When the government tries to make legislation to indirectly circumvent a court order, it is called colourable legislation. It is understood that the government cannot indirectly do what it is directly prohibited from doing. It would be illegal and illogical, but that has never stopped governments from trying. However, if a law, rule, or regulation is found to be colourable, it can be struck down by courts. Even so, the Union government’s attempts to widen the scope of the use of Aadhaar invites questions.
In its 2018 judgment, upholding the constitutionality of the Aadhaar programme, the Supreme Court drew red lines around its uses. Within a year, buoyed by its electoral victory in the 2019 Lok Sabha elections, the current government amended the Aadhaar Act, 2016 to provide for “voluntary” Aadhaar authentication or verification of a user by a bank or telecom service provider, among other changes. The Amendment Act of 2019 was immediately challenged before the Supreme Court, which also issued a notice to the UIDAI and the Union government to respond to the petition.
Part of the challenge lay in the fact that in its 2018 judgment, the Supreme Court specifically disallowed the linking of Aadhaar with bank accounts and SIM cards. The Court held that there was no law that permitted this, it did not serve any state purpose and the use of Aadhaar authentication for the purpose cited by the government is unclear (no rational nexus). The majority judgment also limited the use of Aadhaar for welfare services. As many critics have pointed out, limiting the use of Aadhaar for welfare was deeply problematic, as mandatory Aadhaar excluded many who need welfare to survive. Under the Public Distribution System, for example, mandatory Aadhaar has exposed the faulty
— source indianexpress.com | Maansi Verma, Praavita Kashyap | Apr 23, 2023