Answer Option : b
Supreme Court had ruled that Aadhaar metadata can not be stored for more than six months.
This nullified the provision in the Act, which allowed storage of such data for five years.
Therefore, statement 1 is not correct.
The Supreme court in the Aadhaar verdict had defined the welfare schemes as those funded from the consolidated fund of India.
And it upheld the validity of Section 7 of the Aadhaar Act which states that Central or State Governments can make possession of an Aadhaar number or Aadhaar authentication mandatory for receipt of subsidies, benefits or services funded out of the Consolidated Fund of India
. Therefore, statement 4 is correct.
The same 2018 judgement also held making that Aadhaar mandatory for other services apart from welfare schemes as unconstitutional.
This includes availing financial services, including insurance or even to prevent money laundering in such services.
Subsequently, IRDAI issued an advisory in January 2019 that clarified that aadhaar is not mandatory for obtaining insurance and withdrew its earlier policy of 2017 to make Aadhaar mandatory in insurance for preventing money laundering.
Therefore, statement 3 is not correct.
Further, many sections of the Aadhaar Act were struck down.
This includes the part of section 57 which allowed providing private corporations to verify Aadhaar data which was held unconstitutional.
Therefore, statement 2 is correct.
In the Puttuswamy judgment the honorable Supreme Court struck down certain provisions giving an avenue for private players to access Aadhaar data, including Section 57 of the Aadhaar (Targeted Delivery of Financial and Other Subsidies, Benefits and Services) Act, 2016, which permitted private parties to use Aadhaar for authentication.
Therefore there is no scope for private parties to access Aadhar data, and government cannot enter into any contract for the same.
Therefore the correct answer is (b)