In a significant hearing that places children’s privacy, informed consent and digital governance at the centre of constitutional discourse, the Supreme Court has indicated that it will direct the Central Board of Secondary Education (CBSE) to implement, across the country, an explicit opt-out option in consent forms for the generation of APAAR (Automated Permanent Academic Account Registry) IDs. Hearing a writ petition challenging the constitutional validity of the APAAR scheme on the ground that it effectively compels students to obtain Aadhaar-linked academic identities, the Court recognised the legitimacy of concerns surrounding privacy, consent and data protection while simultaneously observing that educational technology initiatives should not be viewed with unwarranted suspicion. Instead of questioning the objective behind the scheme, the Bench sought to ensure that the implementation of digital educational reforms remains firmly anchored in constitutional principles of voluntariness, informed consent and lawful processing of personal data.
The matter was heard by a Bench comprising Chief Justice of India Justice Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice V. Mohan on a petition filed by the parents of four school students. The petition challenges the APAAR ID framework on the ground that although the Government describes the initiative as voluntary, the manner of its implementation has rendered it effectively compulsory because generation of an APAAR ID requires Aadhaar authentication. The petitioners argued that students were being required to obtain Aadhaar-linked digital identities for educational purposes without adequate statutory safeguards governing consent, storage, processing and future use of their personal information. They also sought strict compliance with the Digital Personal Data Protection Act, 2023 (DPDP Act) in relation to collection and processing of children’s data.
Appearing for the petitioners, Senior Advocate Indira Jaising argued that the central concern was not technological innovation itself but the absence of genuine consent. She submitted that while the Government repeatedly characterises APAAR as a voluntary initiative, the consent architecture adopted by educational authorities creates an impression that participation is mandatory. According to the petitioners, if students cannot practically appear for examinations or continue academic processes without obtaining an APAAR ID linked to Aadhaar, the scheme ceases to operate as a voluntary programme and instead assumes the character of indirect compulsion. The petition further asserted that the right to education cannot be conditioned upon participation in a non-statutory digital identification programme, particularly where the beneficiaries are children incapable of providing independent informed consent.
Responding to these submissions, the Chief Justice acknowledged that concerns relating to privacy and consent deserve careful consideration. At the same time, the Bench cautioned against approaching every governmental digital initiative with automatic distrust. Observing that the objective behind APAAR is to create a unique lifelong academic identity capable of facilitating record management, student mobility, curriculum planning and educational administration, the Chief Justice remarked that the idea behind the scheme appears to be administratively beneficial. Nevertheless, the Court made it equally clear that the existence of a legitimate governmental objective does not dilute the constitutional obligation to implement the programme in accordance with prevailing privacy and data protection laws.
The hearing took an important turn when the petitioners relied upon the Orissa High Court’s judgment in Rohit Anand Das v. State of Odisha delivered in December 2025. In that decision, the High Court held that although the Government consistently maintained that APAAR was voluntary, the model consent form failed to reflect that position because it did not provide parents with any clear option to refuse consent. The High Court consequently directed the authorities to amend the consent form so that parents could explicitly decline participation or opt out of the scheme. Since the Union Government had not challenged that judgment, the Supreme Court observed that it would direct the CBSE to implement the Orissa High Court’s directions on a pan-India basis, thereby ensuring that parents across the country are provided with an express option to refuse consent for APAAR ID generation.
The Bench also indicated that it would require the CBSE to examine the broader privacy concerns raised by the petitioners regarding the collection, storage and processing of children’s personal information. Importantly, the Court observed that administrative circulars issued by educational authorities cannot override or exclude compliance with the Digital Personal Data Protection Act, 2023. Consequently, implementation of the APAAR programme must remain subject to the statutory requirements governing lawful consent, purpose limitation, processing of children’s personal data and other safeguards recognised under the DPDP framework.
