Digital Turn In Land Law: Federalism, Privacy, And Registration Bill, 2025

Federalism and Legislative Overreach

One of the most glaring constitutional implications of the draft Registration Bill, 2025 is that it can distort India's well-managed federal form of government. The Seventh Schedule of the Indian Constitution enumerate the powers of Union and the States. Land and rights in or over land, is squarely an entry within Entry 18 of the State List, which vests the exclusive power with the State Legislatures to regulate lands and cases pertaining to it, including land tenures, the collection of revenue, the maintenance and keeping of land records and the survey of such lands and the record of rights thereon and any rights in or over land entries in State Records of Rights; the transfer and alienation of agricultural land; the entry into agreements relating to land; and land improvement and agricultural loans.

The new Bill, unilaterally put forth by the Union government, envisions a uniform, centralized digital infrastructure, with digitised registries and standardised fee structures, along with the appointment of Additional Registrars under the over-arching direction and control of the Union regime. Such an approach generates significant constitutional doubts regarding legislative overreach and institutional encroachment. Although registration as a subject falls under Entry 6 of the Concurrent List, the extensive scope of the proposed Bill affects not only the procedural elements of registration but also fundamental areas of land governance, that comes under the exclusive legislative realm of the states.

The doctrine of repugnancy under Article 254 becomes relevant here. As per the decision in M. Karunanidhi v. Union of India (1979 AIR 898), a Central law may be invalidated or rendered inapplicable in a state if it clashes with an existing state law in the Concurrent List, or if it encroaches upon a field that is occupied by the state legislation. Since many states have already enacted detailed laws concerning land record management, registration formats, and integration with revenue departments, a uniform Central law threatens to disrupt this legal ecosystem. The risk of operational inconsistency, administrative confusion, and disruption of state revenue collection mechanisms is real and immediate. The Supreme Court in State of West Bengal v. Union of India^[1] held that Parliament cannot legislate in areas that fall within the exclusive domain of states, reaffirming the federal nature of the Constitution. This was further strengthened in S.R. Bommai v. Union of India^[2], where the Court explicitly declared that federalism is part of the basic structure of the Constitution, immune even from constitutional amendment. The draft Bill, by seeking to implement a one-size-fits-all framework without adequate state consultation, violates the basic structure doctrine and weakens the concept of cooperative federalism, which the Supreme Court in State of Rajasthan & Ors. v. Union of India^[3] described as a necessary foundation of India's federal system.

Moreover, the Second Administrative Reforms Commission (ARC), in several of its reports, particularly the Eleventh Report titled “Promoting E-Governance - The Smart Way Forward”, has underscored the importance of ensuring that land governance reforms are context-specific and primarily driven by state governments. The Commission cautioned against the adoption of uniform, top-down digital frameworks that fail to account for regional diversity, infrastructure readiness, and socio-legal particularities. Such an approach, it argued, runs counter to the principles of decentralised and inclusive governance. While the draft Registration Bill, 2025 was made available for public consultation, several state governments have expressed concerns about the lack of genuine consultation prior to the drafting of the Bill. Several states, notably Telangana and Maharashtra, have expressed reservations regarding the proposed Registration (Amendment) Bill, 2025. They have flagged concerns about potential revenue loss and the administrative challenges that may arise from an abrupt transition from hybrid or manual processes to a fully digital registration system. Telangana warned that uniform online registration could undermine its Rs 15,000 crore stamp-duty revenue, increase fraud risk, and erode its fiscal autonomy. However, the Ministry has not released any White Paper or documented evidence of comprehensive stakeholder consultations, thereby raising concerns regarding procedural transparency and the adequacy of federal engagement.

Therefore, the constitutional critique is not just theoretical, it highlights a tangible departure from the principles of federal accommodation and legal decentralisation. If enacted in its current form, the Registration Bill, 2025 risks being challenged as violative of Articles 246, Article 254, and the basic structure of the Constitution by failing to respect the legislative autonomy of states and undermining the cooperative mechanisms that India's federal system demands.

Aadhaar, Authentication, and Access to Justice

In addition to federalism concerns, the Bill's central promise, curbing property fraud through digital authentication, warrants closer scrutiny. The assumption that digitisation will automatically lead to fraud reduction is flawed. The proposed mechanism is overly reliant on Aadhaar-based verification for establishing identity during registration. Although Aadhaar has been widely adopted, its technical limitations are well documented. Biometric spoofing, impersonation, and misuse of Aadhaar details have all been reported, raising doubts about its reliability in high-stakes property transactions. The Supreme Court in Justice K.S. Puttaswamy (Retd) v. Union of India^[4] recognised the privacy risks associated with Aadhaar and imposed limitations on its use, specifically cautioning against making it mandatory for services unrelated to welfare.

