New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Monday said it will direct the CBSE to implement a direction of the Orissa High Court to amend the model consent form for the generation of Automated Permanent Academic Account Registry IDs to provide parents with the option to refuse consent or opt out of the scheme.
Under the Automated Permanent Academic Account Registry (APAAR) scheme, launched by the Ministry of Education under the New Education Policy, 2020, a unique, lifelong 12-digit student ID is generated. It acts as a digital passport for all educational records, securely storing marksheets, degrees and co-curricular achievements in one place.
A bench comprising Chief Justice of India (CJI) Surya Kant and Justices Joymalya Bagchi and V Mohana was hearing a plea filed by the parents of four students challenging the validity of the APAAR ID scheme for students on the ground that it compelled them to obtain Aadhaar IDs.
The petition contends that the scheme effectively compels students to obtain Aadhaar and raises concerns over the collection, storage, and processing of children’s personal data. It also seeks strict compliance with the Digital Personal Data Protection (DPDP) Act, 2023.
Appearing for the petitioners, Senior Advocate Indira Jaising argued that children were being required to enrol in a non-statutory scheme despite serious concerns relating to the right to privacy and data protection.
Referring to the Supreme Court’s 2019 Puttaswamy judgment, Jaising submitted that children cannot be compelled to obtain an Aadhaar number. She argued that although the government describes the APAAR scheme as voluntary, it is linked to Aadhaar, making Aadhaar effectively mandatory.
Since students require an APAAR ID to appear for examinations, they are, in practice, being compelled to obtain Aadhaar, she contended.
“Right to education is not a targeted service. The right to education is a Constitutional right. Therefore, asking a child to get an Aadhaar and an APAAR for being sent up to exams is against the Constitution,” she submitted.
However, the Chief Justice appeared unconvinced by the petitioners’ objections, saying, “Let us not doubt everything in the country with a suspicious eye; it is a welcome step,” as quoted by Live Law.
The CJI said the objective of the scheme is to assign every student a unique ID, enabling better tracking of academic records and helping authorities maintain an appropriate teacher-student ratio for effective implementation of the curriculum.
Jaising acknowledged that the APAAR scheme may have a legitimate objective but argued that it must be implemented through lawful and proportionate means. She questioned how “voluntary” the scheme really is, saying that while it is voluntary on paper, it functions as mandatory in practice.
She also sought guidelines on obtaining informed consent and protecting students’ personal data, alleging that the scheme is being implemented in violation of the DPDP Act, 2023.
The bench observed that CBSE’s circulars remain subject to the prevailing law and do not override the provisions of the DPDP Act. It said the APAAR scheme must therefore be implemented in accordance with the law.
Jaising further argued that the existing consent forms are standardised and do not allow parents to refuse or withdraw consent. She relied on the Orissa High Court’s December 2025 judgment in Rohit Anand Das & Anr. v. State of Odisha & Ors., which directed the Centre to amend the APAAR consent form to provide an option to refuse consent and opt out of the scheme.
She urged the Supreme Court to extend the High Court’s directions across the country and direct CBSE and schools to strictly comply with Section 6 of the DPDP Act while obtaining consent.
When the bench asked whether the Orissa High Court’s order had been challenged, it was informed that no appeal had been filed. The court then said it would direct the CBSE to implement the High Court’s directions nationwide.
