The Supreme Court on Wednesday upheld most of the provisions of the Aadhaar Act by a 4:1 majority. Justice DY Chandrachud was the sole dissenter. The court said mobile phones and bank accounts do no need to be linked with Aadhaar though it has to be linked with PAN cards for filing income tax-returns.
On May 10, a five-judge Constitution Bench of the top court had reserved its judgement in the case after a hearing that lasted 38 sessions. The petitioners had raised concerns about privacy and questioned why the identity number was made mandatory for people to avail of welfare schemes, file income tax returns, hold mobile numbers, and bank accounts.
A major point of contention was whether Aadhaar violates the fundamental right to privacy, which the Supreme Court upheld in 2017. The government backed the Aadhaar initiative, and extended it to cover several social security schemes.
7.12 pm: The five-judge Constitution bench headed by Chief Justice Dipak Misra says they were not influenced by views expressed either in favour or against Aadhaar, reports PTI.
“The issue has generated heated public debate as well,” the judges say. “Even outside the court, there are groups advocating in favour of the Aadhaar scheme and those who are stoutly opposing the same.”
6.52 pm: Retired Justice KS Puttaswamy, one of the first to question the legality of Aadhaar, welcomes the judgement, reports IANS. “After holistic consideration, my opinion is that the majority judgement on the validity of Aadhaar Act is correct though I have not read the whole judgement yet,” he says.
6.48 pm: “Congress, being the fountainhead of middlemen and corruption, tried every trick to fight and defeat Aadhaar, politically and legally,” says Shah. “Today they stand exposed and defeated.”
6.46 pm: Shah says Aadhaar under the United Progressive Alliance government was “niradhar [without support] and had no purpose”.
12.17 pm: “Largely concur with Sikri but have three differences,” he says.
12.14 pm: Ashok Bhushan starts reading his judgement.
12.10 pm: Aadhaar numbers shall be deleted forthwith by the telecom companies, says Chandrachud. “Entire Aadhaar from 2009 suffers from constitutional validity. Government violated the interim orders continuously,” he adds.
12.06 pm: Allowing private enterprise to use Aadhaar numbers will lead to exploitation of data, Chandrachud adds. “Section 57 violates 14 and 21 of the Constitution insofar as services are defined. One right cannot be taken away at the behest of the other.”
12 pm: The Supreme Court judge says respondents’ claims about security and safeguards were not convincing and fall short of standards required to protect privacy and data protection. “Potential surveillance is possible through Aadhaar,” he adds.
11.54 am: “The party in power may not hold majority in the Rajya Sabha but you cannot undermine it,” says Chandrachud. “Passage of the bill unconstitutional.”
11.49 am: “Passing of bill as money bill when it does not qualify as a money bill is a fraud on Constitution, violates basic structure,” says Chandrachud.
11.48 am: But by declaring an ordinary bill as a money bill, speaker limits the role of the Rajya Sabh, “which was developed to express country’s plurality”, says Chandrachud. “This is inconsistent with Constitution. Aadhaar cannot be treated as a money bill,” he adds.
11.43 am: “The impermanence of power is a sober reminder for those who hold it,” says Chandrachud. “Absolute authority is a colonial precept. If a Constitution has to survive political aggrandisement, notions of power and authority must give compliance to rule of law.”
11.41 am: The decision to treat a bill as a money bill is amenable to judicial review, says Chandrachud. He concurs with Sikri on that regard.
11.38 am: “Quest for digital India should take into account the digital divide,” says Chandrachud. “While data is the new oil, it still eludes the common citizen.”
11.36 am: Justice DY Chandrachud starts reading his judgement. “Large areas I have dissented, some I agree with,” he says.
11.21 am: The purpose of the Aadhaar Act is legitimate, says Sikri. Its rational connection to purpose is satisfied and the Act’s balancing test is satisfied insofar as only minimal data is collected, he adds.
11.20 am: Court reads down Section 2(d) of the Aadhaar Act to exclude meta data of transactions.
11.18 am: Section 33(1), which permits disclosure of Aadhaar information on orders of a district judge, also read down to give the owner of data an opportunity to be heard.
11.15 am: National security exception for disclosure of Aaadhar information, as mandated by Seciton 33(2), struck down.
11.13 am: Section 57 of Aadhaar Act, which enables corporate bodies to seek authentication, is unconstitutional, says Supreme Court.
11.12 am: “Profiling not possible using Aadhaar,” he says. “Sufficient safeguards to disallow it. However some provisions are struck down.”
11.11 am: “We follow the ‘larger public interest’ as against the ‘compelling public state interest’ test,” the judge says. “We framed 10 issues,” he adds. The first question it considered is whether Aadhaar creates a surveillance state and is therefore unconstitutional?
11.06 am: Respect grounded in human dignity is exposited in the judgement, the judge says. “Also discussed is dignity not only in reference to individual but also dignity within the community.”