The Bill eliminates the requirement for physical presence before the registering authority, a long-standing safeguard in land registration. In many rural or low-literacy settings, the Sub-Registrar serves not just as an official verifier but also as a basic source of legal guidance for individuals navigating complex documentation. Removing this safeguard and replacing it with digital-only procedures may inadvertently increase fraud, especially among vulnerable populations like the elderly, women, and those unfamiliar with online systems.

Further compounding this issue is the absence of a well-defined grievance redressal mechanism in the Bill. There is no reference to a statutory appellate forum or a digital ombudsman to assist users who are defrauded during the registration process. In a high-stakes transaction such as property registration, the lack of accessible legal recourse is a significant flaw.

Data Protection and Constitutional Vulnerabilities

Perhaps the most glaring omission in the draft Bill is its failure to align with the Digital Personal Data Protection Act, 2023 (DPDP Act). Property registration involves the uploading and permanent retention of highly sensitive personal data, including identification numbers, photographs, fingerprints, and details of wills, gifts, and powers of attorney. Despite the sensitivity of this data, the Bill is silent on principles of purpose limitation, data minimisation, storage limitation, and the right to erasure, principles that lie at the core of the DPDP Act. Additionally, it doesn't clarify whether registrars would act as data fiduciaries under the Act or whether citizens have the option to object to the release or storage of personal data.

This omission is critical because digitising land records without corresponding privacy safeguards exposes citizens to profiling, surveillance, and data breaches. The Puttaswamy judgment affirmed that the right to privacy is a fundamental right under Article 21 and that informational privacy must be protected by law. The Bill, in its current form, does not even acknowledge these rights. It also lacks any provision for notifying individuals when their data is accessed or used, nor does it allow them to revoke consent after registration has taken place. Therefore, it fails to define the role of registrars as data fiduciaries, omits clear consent mechanisms, and provides no remedy for individuals seeking correction or erasure of their personal data. The complete absence of these protections renders the Bill constitutionally vulnerable and legally incomplete.

Learning from Comparative Models and the Way Forward

As of 2024, under the Digital India Land Records Modernization Programme (DILRMP), approximately 95.09% of textual land records and 68.02% of cadastral maps have been digitised across Indian states. However, the integration between land registration, revenue, and mutation systems remains fragmented, with only a few states such as Karnataka, Telangana, and Maharashtra achieving near-complete end-to-end digital integration. Many states still operate in hybrid modes, with a mix of manual and digital processes. In this context, the imposition of a uniform, fully digital registration regime by the Union raises practical concerns about infrastructural readiness, technical capacity, and digital literacy disparities across states.

India may look to comparative legal frameworks to understand how other jurisdictions have balanced efficiency with safeguards. Estonia, widely recognised as a global leader in digital governance, has adopted blockchain technology in its land registration system to ensure transparency, security, and immutability of records. Importantly, this technological advancement is carefully balanced with robust citizen protections. Estonia continues to provide assisted service centres for individuals with limited digital access and strictly adheres to the European Union's General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR). GDPR enshrines key principles such as purpose limitation, data minimisation, storage restriction, and consent-driven processing, all of which safeguard informational privacy in digital systems. Estonia's model demonstrates that digital land reforms can be technologically advanced while still upholding privacy, access, and accountability, an equilibrium the current Indian draft does not yet achieve. The United Kingdom has digitised its land registry while preserving physical verification for high-risk transactions and providing statutory indemnity for victims of registration fraud. Both these jurisdictions demonstrate that technological advancement must be matched with procedural safeguards and legal remedies. India's approach, in contrast, appears to focus on technology first and law later.

A more nuanced approach is therefore necessary. First, the draft Bill should be redesigned as a model law that states may choose to adopt based on local needs and administrative readiness. This would preserve federalism and encourage innovation through decentralisation. Second, a hybrid registration system must be developed that allows for both digital and physical interfaces, especially for citizens who may not be digitally literate. Third, the Bill must incorporate provisions from the DPDP Act to ensure that citizen data is not exploited or retained beyond its legal purpose. Fourth, a dedicated grievance redressal mechanism, either in the form of a registration ombudsman or a special tribunal, must be institutionalised to address errors, fraud, or harassment. Finally, the Bill must ensure procedural equity through language accessibility, real-time user support, and training initiatives for both citizens and registration officials.

The Registration Bill, 2025 holds the promise of modernising a long-outdated system of property registration. However, its success depends on how well it integrates technology with constitutional values. Efficiency should not come at the cost of federalism, privacy, or access to justice. To genuinely empower citizens and streamline land governance, the Bill must move beyond digitisation and towards a more inclusive, secure, and rights-respecting legal architecture. Without such recalibration, the reforms may be well-intentioned but dangerously incomplete.

The author is an Assistant Professor at School of Legal Studies, REVA University, Bengaluru. Views are personal.

[1] AIR 1963 SC 1241