The Orissa High Court examined the implementation of the Automated Permanent Academic Account Registry system and addressed concerns regarding the absence of a meaningful opt-out mechanism in the consent process required for students and their guardians. The court considered a petition challenging the manner in which consent was being obtained for the creation of APAAR IDs, particularly highlighting issues of privacy, voluntariness, and data protection. The bench emphasized that privacy is an intrinsic human right and observed that while the authorities had described the APAAR scheme as voluntary, the structure and content of the consent form contradicted that assertion.
The APAAR system was introduced as a centralized digital registry intended to assign a unique lifelong academic identifier to every student. This identifier was designed to store and consolidate educational records across different stages of a student’s academic journey. The scheme was linked to Aadhaar and required students or their guardians to submit Aadhaar details to generate the APAAR ID. According to the authorities, the purpose of the system was to ensure seamless portability of academic records and to improve efficiency in educational administration. However, the court noted that the practical implementation of the scheme raised serious questions regarding consent and data autonomy.
The petition before the court was filed by a parent of a minor student who received communication from his child’s school requesting consent for the creation of an APAAR ID. The communication included a consent form that required submission of Aadhaar details and authorization for the collection and storage of academic data. The petitioner objected to the process on the ground that the consent form did not provide any option to refuse participation. He expressed concern that his daughter’s personal and academic data could be shared or misused and that the absence of an opt-out clause effectively forced parents to consent. After failing to receive a satisfactory explanation from the school authorities, the petitioner approached the High Court seeking judicial intervention.
During the proceedings, the petitioners argued that the absence of an opt-out option rendered the scheme involuntary in practice despite official claims to the contrary. They contended that consent, to be meaningful and legally valid, must include the freedom to refuse at the outset. The petitioners further argued that compelling participation in a data-driven system linked to Aadhaar violated the constitutional right to privacy as recognized by the Supreme Court. They also raised concerns under the Digital Personal Data Protection framework, asserting that individuals must retain control over whether their personal data is collected, processed, and stored.
The State authorities and representatives of the Ministry of Education responded by reiterating that enrolment under APAAR was not mandatory. They submitted that students and guardians were free to withdraw their consent at any time and that the scheme was designed purely for the benefit of students. According to the respondents, safeguards were in place to protect data privacy and there was no compulsion to participate in the system. They maintained that the consent form reflected the voluntary nature of the scheme and that adequate information was being provided to parents and students.
After examining the submissions and reviewing the model consent form used for APAAR enrolment, the High Court found that the form allowed only for withdrawal of consent after it had already been given. The court observed that such a mechanism did not amount to genuine voluntary consent because the initial act of consenting would still result in the collection and processing of personal data. The court emphasized that once consent is granted and data is submitted, the individual’s privacy is already compromised to some extent, even if withdrawal is later permitted.
The court further noted that the consent form did not clarify the consequences of refusing to provide consent, nor did it explicitly state that refusal would not result in any adverse impact on the student’s education. The absence of such assurances, according to the court, could exert indirect pressure on parents and guardians to comply with the request for consent. The court observed that ambiguity regarding the repercussions of refusal could create an environment where participation appears mandatory, particularly within the hierarchical structure of schools and educational institutions.
In its judgment, the High Court underscored that consent must be informed, specific, and freely given. The court reiterated that voluntariness is not merely a declaration by authorities but must be reflected in the actual design and implementation of consent mechanisms. If a scheme is presented as optional, the process of obtaining consent must clearly and unambiguously provide an option to decline participation at the very beginning. Any consent framework that lacks such an option, the court held, fails to uphold the principle of autonomy and informed choice.
The court also referred to the broader constitutional framework governing the right to privacy, emphasizing that any state-led data collection initiative must adhere to principles of legality, necessity, and proportionality. The linkage of academic records with Aadhaar, the court observed, involves sensitive personal data, particularly when minors are concerned. As such, heightened safeguards are required to ensure that parents and guardians retain full control over decisions affecting their children’s personal information.
After considering all aspects of the matter, the High Court concluded that the existing consent form for APAAR enrolment was deficient because it did not provide a clear opt-out or refusal option at the initial stage. The court held that this deficiency undermined the claim that the APAAR scheme was voluntary. Accordingly, the court directed the concerned authorities to amend the model consent form to explicitly include an option allowing students or their guardians to refuse consent at the outset. The court specified that the revised consent form must clearly reflect the voluntary nature of the scheme and ensure that no coercion, direct or indirect, is involved in the enrolment process.
The court directed that the necessary amendments to the consent form be carried out within a stipulated period. The judgment emphasized that until such amendments are implemented, the process of obtaining consent must be aligned with constitutional principles and data protection norms. The court clarified that its directions were aimed at safeguarding the privacy rights of students while ensuring transparency and accountability in the implementation of digital education initiatives.
Through this ruling, the Orissa High Court reaffirmed that technological advancements in education must not come at the cost of fundamental rights. The judgment highlighted the importance of designing consent mechanisms that genuinely respect individual choice and autonomy, particularly when dealing with sensitive personal data of children. The court’s directions sought to ensure that participation in the APAAR system remains truly voluntary and that parents and guardians are empowered to make informed decisions without fear of adverse consequences.
0 Comments
Thank you for your response. It will help us to improve in the future.