Meghalaya High Court
Greneth M. Sangma vs . Union Of India & Ors on 21 July, 2025
Author: W. Diengdoh
Bench: W. Diengdoh
Serial No.01
Daily List
HIGH COURT OF MEGHALAYA
AT SHILLONG
PIL No.6/2025
Date of Order :21.07.2025
Greneth M. Sangma Vs. Union of India & ors
Coram:
Hon'ble Mr. Justice I.P. Mukerji, Chief Justice
Hon'ble Mr. Justice W. Diengdoh, Judge
Appearance:
For the Petitioner : Mr. P.T. Sangma, Adv
For the Respondents : Dr. N. Mozika, DSGI with
Ms. K. Gurung, Adv
Mr. N.D. Chullai, AAG with
Ms. R. Colney, GA
F
i) Whether approved for Yes/No
reporting in Law journals etc.:
ii) Whether approved for publication Yes
in press:
Note: For proper public information and transparency, any media
reporting this judgment is directed to mention the composition of
the bench by name of judges, while reporting this judgment/order.
This public interest litigation (PIL) is bound to have all India
ramification.
Relying on two judgements of the Supreme Court in K.S.
Puttaswamy (Retired) & anr v. Union of India & ors reported in (2015) 8
SCC 735 and another with the same cause title reported in (2019) 1 SCC 1,
learned counsel for the petitioner contended that under Section 7 of the
Aadhaar (Targeted Delivery of Financial and other Subsidies, Benefits and
Services) Act, 2016, the State government had issued a notification dated
Page 1 of 3
31st October, 2023 insisting that a child desirous of availing of the benefit
of the Fees Compensation for Post Matric Scholarship for SC/ST students
(Free Studentship) (the scheme) or of financial assistance to the SC/ST
students of the State who are not eligible for any scholarship had to possess
an Aadhaar identification number. Under the law laid down in those
judgments, the State could not insist on this requirement.
We have made a very preliminary scrutiny of the said Act. It relates
to Aadhaar number/card for individuals residing in India getting services,
benefits and subsidies met out of the Consolidated Fund of India or the
Consolidated Fund of the State. It does not use the word citizen. Section
2(v) defines resident as follows:
(v) “resident” means an individual who has resided in India for a
period or periods amounting in all to one hundred and eighty-two
days or more in the twelve months immediately preceding the date of
application for enrolment.”
In Section 7 of the said Act it is provided that the Central or the State
government may for the purpose of establishing his identity require the
individual availing of the above benefits to possess an Aadhaar number.
The proviso is very important. It says that: “S.7…. Provided that if an
Aadhaar number is not assigned to an individual, the individual shall be
offered alternate and viable means of identification for delivery of the
subsidy, benefit or service”.
Therefore, prima facie it does not follow that non-possession of
Aadhaar number disentitles an otherwise eligible individual from the above
benefits.
Page 2 of 3
Hence, as far as notification dated 31st October, 2023 is concerned,
as an interim order we direct that the State government is at full liberty to
insist on production of Aadhaar number or Aadhaar card from individuals
for their speedy identification. If an individual is unable to produce the
Aadhaar number or card or is unwilling to obtain Aadhaar registration, then
he would have to prove his identity as a resident in terms of the said Act
from other recognised documents like pan card, voter card, passport and so
on to the satisfaction of the State authorities. In that event, non-possession
of an Aadhaar number or card would not be a disqualification.
The whole issue has to be gone into in detail at the hearing of this
PIL, on considering the said Act, the rules and regulations framed
thereunder and the aforesaid judgments of the Supreme Court read with
other judgments related to the subject.
In the meantime, this interim order will continue.
List this PIL for further hearing on 12th August, 2025.
(W. Diengdoh) (I.P. Mukerji)
Judge Chief Justice
Meghalaya
21.07.2025
"Lam DR-PS"
Page 3 of 3