Aadhaar Programme Will Hollow Out Constitution: Petitioners To Top Court

Agencies
January 18, 2018

New Delhi, Jan 18:  Terming Aadhaar as "an electronic leash", a senior lawyer on Wednesday told the Supreme Court that the government could completely destroy an individual by "switching off" the 12-digit unique identifier number.

The argument was made before a five-judge Constititution bench headed by Chief Justice Dipak Misra which commenced hearing on a batch of petitions challenging the constitutional validity of the government's flagship Aadhaar programme and its enabling Act of 2016.

However, the bench, also comprising Justices AK Sikri, AM Khanwilkar, DY Chandrachud and Ashok Bhushan, countered senior advocate Shyam Divan, asking whether the state "cannot say that it has every right to find out the number of schools, children or the real beneficiaries of a welfare scheme and verify the real beneficiaries of huge funds which it is spending, it needs Aadhaar number. This is a valid argument."

It posed whether the government does not have the right to say that it was spending crores of rupees on welfare schemes and needed to verify whether benefits reached the needy and the leakages or pilferage of resources stopped.

The bench also asked what will happen to the biometric data collected before the Aadhaar Act, 2016 -- whether they will be destroyed if the petitioners challenging the validity of the Aadhaar programme succeeded.

Mr Divan, who opened arguments on behalf of petitioners, said that through a succession of "marketing stratagems" and by employing "smoke and mirrors", the government has rolled out a "little understood" programme that seeks to "tether every resident of India to an electronic leash".

"This leash is connected to a central database that is designed to track transactions across the life of the citizen. This record will enable the State to profile citizens, track their movements, assess their habits and silently influence their behaviour. Over time, the profiling enables the State to stifle dissent and influence political decision making," he argued.

Mr Divan said that "the State is empowered with a 'switch' by which it can cause the civil death of an individual. Where every basic facility is linked to Aadhaar and one cannot live in society without an Aadhaar number, the switching off of Aadhaar completely destroys the individual."

He said the petitioners are certain that if the Aadhaar Act and the programme were allowed to operate "unimpeded", it would "hollow out" the Constitution, particularly the great rights and liberties it has assured to its citizens.

Mr Divan is representing several petitioners like former Karnataka High Court judge Justice KS Puttaswamy, several activists Aruna Roy, Shantha Sinha and veteran CPI(M) leader VS Achuthanandan.

Mr Divan, who argued through the day and would continue his submissions tomorrow, said "a person cannot avail the facility of a welfare scheme, if the finger prints do not match the templates set by UIDAI," he said, adding that for seven years, biometric data of individuals were collected without any legal framework but only on executive orders.

Moreover, over three crore citizens have not been able to register their biometric data, he said and asked how can the government exclude such a big part of the population who could not be registered without any fault on their part, from availing benefits.

Mr Divan contended that at its core, Aadhaar alters the relationship between the citizen and the State and diminishes the status of the citizen.

Observing that the case at hand was unique as the programme was itself without any precedent, the senior lawyer said "no democratic society has adopted a programme that is similar in its command and sweep. There are few judicial precedents to guide us. The closest foreign cases have all been decided in favour of the citizens, repelling the invasive programmes by the State."

He said this case was about a new technology that the government has sought to deploy and a new architecture of governance has been built on this technology.

A people's Constitution will transform into a State Constitution, Mr Divan said and asked whether the Constitution allowed the State to embrace this new programme or whether the key document repudiates "the giant electronic mesh that Aadhaar was creating."

He also expressed concern over extending the Aadhaar platform to private corporations, the degree of tracking and extent of profiling will "exponentially increase".

"Rights freely exercised, liberties freely enjoyed, entitlements granted by the Constitution and laws are all made conditional. Conditional on a compulsory barter. The barter compels the citizen to give up her biometrics 'voluntarily', allow her biometrics and demographic information to be stored by the State and private operators and then used for a process termed as 'authentication'," he said.

Mr Divan said the Constitution balances rights of an individual against the State interest and "Aadhaar completely upsets this balance and skews the relationship between the citizen and the State...".

"The Constitution is not a charter of servitude. Aadhaar, if allowed to roll out unimpeded reduces citizens to servitude," Mr Divan said.

Just before the end of the hearing, he said that if Aadhaar Act is upheld, then in the alternative, no citizen should be deprived of any right or benefit for lack of an Aadhaar card.

The top court had on December 15 last year extended till March 31 the deadline for mandatory linking of Aadhaar with various services and welfare schemes of all ministries and departments of the Centre, states and union territories.

A nine-judge constitution bench of the top court had last year, held that Right to Privacy was a Fundamental Right under the Constitution. Several petitioners challenging the validity of Aadhaar had claimed it violated privacy rights.

Comments

Add new comment

  • Coastaldigest.com reserves the right to delete or block any comments.
  • Coastaldigset.com is not responsible for its readers’ comments.
  • Comments that are abusive, incendiary or irrelevant are strictly prohibited.
  • Please use a genuine email ID and provide your name to avoid reject.
Agencies
March 1,2020

Kolkata, Mar 1: The Calcutta High Court has ruled that it is not mandatory for foreigners to produce a valid passport and its particulars for processing of application for grant of Indian citizenship if he is able to satisfy the appropriate authorities the reasons for non-availability of the document.

