Supreme Court Says CBSE Must Implement APAAR ID Scheme Voluntarily Across India With Opt-Out Option

The Supreme Court on Monday (July 20, 2026) agreed to clarify that the Central Board of Secondary Education (CBSE) must implement the Automated Permanent Academic Account Registry (APAAR) across India on a voluntary basis, in accordance with an Orissa High Court judgment delivered last year.

A three-judge Bench headed by Chief Justice of India Surya Kant told petitioner-parents, led by Abhishek Baxi and represented by senior advocate Indira Jaising and advocate Paras Nath Singh, that it would issue an order directing the CBSE to comply with the Orissa High Court judgment dated December 12, 2025.

According to the Orissa High Court ruling in Rohit Anand Das versus State of Odisha, the APAAR consent form must include a clear "opt-out/refusal of consent option."

Addressing the petitioners in open court, Chief Justice Surya Kant said the Supreme Court would direct the CBSE to implement the Orissa High Court judgment across the country.

Supreme Court to Clarify APAAR ID Scheme

The Chief Justice also stated that the court would instruct the CBSE to "suitably clarify" the APAAR ID scheme.

During the hearing, Justice Joymalya Bagchi observed orally that the APAAR system provided a layered storage mechanism for students' educational records and that the information was intended solely for the institutional use of the CBSE.

Justice Bagchi also referred to the Aadhaar judgment, stating that it had struck a balance between development and privacy. He remarked that, in the present matter, the balance was between education and privacy, while noting that the CBSE was expected to use APAAR-related information only for institutional purposes.

Petition Challenged APAAR Implementation

The petition before the Supreme Court sought either the striking down of the APAAR scheme on the grounds of what the petitioners described as its coercive implementation or the introduction of safeguards to protect students' privacy.

During the proceedings, senior advocate Indira Jaising argued on behalf of the petitioners that the APAAR scheme imposed a biometric-based digital identity on minors within educational settings, which, according to the petitioners, violated children's right to privacy under Article 21 of the Constitution.

She submitted before the court that education is a right and should not become a burden for children.

Government's Position on APAAR

The government has presented the APAAR scheme as a system designed to collect and preserve students' academic achievements, making it easier for them to transition between educational institutions while pursuing higher studies.

The APAAR ID is linked with Aadhaar and stored in DigiLocker. The registry provides students with standardized academic information, including marksheets and institutional affiliation records.

During the hearing, Chief Justice Surya Kant remarked that the scheme appeared to offer benefits to students by facilitating transfers from one school to another.

Petitioners Raised Privacy Concerns

According to the petitioners, however, the APAAR scheme extends beyond a simple recordkeeping mechanism and raises concerns relating to surveillance, profiling, and the long-term use of students' educational information.

During the hearing, Indira Jaising argued that centralized lifelong academic identifiers could evolve into systems of surveillance when connected with broader identity infrastructure. She submitted that individuals may not wish their academic history from childhood to remain permanently accessible throughout their lives.

The petitioners also argued that the APAAR scheme was inconsistent with provisions of the Digital Personal Data Protection Act, 2023, concerning children's data protection, and further submitted that it lacked legislative backing because it had been introduced through executive circulars and directives.

Arguments Against the Scheme

In support of the petition seeking to strike down the APAAR scheme, the petitioners argued that a cradle-to-career identification framework linked with Aadhaar could not be sustained under the Constitution.

According to the submissions made before the court, the centralized storage and continuous updating of students' personal and academic information throughout their educational journey could create a long-term state-managed identification system capable of tracking educational records over time.

The petitioners contended that such an architecture could potentially allow future profiling and monitoring if repurposed beyond educational objectives.

Supreme Court's Observations During Hearing

During the proceedings, Chief Justice Surya Kant remarked that every initiative should not be viewed with suspicion.

Responding to the court, Indira Jaising submitted that, according to the petitioners, students seeking admission to Classes 10 and 12 and appearing for Board examinations were effectively required to obtain Aadhaar-linked APAAR IDs, leaving parents with little practical choice when providing consent.

She further argued that even if the scheme pursued a legitimate objective, its implementation should satisfy the principle of proportionality.

Petition's Final Submission

According to the petition, although the APAAR scheme has been described as voluntary, it has allegedly been implemented in a manner that effectively makes it mandatory in several states.

The petition further contended that students and their families were allegedly being asked by educational institutions, acting under state directives, to provide Aadhaar details for APAAR registration, with concerns that failure to do so could affect admissions, access to services, or invite institutional consequences.

The petition also stated that the CBSE had formally required APAAR registration for students in Classes 9 to 12 appearing in Board examinations from 2026 onward. The Supreme Court indicated that it would issue an order directing the CBSE to implement the Orissa High Court judgment across India, ensuring that the APAAR consent process includes a clear opt-out or refusal option in accordance with that ruling.