Parents Have Option To Opt Out To Protect Right to Privacy: Orissa High Court Directs Inclusion of 'Refusal' Option in APAAR ID Consent Form

The Court emphasized that parents must have the right to opt out entirely at the outset to fully protect the fundamental Right to Privacy established in K.S. Puttaswamy vs. Union of India, (2019) 1 SCC 1.

​The Bench of Justice Sashikant Mishra observed, “A careful reading of the different clauses of the consent form reveals that there is no option to refuse consent at the initial stage. Nothing has been placed on record as to the consequence that would entail upon refusal of a parent to submit the consent form. The withdrawal of consent as per the last paragraph of the consent form cannot be treated as giving an effective right to the parent to protect his privacy because by such time the consent would already have been given. What the Petitioners are concerned with is the right to refuse consent altogether at the outset. Since the right to privacy is a fundamental right and though not absolute can only be subject to reasonable restrictions, the same has to be protected and respected by the State at all costs.”

Advocate A Jebraj appeared for the Petitioners, whereas AGA S Bhera, Senior Advocate S.K. Sarangi and DSGI P.K. Parhi appeared for the Respondents.

Background

Petitioner No. 2 was a student of KG in a school. Petitioner No. 1, father of Petitioner No. 2, received a letter from the school to give his consent for the generation of an Automated Permanent Academic Account Registry (APAAR) ID for his ward. A consent form was enclosed with the said letter. The said letter required the parents to give their consent along with a copy of their Aadhaar Card to the class teacher for the generation of the APAAR ID. The Petitioners are basically aggrieved by such a letter on the ground that it does not provide the parents the right to opt out of the requirement to submit Aadhaar details.

According to the Petitioners, the consent form contains several clauses which could infringe their right to privacy, as their personal information could be made available to other entities.

Contention of the Parties

According to the Petitioners, the APAAR is a measure introduced by the Ministry of Education (MoE), which commences the ‘one student, one unique I.D’ initiative and aims to assign students a unique I.Ds linked to their Aadhaar numbers to track lifelong educational records and consolidate all academic achievements in one place. It is stated to be a voluntary initiative as per the information provided on the APAAR Website.

By letter, the MoE asked the Chief Secretaries of all States to ensure the creation of APAAR ID of students of all Schools, with specific instructions to obtain consent from parents. This violates their right to privacy, besides being non-specific as regards the limits of the expression, ‘limited purposes and stakeholders, etc.’.

The MoE submitted that APAAR ID is designed to provide a unique, lifelong 12-digit identifier for all school-enrolled students to accumulate and store their academic accomplishments. It will facilitate seamless transitions between institutions for the pursuit of further education and simplify the process of credit recognition and transfer right from the school level, thereby streamlining academic progression and recognition of prior learning, among many other benefits. The apprehension of the Petitioner is unfounded in view of the fact that the letter enclosing the consent form clearly indicates that consent is entirely voluntary and the information is for the students wanting to create their APAAR ID.

Observation of the Court

The Court observed, "Privacy is an inherent human right, and a requirement for maintaining a human condition with dignity and respect’- said Bruise Schneier in his book, ‘Schneier on Security’. It is a fundamental human right that protects an individual’s personal information, choices, dignity and freedom from unwarranted surveillance. It is recognized as a fundamental right under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. A Five- Judge Bench of the Supreme Court in the case of K.S. Puttaswamy vs. Union of India, (2019) 1 SCC 1 held in no uncertain terms that right to privacy being an important fundamental right encompasses various aspects of life. Though not absolute, it can be subject to reasonable restrictions only. The present Writ Petition involves the question of interference with the Petitioners’ right to privacy."

Given that all concerned authorities unanimously agree the initiative is voluntary, the Court concurred with the Petitioners that the model consent form is not strictly consistent with the stated goal of making the scheme purely voluntary.

“In other words, the model consent form does not appear to have been happily worded in this respect at all. If it is intended to be a voluntary act, appropriate provisions clearly specifying such fact ought to have been incorporated in the form by providing option to the parents to refuse to submit their consent or to opt out of it entirely. Learned counsel for the Petitioners has submitted a model consent form containing a refusal of consent clause. This Court has perused the same and finds it to be in consonance with the professed stand of the authorities regarding voluntary nature of the scheme. There is no reason why such a clause cannot be incorporated in the model consent form.”, the Court observed.

Conclusion

The Court ordered, “Thus, from a conspectus of the analysis made hereinbefore, this Court finds that the Petitioners have made out a good case for interference by this Court. Resultantly, the Writ Petition is allowed. The opposite party-authorities are directed to consider amendment of the model consent form to include an opt out/refusal of consent option therein. The model consent form incorporating such changes as provided by learned counsel for the Petitioners to the learned DSGI may also be considered.”

Accordingly, the matter was disposed of.

Cause Title: Rohit Anand Das and Anr. v. State of Odisha and Ors. [W.P.(C) No. 8285 of 2025]

Appearances:

Petitioners: Advocates A. Jebraj, R. Shruti and A. Kar.

Respondents: AGA S. Behera, DSGI P.K. Parhi, CGC D. Gochhayat, Senior Advocate S.K. Sarangi, Advocate S. Sarangi.

Click here to read/download the Judgment