The Supreme Court of India announced on Monday that it will instruct the Central Board of Secondary Education to enforce an Orissa High Court directive nationwide, ensuring parents have the explicit right to refuse consent or opt out of the federal digital student registry.
A three-judge bench comprising Chief Justice Surya Kant and Justices Joymalya Bagchi and V Mohana stated that because the Union government did not challenge the high court’s December 2025 ruling, the mandate will be extended to all affiliated schools across the country. The bench indicated that it will formally order the central education board to examine issues concerning consent and student data security, with a detailed written order to be released later.
The dispute focuses on the Automated Permanent Academic Account Registry, or APAAR, a program launched by the Ministry of Education under the National Education Policy 2020. The scheme issues a lifelong 12-digit identification number intended to serve as a digital academic passport, consolidating academic grades, degrees, and co-curricular achievements in a single digital repository.
Constitutional And Privacy Objections
The Supreme Court’s intervention came during a hearing on a petition filed by parent Abhishek Baxi, who sought to have the APAAR system declared unconstitutional. The petition alleges that the registry violates several constitutional provisions, including the rights to equality, freedom, life, and education under Articles 14, 19, 21, and 21A of the Constitution.
Senior advocate Indira Jaising, representing the petitioners, argued that while the government portrays the registry as voluntary, school administrations practically compel enrollment. Jaising noted that because the registry is linked to Aadhaar, obtaining an APAAR ID effectively forces students to enroll in the national biometric database.
Jaising contended that making academic registration a prerequisite for sitting for board examinations indirectly violates the principles established in the Supreme Court’s landmark 2019 K.S. Puttaswamy judgment, which prohibited making Aadhaar mandatory for children. She emphasized that the constitutional right to education cannot be conditioned on forcing children to acquire these digital identifiers.
Data Protection Compliance
The petitioners also asserted that the implementation of the student registry violates the Digital Personal Data Protection Act, 2023. Jaising argued that the current model consent forms operate as standard non-negotiable contracts, offering parents no practical mechanism to deny consent prior to enrollment.
Under Section 6 of the DPDP Act, the petitioners urged the court to enforce strict guidelines regarding informed consent. Jaising also raised concerns about the indefinite storage of minors’ academic records, advocating for the “right to be forgotten” so that students can withdraw their consent and have their personal records deleted.
Administrative Benefits Defended
The bench remarked that circulars issued by the Central Board of Secondary Education remain subject to the DPDP Act and cannot override established data protection legislation. However, Chief Justice Surya Kant defended the broader administrative objectives of the registry, describing the creation of a centralized academic database as a progressive initiative.
The Chief Justice noted that the registry is designed to help educational administrators maintain accurate records, oversee the implementation of academic curricula, and monitor key educational metrics such as teacher-to-student ratios. He cautioned against viewing every state administrative measure with automatic suspicion.
The underlying December 2025 Orissa High Court judgment directed the Ministry of Education to revise its model consent forms to include an unambiguous opt-out option. In that ruling, the high court held that the absence of a refusal mechanism contradicted the government’s claim that the registry was strictly voluntary and raised valid privacy concerns. The high court had also clarified that offering a post-facto right to withdraw consent did not satisfy the requirement of allowing parents to refuse consent at the very beginning of the process.
