Back
Delhi High Court seeks Centre's reply as visually disabled advocate challenges mandatory Aadhaar for LPG
The on issued notice to the Central government and oil marketing companies on a challenging the mandatory biometric Aadhaar authentication (BAA) requirement for domestic LPG consumers seeking refills at the regulated price. A Division Bench comprising Chief Justice Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya and Justice Tejas Karia directed the respondents to file their responses and listed the matter for further hearing on .
The petition, filed by advocate , who has a certified 75% visual disability, takes aim at the 's communication to oil marketing companies and its press release. These directives require all domestic LPG consumers to complete biometric Aadhaar authentication by to continue booking refills at the regulated retail selling price. Luthra contends that the new framework disproportionately burdens persons with disabilities, the elderly, and those who face persistent biometric failure.
During the initial hearing, the Bench made a notable observation:
"Everybody doesn't have Aadhaar in this country, but they too are consuming LPG."
This remark underscores the court's concern over the practical reach of the mandate, particularly given government data indicating that approximately 3.16 crore domestic LPG consumers had not completed biometric authentication as of
.
The Challenge
The petitioner argues that the mandatory authentication requirement travels beyond the permissible scope of . Section 7 allows the government to require Aadhaar authentication for receipt of any subsidy, benefit, or service funded from the Consolidated Fund of India. However, Luthra contends that this provision does not authorise the government to impose biometric authentication as a condition for the underlying supply of domestic LPG—that is, for the physical delivery of cylinders. Instead, he argues, the condition should apply only to the subsidy component.
The plea further asserts that the impugned directions amount to an
unsupported by any enabling statutory provision. Relying on the
's landmark judgment in
, the petitioner maintains that compulsory Aadhaar authentication, being an intrusion into the
, must be authorised by law.
"Consequently, compulsory Aadhaar authentication, being an intrusion upon the
, must be authorised by law. The impugned directions, falling outside
and unsupported by any other enabling statutory provision, cannot impose such a requirement by mere
. They consequently fail
recognised in KS Puttaswamy,"
the plea states.
Disability Rights and
Luthra, who is visually disabled, has specifically highlighted the difficulties posed by iris authentication, which requires users to keep their eyes open and blink. He argues that this process creates substantial challenges for persons with visual impairments, who may be unable to position their eyes correctly or maintain the required gaze. The petition contends that the framework is , violating , as well as the .
The petitioner also points out that the government has not prescribed a clear, uniform, and readily accessible fallback mechanism for consumers in cases of persistent biometric failure. The purported alternative channels, he argues, do not constitute an effective alternative means of identification where the underlying requirement remains successful biometric authentication. This lack of a viable fallback, the plea submits, effectively denies access to a basic necessity to those who cannot comply.
Consequences for Non-Compliant Consumers
Under the new framework, consumers who are "unwilling or unable" to complete BAA would be permitted to obtain LPG at the market-determined price without subsidy, and only in 5 kg or 10 kg cylinders, subject to availability. The petitioner argues that this arrangement is not an adequate alternative because it could deprive such consumers of access to the regular 14.2 kg domestic LPG cylinder in addition to denying them the regulated price. This, he contends, would have a severe impact on households that rely on LPG for cooking and other essential purposes.
The plea also notes an inconsistency with earlier communications from the Petroleum Ministry, which had previously indicated that LPG supply would not be stopped merely because a consumer had not completed biometric authentication. The directions represent a clear departure from that earlier position, the petitioner argues.
Court's Intervention and Next Steps
The has not yet passed any interim order but has sought detailed responses from the Centre and oil marketing companies. The Bench will consider the matter further on . Legal observers expect the court to examine whether the mandatory authentication requirement is proportionate and whether it strikes a fair balance between the state's interest in ensuring targeted delivery of subsidies and the fundamental rights of consumers, particularly those with disabilities.
The case raises significant questions about the scope of Section 7 of the Aadhaar Act, the limits of executive power in imposing biometric authentication, and the obligation of the state to provide for persons with disabilities. It also echoes concerns about the digital divide and the practical challenges of implementing Aadhaar-based verification for essential services.
Broader Implications for Legal Practice
For legal professionals, this case presents an important opportunity to revisit the constitutional framework governing Aadhaar authentication. The Puttaswamy judgment established that any intrusion into privacy must be backed by a law that is fair, just, and reasonable. The 's scrutiny of the LPG authentication mandate could set a precedent for how courts evaluate similar requirements in other sectors, such as food distribution, healthcare, and financial services.
The petition also tests the application of the , which mandates and . If the court finds that the authentication requirement disproportionately affects persons with disabilities without adequate fallback, it could compel the government to redesign its digital infrastructure to be more inclusive.
Moreover, the court's observation that not everyone has an Aadhaar card highlights the practical reality that universal coverage remains elusive. Any policy that makes access to essential goods contingent on Aadhaar authentication risks excluding a significant portion of the population, including migrant workers, the elderly, and those living in remote areas.
Conclusion
As the hearing approaches, the legal community will be watching closely for the court's preliminary views. The outcome could influence not only the fate of the current LPG authentication mandate but also the broader trajectory of Aadhaar-based service delivery in India. For now, the has signalled its concern and demanded a response, leaving the government to justify why such a far-reaching requirement should be imposed by executive action rather than through a properly enacted law.
