The Delhi High Court has recently established the suspension of Delhi government directives that had made Aadhaar mandatory for admissions to private unaided schools in the city for students falling under the Economically Weaker Section (EWS), Disadvantaged Group (DG), and Children with Special Needs (CWSN) categories.

The division bench composed of Justices Satish Chandra Sharma and Sanjeev Narula declined to intervene in the decision made by a single judge, Justice Anup Jairam Bhambhani, who had previously halted the implementation of the directives requiring Aadhar for admissions to private schools. The bench further emphasized that collecting sensitive personal information about a child could violate their right to privacy as outlined in Article 21 of the Indian Constitution. 

In his order dated July 27, 2023, Justice Bhambhani issued a stay on the enforcement of the circulars dated July 12, 2022, and February 2, 2023. He stated that it is impermissible to force a child to possess an Aadhaar card and that they should not be deprived of any subsidy or benefit if they are unable to establish their identity by providing an Aadhaar card.

The Delhi government contested this order, arguing that the single judge had not comprehensively understood the intent and objectives behind the disputed circulars. They contended that the requirement for an Aadhaar card or Aadhaar number served a practical purpose, primarily aimed at eliminating duplicate applications, and thus should not be set aside.

The government argued that the requirement for Aadhaar in the admission process for the EWS/DG category in entry-level classes of private unaided recognized schools was a policy initiative aimed at modernizing the process. They asserted that mandating Aadhaar under the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009, did not infringe upon a child's right to free and compulsory education. Instead, it was seen as a protective measure against fraudulent applications and admissions that could occur using false identities.

The government additionally emphasized that it had no intentions of jeopardizing the privacy or security of applicants and clarified that it did not directly access the Aadhaar database. As a result, they contended that there was no violation of the right to privacy in this regard.

The challenge against the circulars was initiated by the father of a five-year-old child through a legal plea.

A special focus was laid on the Supreme Court judgment of KS Puttaswamy and the division bench asserted that the government's circulars appeared to be in direct conflict with constitutional provisions on a prima facie basis.

Despite the government's arguments, the division bench decided not to intervene and ultimately dismissed the appeal stating that the appeal lacked merit. The Court also observed that the single judge had not yet reached a final decision on the matter.