide to Litigating Identity Systems b) The dissent of the Indian Supreme Court holds that the rights of individuals cannot be subject to probabilities, algorithms, and the “vicissitudes of technology.”299 c) The dissent of the Indian Supreme Court holds that there can be no scope for any error in basic entitlements such as food, the lack of which can lead to malnutrition, destitution, and death.300 d) The Indian Supreme Court holds that Aadhaar cannot be made mandatory for admission to schools because the right to education is a fundamental right of children and not a service, subsidy, or benefit under the Aadhaar Act.301 e) Exclusion is only amplified when there is function creep. The dissent of the Indian Supreme Court points out that the requirement of mandatory proof of possession of an Aadhaar number or requiring authentication had extended to 252 schemes at the time of writing the judgment in September 2018, including schemes relating to the rehabilitation of bonded labour, access to tuberculosis care, stipends for internships to students, and painting and essay competitions for children. Thus, citizens are denied not only basic services, but the wide range of services mandated by Aadhaar as a result of authentication failures. f) The dissent of the Indian Supreme Court cites Privacy International’s report on biometrics302, which states that the varying accuracy and failure rates of biometric technology underlying identity systems can lead to misidentification, fraud, and civic exclusion.303 299 Aadhaar Judgment, ¶ 269 of dissent. 300 Aadhaar Judgment, ¶ 263 of dissent. 301 Aadhaar Judgment, ¶ 332 at 401–402. 302 Privacy International, Biometrics: friend or foe of privacy?, December 2013. https://privacyinternational.org/news-analysis/1409/biometrics-friend-or-foe-privacy 303 Aadhaar Judgment, ¶ 120 of dissent. 69