Aadhaar judgment: What needs to be linked, what does not need to be linked


Three judges in the Constitution bench — which included Chief Justice Dipak Misra — delivered the majority verdict. Justice DY Chandrachud dissented, and Justice Ashok Bhushan concurred with the majority aadhaar judgment.


A 5-judge constitutional bench of the Supreme Court on Wednesday upheld the constitutional validity of the flagship Aadhaar scheme.The apex court in its judgment has listed out a host of services for which linking of Aadhaar is not mandatory.

Here’s the list :


  • It  is mandatory to link PAN card with Aadhaar
  • Aadhaar is a must for filing income tax returns
  • Aadhaar is necessary for availing welfare schemes and subsidies given by the government.

You DON’T need to link it with:

  • Your bank account
  • Your mobile number
  • School admissions
  • Central Board of Secondary Education (CBSE) and University Grants Commission (UGC) exams, or the National Eligibility cum Entrance Test (NEET)The court also said no child can be denied benefits of any schemes if he or she can’t produce an Aadhaar number.

Union Minister Ravi Shankar Prasad said the Supreme Court’s verdict on Aadhaar was “a victory of good governance, the empowerment of ordinary people and the efficient delivery of public services to the people of India.”

Union Finance Minister Arun Jaitley said the Congress party “cuts a sorry figure today.”

“They introduced Aadhaar but did not know what to do with that.”

Meanwhile, senior Congress leader and former Union Minister P Chidambaram said the majority judgment in the Aadhaar case “has retrieved the UPA’s original idea of Aadhaar.”

ALSO READ: Amit Shah proposes single multipurpose ID card for Aadhaar, passport, licence

“Aadhaar was meant to be a benign instrument to deliver benefits, subsidies and services to the poor. Glad that the UPA’s policy has been vindicated.”

“Several provisions of the Act and the Regulations have been struck down as unconstitutional,” Chidambaram said. “That is a humbling lesson for the Ministry of Law.”