Created byFuzzy Cloud

Legislation

Aadhaar (Targeted Delivery of Financial and Other Subsidies, Benefits and Services) Act, 2016

9 Supreme Court judgments cite this Act.

PRAGYA PRASUN & ORS.versusUNION OF INDIA & ORS.

2025 INSC 59930 April 2025Disposed off

The petitioners, including acid‑attack survivors with facial disfigurements and a blind individual, challenged the mandatory digital KYC/e‑KYC/video‑KYC procedures for being inaccessible and discriminatory. They argued that requirements such as capturing a live photograph and performing a liveness check (e.g., eye‑blin

JUSTICE K. S. PUTTASWAMY (RETD.)versusUNION OF INDIA & ORS.

2018 INSC 88026 September 2018Disposed off

The Supreme Court upheld the constitutional validity of the Aadhaar (Targeted Delivery of Financial and Other Subsidies, Benefits and Services) Act, 2016, which provides a unique identity number to residents based on biometric and demographic data. The petitioners challenged the Act on grounds of violation of the right

JUSTICE K S PUTTASWAMY (RETD.), AND ANR.versusUNION OF INDIA AND ORS.

2017 INSC 80124 August 2017Reference answered

The case arose from a reference to a nine-judge bench to determine whether the right to privacy is a constitutionally protected fundamental right under the Indian Constitution, particularly in light of the Aadhaar scheme's collection of biometric data. The petitioners argued that privacy is an intrinsic part of the rig

JUSTICE K S PUTIASWAMY (RETD.), AND ANR.versusUNION OF INDIA AND ORS

2017 INSC 123515 December 2017Directions issued

The Supreme Court, hearing Justice K.S. Puttaswamy (Retd.) v. Union of India (Writ Petition No. 494 of 2012), considered interim orders that limited the use of Aadhaar to six government schemes and made its linkage voluntary pending a final decision. The petitioners argued that the Union could not make Aadhaar mandator

BINOY VISWAMversusUNION OF INDIA & ORS.

2017 INSC 4789 June 2017Disposed off

The petitioners, a group of public‑spirited individuals, challenged the constitutionality of Section 139AA of the Income Tax Act, 1961, which makes it mandatory for income‑tax assessees to quote their Aadhaar number while applying for a PAN or filing returns. They argued that the provision violated Articles 14 and 19(1

NOEL HARPER & ORS.versusUNION OF INDIA & ANR.

2022 INSC 4118 April 2022Disposed off

The petitioners, a group of NGOs and individuals, challenged the 2020 amendments to the Foreign Contribution (Regulation) Act, 2010, specifically sections 7, 12(1A), 12A and 17, alleging that the prohibition on transfer of foreign contributions, the requirement to open a single FCRA account with SBI, and the mandatory

UNION OF INDIAversusASSOCIATION OF UNIFIED TELECOM SERVICE PROVIDERS OF INDIA ETC. ETC.

2020 INSC 5271 September 2020Directions issued

The Supreme Court considered the Union of India's demand that telecom service providers (TSPs) pay Adjusted Gross Revenue (AGR) dues as determined in earlier judgments, while several TSPs were under insolvency proceedings. The Court examined whether spectrum, a natural resource licensed under the Indian Telegraph Act,

Search Indian case law

Ask in plain English, not just keywords. 25,000 AI words free, no card.

Search by issue, statute, judge or citationSign in to search