Madhewoo (Appellant) v The State of Mauritius and another (Respondents) (Mauritius)

Madhewoo (Appellant) v The State of Mauritius and another (Respondents) (Mauritius)

The compulsory taking of fingerprints and biometric data for the purpose of issuing a national identity card constitutes an interference with the right to privacy under section 9(1) of the Constitution, but this interference is justified under section 9(2) as being in the interests of public order and proportionate, given the safeguards and the legitimate aim of preventing identity fraud. However, the permanent storage and retention of fingerprints and biometric data on a register is not justified and is unconstitutional.

Citation
[2016] UKPC 30
Parties
Appellant: Maharajah Madhewoo; Respondents: The State of Mauritius and another
Jurisdiction
United Kingdom
Judgment Date
31 October 2016
Procedural Posture
Constitutional Appeal / Final Appellate Judgment (privy Council)
Outcome
appeal dismissed (subject to minor amendment of Supreme Court order)
Legal Topics
Biometric Data, Privacy, National Identity Cards, Proportionality, Public Order, Fundamental Rights
Constitutional Law Data Protection Human Rights Biometric Data Privacy National Identity Cards Proportionality Public Order +1 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 22 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Maharajah Madhewoo

Appellant

The State of Mauritius and another

Respondents

Procedural Posture

Constitutional Appeal / Final Appellate Judgment (privy Council)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the compulsory provision and storage of fingerprints and biometric data for national identity cards violates constitutional rights to privacy and protection from search under section 9(1) of the Constitution of Mauritius
  2. 2 Whether such interference is justified under section 9(2) of the Constitution
  3. 3 Whether other constitutional rights (sections 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 7, 15, 16, 45) and article 22 of the Civil Code are engaged or breached by the scheme

Ratio Decidendi

The compulsory taking of fingerprints and biometric data for the purpose of issuing a national identity card constitutes an interference with the right to privacy under section 9(1) of the Constitution, but this interference is justified under section 9(2) as being in the interests of public order and proportionate, given the safeguards and the legitimate aim of preventing identity fraud. However, the permanent storage and retention of fingerprints and biometric data on a register is not justified and is unconstitutional.

Court Disposition

appeal dismissed (subject to minor amendment of Supreme Court order)

Orders

  • Paragraph 5 of the Supreme Court's order is to be amended to clarify that a law providing for the storage and retention of fingerprints and biometric data in principle constitutes a permissible derogation under section 9(2) of the Constitution.
  • Otherwise, the appeal is dismissed.