The High Court of Meghalaya, sitting at Shillong, on Wednesday, delivered a crucial judgment protecting the rights of school children and students belonging to Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes. The Division Bench headed by Chief Justice Soumen Sen and Justice W. Diengdoh ruled that the State government’s 2023 notification requiring Aadhaar for post-matric scholarship benefits cannot be enforced for students below 18 years of age.
The court held that no child can be denied the benefit of any welfare scheme merely for not possessing an Aadhaar card, echoing the spirit of the Supreme Court’s landmark privacy rulings.
Background
The case was filed as a public interest litigation (PIL) by Greneth M. Sangma, representing several students who were unable to receive scholarship benefits due to the Aadhaar requirement.
The petitioner challenged the notification dated 31 October 2023, issued by the Meghalaya Education Department, mandating students to furnish Aadhaar details to avail financial assistance meant for SC/ST students who are not covered under central or state-level scholarship schemes.
Counsel for the petitioner, Mr. P.T. Sangma, argued that the notification violated the exemptions earlier granted by the Government of India. He cited the Central Board of Direct Taxes press release (12 May 2017) which clarified that residents of Meghalaya were exempted from mandatory Aadhaar linking.
He further pointed out that various government circulars, including those from February and July 2017, and an RTI reply dated October 2020, confirmed that Aadhaar was not compulsory for basic services such as birth and death registration.
“The State cannot insist that children be enrolled for Aadhaar before receiving welfare benefits. It violates their privacy and the very autonomy recognized by the Supreme Court in K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India,” argued Mr. Sangma.
Court's Observations
The Bench carefully examined Section 7 of the Aadhaar (Targeted Delivery of Financial and Other Subsidies, Benefits and Services) Act, 2016, which allows the government to require Aadhaar authentication for welfare schemes.
However, Chief Justice Sen noted that the Supreme Court, while upholding this section, had also made it clear that no deserving person should be denied benefits due to authentication failure.
Quoting from the apex court’s K.S. Puttaswamy judgment, the Bench recalled:
“The goals set out in the Preamble of the Constitution do not exist for a few; they are to secure justice, liberty, equality, and dignity for all, especially the downtrodden.”
The Meghalaya High Court also emphasized paragraph 512.6 of the Puttaswamy (2019) ruling, which specifically states that no child shall be denied benefits of any welfare scheme for not producing an Aadhaar number, and that verification may be done using any other valid documents.
“The judgment of the Supreme Court is explicit,” the Bench observed. “Children cannot be forced into Aadhaar enrolment as a condition for obtaining scholarships. Consent of parents is essential, and even then, benefits cannot be denied for non-possession.”
The Court further noted that students availing post-matric scholarships are often in the 16–18 age group and have already submitted proof of identity at school admission. Thus, insisting on Aadhaar at this stage would cause unnecessary hardship and violate their educational rights.
Decision
In a clear and well-reasoned order, the High Court struck down the mandatory Aadhaar requirement for SC/ST students in Meghalaya up to post-matric level (Class XII or age 18).
The Bench directed that such students must not be denied scholarships on the ground of non-possession of Aadhaar. However, they may be asked to prove identity and residence through birth certificates or other reliable documents if needed.
The order stated:
“The notification, insofar as it insists on the production of Aadhaar card, shall not be applicable to SC/ST students of the State up to the post-matriculation level. However, identity may be verified through any other authenticated documents.”
The PIL was thus disposed of with these directions, with no order as to costs.
Case Title: Greneth M. Sangma v. The Union of India & Others
Case Type & Number: Public Interest Litigation (PIL) No. 6 of 2025
Date of Judgment: 29 October 2025
