 |
| Add caption |
Tuesday, 24 September 2013 | Abraham Thomas | New Delhi
In a major setback for the UPA Government’s Unique Identification (UID) Project, the Supreme Court on Monday held that UID will not be ‘mandatory’ for availing services or benefits under Government schemes.
With Aadhaar cards or Unique Identification number becoming mandatory for obtaining a gas connection to a marriage registration certificate, the action of the Government in pushing the project forward came under serious legal challenge in apex court with a set of PILs questioning how the Government, without sanction from Parliament or any statutory backing, pursued with this scheme on such a large scale.
The PIL filed by a former Karnataka judge KS Puttaswamy among others challenged the legal sanction of the UID Authority of India to dole out Unique Identification numbers to citizens and illegal immigrants alike, posing a serious risk to the security of the country. The bench noted with concern that cards were being issued even to illegal immigrants. “No Aadhaar card should be issued to illegal immigrants,” it said.
For the Government, this came as a huge blow as several of its welfare projects such as Direct Cash Transfer scheme, etc were sought to be disbursed upon production of the Aadhaar card.
Faced with such an order in an election year, the Centre’s worry was evident. Frantic efforts were made by Solicitor General Mohan Parasaran and Additional Solicitor General LN Rao who resisted the petition by clarifying there was no ‘mandatory’ requirement for an Aadhaar card to avail of its services. “It is issued on voluntary basis,” the Centre argued. On the question of issuing cards to illegal immigrants, Parasaran said, “The enforcement machinery is tightened. Just because some aberrations are reported by the media it does not mean the Aadhaar cards are issued to all and sundry.”
Refuting Centre’s stand, petitioner’s lawyers — senior advocates Anil Divan and Shyam Divan — cited an instance from Maharashtra where Government employees and even judges were told to procure an Aadhaar Card to receive salary.
Anil Divan even held a constitutional bar to the UID project. It was by an executive order of January 28, 2009 that the UIDAI was created. “An executive action could not circumvent Parliament,” the petition said as the Bill in this regard - National Identification Authority of India Bill 2010 was yet to receive approval of Parliament before being declared a law.
Further, since the Aadhaar Card required persons to give all personal details, including finger prints, right to privacy of citizens was at jeopardy. In the event, the Bill failed to get support in Parliament, the information stored with the UIDAI could be used by the Government for any other purpose, besides the danger of getting leaked. Already, the Standing Committee on Finance had rejected the Bill in its present form. After this, the Government had stopped issuing of Aadhaar numbers around February 2012. But on August 15, 2012, the second phase of enrolment was started, the petition said.
The Government has so far incurred a colossal expense under the Aadhaar project. As per the budget for the first three phases of the project, Rs 8,814 crore has been set apart.
Published: September 23, 2013 19:33 IST | Updated: September 24, 2013 01:52 IST
"Aadhaar infringes privacy"
The HinduThe Centre has told the Supreme Court that securing Aadhar cards was optional and it has not made it mandatory for the citizens. File photo
The Aadhaar scheme is unconstitutional as applicants are required to part with personal information on biometrics, iris and fingerprints, infringing their right to privacy, which is held part of the fundamental right to life under Article 21 of the Constitution, Justice K.S. Puttaswamy, retired judge of the Karnataka High Court, and other petitioners told the Supreme Court.
“There are no safeguards or penalties and no legislative backing for obtaining personal information, and the proposed law introduced by the government has been rejected by the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Finance. Provisions for collection and retention of biometric data have been held impermissible in the United Kingdom and France by their top courts.”
Justice Puttaswamy said linking of the Aadhaar number with food security under the new Act, LPG subsidy, the Employees’ Provident Fund and other direct transfer of benefits made enrolment under the Aadhaar scheme mandatory, falsifying the government’s claim that it was voluntary.
Moreover, he alleged, Aadhaar numbers were being given indiscriminately, including to migrants without papers, creating a serious threat to national security. The executive order was “mala fide” as the whole object of rushing through the Aadhaar scheme was to “secure political gains.”
Denial of services
Senior counsel Anil Divan and counsel Ankit Goel, appearing for the petitioners, said Aadhaar resulted in denial of many benefits and services to persons who were otherwise eligible. They cited payment of salaries to teaching and non-teaching staff in Maharashtra only on the basis of Aadhaar; registration of marriages in Jharkhand; restriction of LPG connections.
Solicitor-General, Mohan Parasaran and Additional Solicitor-General L. Nageswara Rao, appearing for the Centre, however, said the Aadhaar card was voluntary and not mandatory, and, therefore, no interim directions were required.