The proceedings assume considerable constitutional significance because they revisit principles that the Supreme Court itself articulated in the landmark Justice K.S. Puttaswamy (Aadhaar) judgment. While upholding substantial portions of the Aadhaar framework, the Court had simultaneously emphasised that children cannot be compelled to obtain Aadhaar as a condition for accessing their constitutional right to education. The judgment recognised that children occupy a distinct constitutional position because they often lack legal capacity to make informed decisions concerning long-term data processing. Consequently, any State policy involving compulsory or effectively compulsory collection of children’s biometric or identity-linked information must satisfy the constitutional requirements of legality, necessity and proportionality. The petitioners relied heavily upon these observations to argue that linking APAAR with Aadhaar, even if described as voluntary, risks undermining the constitutional safeguards recognised in Puttaswamy.
The litigation also highlights the rapidly expanding relationship between education and digital governance. APAAR has been introduced under the broader framework of the National Education Policy, 2020, with the objective of creating a lifelong digital academic identity capable of securely storing educational records, facilitating transfer between institutions, integrating with digital platforms such as DigiLocker, and improving educational planning. From an administrative perspective, such a system offers several potential benefits, including portability of academic credentials, reduction of duplicate records and better educational analytics. Yet these administrative advantages inevitably generate corresponding legal responsibilities concerning the handling of sensitive personal data, particularly when the data belongs to minors.
From the standpoint of constitutional law, the case illustrates the distinction between legitimate governmental objectives and constitutionally permissible implementation. The Court did not question the desirability of maintaining accurate educational records or modernising school administration through digital technology. Rather, the hearing focused upon whether these objectives are being pursued through procedures consistent with the constitutional guarantee of privacy under Article 21, the statutory protections incorporated in the DPDP Act and the principles governing meaningful consent.
The proceedings also bring renewed attention to the concept of informed consent in data protection law. Consent is not merely a signature on a pre-drafted form. Modern privacy jurisprudence requires that consent be free, informed, specific and capable of being withdrawn. Where a consent form provides only a “yes” option without an equally visible opportunity to decline participation, questions naturally arise regarding whether the consent obtained is genuinely voluntary. The Orissa High Court recognised this distinction by observing that the right to withdraw consent later cannot substitute the right to refuse consent at the outset. The Supreme Court’s inclination to adopt that reasoning nationally represents a significant development in India’s evolving data protection jurisprudence.
Another important aspect concerns children’s informational privacy. During the hearing, the petitioners argued that academic data generated during childhood may continue to exist indefinitely within interconnected digital systems, potentially affecting individuals long after they complete their education. Concerns were expressed regarding the ability of students to withdraw consent, control future use of educational records and exercise what has increasingly been described as the “right to be forgotten.” These issues acquire particular importance because educational data may include examination records, academic performance, personal identifiers and institutional histories capable of influencing future opportunities if processed without adequate safeguards.
The Court’s approach reflects a broader constitutional trend emerging across multiple jurisdictions. Increasingly, constitutional courts recognise that digital governance and privacy protection are not mutually exclusive objectives. Governments may legitimately deploy technology to improve public administration, but digital innovation cannot proceed at the expense of individual autonomy, especially where children constitute the primary beneficiaries of the programme. Transparency, informed consent, limited data collection, secure storage and effective mechanisms for withdrawal of consent have become indispensable components of constitutionally compliant digital governance.
Equally noteworthy is the Court’s institutional restraint. Rather than suspending the APAAR scheme itself, the Bench sought to improve its constitutional architecture by ensuring that participation remains genuinely voluntary and legally compliant. This approach reflects the principle of proportional judicial review. Instead of invalidating a public policy pursuing legitimate educational objectives, the Court appears inclined to address the procedural deficiencies capable of affecting constitutional rights. Such an approach preserves administrative innovation while simultaneously strengthening civil liberties.
Ultimately, the hearing represents an important moment in India’s constitutional journey towards balancing technology, education and privacy. As schools increasingly adopt digital platforms, lifelong academic identifiers and integrated educational databases, the legal system must ensure that efficiency does not eclipse individual autonomy. By indicating that parents across India should be given an explicit opt-out option in APAAR consent forms and by reiterating that educational authorities remain bound by the Digital Personal Data Protection Act, 2023, the Supreme Court has reaffirmed a foundational constitutional principle: consent has meaning only when refusal remains a genuine choice. In the digital age, especially where children are concerned, constitutional governance demands not merely technological advancement but privacy-respecting innovation grounded in dignity, autonomy and informed participation.
