Sanchayita Lahkar

The High Court of Meghalaya, Division Bench of Chief Justice Soumen Sen and Justice W. Diengdoh held that the State government cannot make possession of an Aadhaar card a mandatory condition for Scheduled Caste (SC) and Scheduled Tribe (ST) students seeking post-matric scholarships or other financial assistance. The Court directed that students who establish their identity and residence through other credible documents must not be denied the benefits.

The case originated from a public interest litigation challenging a notification issued by the State of Meghalaya on 31 October 2023, which required students applying for post-matric financial assistance for Scheduled Caste (SC) and Scheduled Tribe (ST) categories to furnish an Aadhaar number or undergo Aadhaar authentication. The petitioner submitted that this directive prevented many eligible students from accessing benefits due to the absence of Aadhaar cards. It was further contended that such a requirement contradicted earlier communications and press releases issued in 2017 by central authorities, including the Ministry of Finance and the Central Board of Direct Taxes, which stated that Aadhaar enrolment was optional for residents of Meghalaya.

Also Read: Supreme Court Acquits Former Labour Official | Mere Recovery Of Currency Notes Without Proof Of Demand And Acceptance Cannot Sustain Conviction Under PC Act

The petitioner referred to a Right to Information (RTI) report dated 7 October 2020 confirming that Aadhaar was not mandatory for registration of births and deaths, and relied on the Supreme Court’s decisions in K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India, which held that Aadhaar usage could not be made compulsory beyond the scope permitted under law and that the right to privacy was part of personal liberty.

The respondents maintained that Section 7 of the Aadhaar (Targeted Delivery of Financial and Other Subsidies, Benefits and Services) Act, 2016 allowed Aadhaar-based authentication for extending welfare schemes to ensure that benefits reached genuine beneficiaries. The State supported this view, stating that the notification aimed to implement welfare measures effectively. The Court examined the impugned notification, the statutory provisions, and relevant portions of the Supreme Court judgments cited by both sides.

The Court recorded that the Supreme Court had held Section 7 of the Aadhaar Act to be valid for extending subsidies and similar benefits from the consolidated fund but also noted that the Supreme Court had “recorded the statement of the Attorney General that no deserving person would be denied the benefit of a scheme on the failure of authentication.” It referenced paragraphs 511.2 and 511.3 of the Aadhaar judgment, stating that the Supreme Court had discussed how the Aadhaar scheme “serves legitimate State aim” and was designed to ensure that “social benefit schemes reach the deserving community.” The Court noted the Supreme Court’s reasoning that problems in identity verification had hindered welfare implementation and that Aadhaar aimed to remove such obstacles.

The Bench recorded the finding that “right to receive these benefits… has now attained the status of fundamental right based on the same concept of human dignity.” Further, it noted the Supreme Court’s observation that the Constitution aims to “secure to all its citizens… justice, liberty, equality and… dignity,” particularly for marginalized sections.

Turning to the rights of children, the Court reproduced paragraph 512 of the Supreme Court judgment, which states that enrolment of children requires parental consent; that children attaining majority must have the option to exit the Aadhaar project; and that school admission is not a “service” or “benefit” requiring Aadhaar because of the fundamental right to education. It also noted the Supreme Court’s statement that “no child shall be denied benefit of any of these schemes if, for some reasons, she is not able to produce the Aadhaar number and the benefit shall be given by verifying the identity on the basis of any other documents.” The Bench observed that students seeking post-matric financial assistance had already furnished necessary details at the admission stage and that if they were unable to produce Aadhaar, the principles laid down in paragraph 512.6 would apply.

Also Read: Meghalaya High Court | PSU Service Not Countable for ACP/MACP After State Absorption | Clause 5 Bars Past MTDC Service | Writ Dismissed for Delay and Non-Joinder

The Court directed that the “notification as far as it insists the production of Aadhaar card shall not be applicable to the SC/ST students of the State up to the post-matriculation level [up to the age of 18 years] for the post-matric scholarship scheme.” It further ordered that candidates would nevertheless be required to prove their identity as residents “including birth certificate and any other reliable authenticated documents if called for by the authorities in processing their claim for scholarship.”

The Court disposed of the PIL with these directions and stated that there would be “no order as to costs.”

Advocates Representing the Parties

For the Petitioner: Mr. P.T. Sangma, Advocate
For the Respondents: Dr. N. Mozika, DSGI; Ms. K. Gurung, Advocate; Ms. R. Colney, GA

Case Title: Greneth M. Sangma v. Union of India & Others
Neutral Citation: 2025: MLHC:1030-DB
Case Number: PIL No. 6/2025
Bench: Chief Justice Soumen Sen, Justice W. Diengdoh