Question map
Consider the following statements : 1. Aadhaar metadata cannot be stored for more than three months. 2. State cannot enter into any contract with private corporations for sharing of Aadhaar data. 3. Aadhaar is mandatory for obtaining insurance products. 4. Aadhaar is mandatory for getting benefits funded out of the Consolidated Fund of India. Which of the statements given above is/are correct ?
Explanation
The correct answer is Option 2 (2 and 4 only) based on the landmark Supreme Court judgement in K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India (2018) regarding the Aadhaar Act.
- Statement 2 is correct: The Supreme Court struck down Section 57 of the Aadhaar Act, ruling that private entities or corporations cannot be allowed to use Aadhaar for authentication purposes via contracts.
- Statement 4 is correct: Section 7 of the Act was upheld, making Aadhaar mandatory for availing subsidies, benefits, or services that are directly funded out of the Consolidated Fund of India.
- Statement 1 is incorrect: The Court ruled that authentication metadata cannot be stored for more than six months (not three months).
- Statement 3 is incorrect: Following the verdict, the requirement for Aadhaar for opening bank accounts or obtaining insurance products was invalidated as it did not meet the "proportionality" test.
PROVENANCE & STUDY PATTERN
Guest previewThis question proves that 'Current Affairs' for UPSC includes landmark Supreme Court judgments from 2-3 years prior (2018 verdict asked in 2020). It demands 'operative details' (timelines, specific exclusions) rather than just the broad outcome. If a judgment is historic, you must memorize the 'Fine Print' of what was struck down vs. what was upheld.
This question can be broken into the following sub-statements. Tap a statement sentence to jump into its detailed analysis.
- Statement 1: As of 2020 under Indian law, is there a legal restriction that Aadhaar metadata cannot be stored for more than three months?
- Statement 2: As of 2020 under Indian law, are state governments prohibited from entering into contracts with private corporations to share Aadhaar data?
- Statement 3: As of 2020 is Aadhaar mandatory for obtaining insurance products in India?
- Statement 4: As of 2020 is Aadhaar mandatory for receiving benefits funded from the Consolidated Fund of India?
This source records the precise claim as an examinable statement (Aadhaar metadata cannot be stored for more than three months), showing that the three‑month limit is a circulating legal/MCQ proposition.
A student could treat this as a reported claim and look up the Aadhaar Act/UIDAI rules or the Supreme Court/Aadhaar judgments to confirm whether such a retention limit appears in primary law.
Describes UIDAI's role of collecting and storing biometric and demographic data in a centralised database, establishing that retention/metadata storage is an actual legal/administrative concern.
Combine this with knowledge that data‑protection/administrative rules often specify retention periods to check whether UIDAI/Rules set a 3‑month metadata cap.
Notes the Supreme Court's 2018 Aadhaar (Puttaswamy‑II) decision upholding the Aadhaar Act, indicating judicial oversight of Aadhaar's privacy implications and that retention/metadata rules would have been considered in related litigation or rules.
A student could consult the Puttaswamy‑II judgment and subsequent Aadhaar/UIDAI rules to see if the Court or rules imposed a three‑month metadata retention limit.
Addresses legal assertions about what Aadhaar can or cannot be used for (e.g., proof of citizenship, deactivation), showing that many specific legal limits on Aadhaar functions are the subject of statutory/rule/Judicial clarification.
Use this pattern — that specific operational limits are spelled out in law/judgment — to motivate checking statutory/regulatory texts for a metadata retention clause.
Shows that 'three months' appears as a specific legally significant period in other Indian legal contexts (preventive detention), suggesting three months is a plausible statutory timeframe used elsewhere.
A student might note the recurring use of a three‑month normative period in law and therefore give some prima facie plausibility to a claimed three‑month metadata rule, prompting targeted verification in Aadhaar rules/judgments.
This statement analysis shows book citations, web sources and indirect clues. The first statement (S1) is open for preview.
Login with Google to unlock all statements.
This statement analysis shows book citations, web sources and indirect clues. The first statement (S1) is open for preview.
Login with Google to unlock all statements.
This statement analysis shows book citations, web sources and indirect clues. The first statement (S1) is open for preview.
Login with Google to unlock all statements.
This tab shows concrete study steps: what to underline in books, how to map current affairs, and how to prepare for similar questions.
Login with Google to unlock study guidance.
Discover the small, exam-centric ideas hidden in this question and where they appear in your books and notes.
Login with Google to unlock micro-concepts.
Access hidden traps, elimination shortcuts, and Mains connections that give you an edge on every question.
Login with Google to unlock The Vault.