Can Schools Collect Children’s Data Without Clear Consent? Orissa High Court Flags Privacy Concerns in APAAR Forms

The Orissa High Court has directed the Union Ministry of Education and the State authorities to amend the model consent form used for generation of Automated Permanent Academic Account Registry (APAAR) IDs for school students, stating that the form must explicitly provide parents the right to refuse participation in the unique academic identification initiative.

Court held that although the Central and State Governments consistently maintain that APAAR is a voluntary scheme, the existing consent form does not reflect this position, thereby raising legitimate concerns over privacy and autonomy, particularly in the context of children.

"Privacy is an inherent human right, and a requirement for maintaining a human condition with dignity and respect," Justice Sashikanta Mishra wrote, quoting Bruise Schneier from his book ‘Schneier on Security’.

The case arose after a Bhubaneswar parent challenged a December 2024 communication issued by Sai International School asking parents to submit signed consent forms along with AADHAAR copies for creating an APAAR ID for each student. The parent argued that despite being labelled voluntary, the form did not offer any option to decline consent. Instead, it contained several clauses suggesting that students’ personal data, such as name, address, age, date of birth, gender, and photograph, could be shared with multiple educational databases and stakeholders. The petitioner asserted that this amounted to indirect compulsion and violated the child’s fundamental right to privacy under Article 21.

The father of a KG-1 student wrote to the school stating that he would not give consent, but received no clarification. He then approached the High Court seeking amendment of the form and safeguards on data usage, retention and third-party access. He contended that the APAAR system, which links a child’s educational profile to their Aadhaar number, must adhere strictly to the constitutional principles laid down in the Supreme Court’s landmark K.S. Puttaswamy judgment. The Supreme Court had held that children’s rights require heightened protection and that Aadhaar cannot be made a precondition for school education.

The Government of India, the Odisha education authorities and the school, however, uniformly maintained before the High Court that APAAR is voluntary. They emphasised that parents may choose not to participate and that schools can record the consent status accordingly. They also pointed to a clause in the consent form that allows withdrawal of consent at any time. UIDAI and MeitY clarified that they play only a backend technical role and do not handle student data.

Justice Mishra observed that while all officials agreed the scheme is voluntary, the wording of the consent form “has not been happily drafted".

Court held that the option to withdraw consent at a later stage does not substitute the essential right to refuse consent at the outset. By omitting a clear opt-out clause, the form creates an impression of compulsion inconsistent with constitutional privacy guarantees, court held.

Referring to the Supreme Court’s observations on protecting children from disproportionate data-collection requirements, the High Court reiterated that any initiative involving children must be grounded in informed, voluntary consent from parents. It found that the petitioners had made out a valid case for intervention, especially as the authorities themselves acknowledged the voluntary nature of the initiative.

Allowing the writ petition, court directed the Central and State authorities to amend the model consent form to include an explicit refusal/opt-out provision. It also took note of the alternative consent form submitted by the petitioners and said the government may consider incorporating its language. The authorities must issue necessary orders within two months, court directed.

Case Title: Rohit Anand Das and another vs. State of Odisha and Others

Judgment Date: December 12, 2025

Bench: Justice Sashikanta Mishra