Justice Sabysachi Bhattacharya passed the order while disposing off a petition by granting the petitioner liberty to file an application before the authority "as contemplated in Rule 11 of the Citizenship Rules 2009, upon furnishing explanation as to the non-availability of the passport".

Bismillah Khan had filed the petition saying he was being denied the citizenship of India because of his inability to file an application under Section 5 (1) (c) of the Citizenship Act, 1955, apparently due to the mandatory requirement of furnishing a copy of the passport for such application.

The petitioner's counsel submitted that Khan was a Pakhtoon citizen and due to political turmoil in the said state, which subsequently merged partially into Afghanistan and partially into Pakistan, he, as a five-year old, had to migrate to India with his father in 1973.

Under such circumstances, the petitioner could not have any opportunity of having a valid passport, since they were refugees under distress, the counsel said.

The petitioner had previously approached a coordinate Bench of the court, wherein a single judge, passed an order on July 25, 2018, directing him to comply with the formalities required, as communicated by the secretary to the Government of India to the Secretary to the Government of West Bengal (Home), vide a letter dated December 7, 2017.

The court had then also given liberty to the petitioner to apply afresh before the appropriate authority under Section 5(1)(c) of the 1955 Act, having complied with all the formalities.

The petitioner then moved Bhattacharya's court submitting that a complete application as directed by the Coordinate Bench cannot be possibly filed by his client due to the mandatory requirement of uploading a copy of his passport, which the petitioner does not have due to reasons beyond his control.

The counsel said Khan is married to an Indian citizen, has a daughter and living in India for close to half a century.

The counsel for the union of India submitted that in view of no application having been filed by the petitioner, there is no scope of granting such proposed application at the present juncture for the Union.

The counsel argued that it is mandatory to file an application in Form III for the application of the petitioner under Section 5(1)(c) of the Act to be considered at all.

In view of the petitioner not complying with the mandatory requirement of submitting a copy of his passport, the state government cannot, under the law, forward such application to the union government.

After hearing all sides, Justice Bhattacharya said although the rule "contemplates that an application shall not be entertained unless the application is made in Form III, such provision ipso facto does not make the availability of a passport a mandatory requirement".

"..the Form given with the Rules or the Rules themselves cannot override the provision of the statute itself, under which the said Rules are framed, which does not stipulate such a mandate on the applicants for citizenship under Section 5 (1)(c) of the 1955 Act mandatorily to carry a passport".

The court said although such provision is included in the Form, which has to be complied with by the applicant, "it is nowhere indicated in such Form that all the relevant particulars, including the particulars regarding passport of the petitioner have to be furnished mandatorily, along with a copy of a valid foreign passport, even in the event the petitioner, for valid reasons, is not in a position to produce such passport".

Justice Bhattacharya ruled that under such circumstances, it cannot be held that the provision of producing a passport and its particulars is mandatory in nature and there has to be a relaxation in such requirement "in case the petitioner is able to satisfy the appropriate authorities the reasons for non- availability of such passport".

"Unless such a leeway is given to the applicants, genuine persons who otherwise have all the formal documents indicating that they have been residing in India for a long time and have married a resident of India would also be unable to apply for Indian Citizenship despite having lived their entire lives and contributed to the economy and diverse culture of this country."

He said such a scenario would be contradictory to the spirit of Article 14 of the Constitution of India.

"In such view of the matter, the requirement of having a passport has to be read as optional in Form III of the Citizenship Rules, 2009 and the authorities are deemed to have the power to relax such 6 requirement in the event the applicant satisfied the authorities for genuine reasons why the applicant is not in a position to produce such passport," the February 24 order said.

The court ruled that despite the provision of making applications online, a provision has to be made for persons who do not have all the particulars of their passport, which is read as optional, to file applications manually, which are to be treated as valid applications under Rule 5 of the Citizenship Rules, 2009.

The court also ordered that alternatively the necessary software be amended so that the online applications can be presented with or without passports, in the latter case furnishing detailed reasons as to non-furnishing of passports.

"Sanctioning of such forms, however, will be conditional upon the satisfaction of the relevant authorities about the reasons for the applicant not being able to produce her/his passport," the order said.

Comments

Add new comment

  • Coastaldigest.com reserves the right to delete or block any comments.
  • Coastaldigset.com is not responsible for its readers’ comments.
  • Comments that are abusive, incendiary or irrelevant are strictly prohibited.
  • Please use a genuine email ID and provide your name to avoid reject.
Agencies
June 17,2020

Mumbai, Jun 17: A lawyer on Wednesday moved a criminal complaint against 8 persons, including Bollywood superstar Salman Khan and producer-director Karan Johar, in a local court regarding the death of Bollywood actor Sushant Singh Rajput.

The court had fixed July 3 as the next date of hearing.

In his complaint filed in the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, advocate Sudhir Kumar Ojha alleged that these eight persons forced Sushant to commit suicide under a conspiracy which, he pleaded, amounted to murder.

Others named in the complaint are Aditya Chopra, Sajid Nadiadwala, Sanjay Leela Bhansali, Bhushan Kumar, Ekta Kapoor, and director Dinesh.

The complainant claimed that these persons did not let Sushant's movies get released under a conspiracy and the late actor was not even invited to film functions because of these people.

Ojha said that Sushant Singh Rajput's death had not only hurt the people of Bihar but the entire country.

He said the complaint had been filed under Sections 306, 109, 504 and 506 and Bollywood actor Kangana Ranawat had been listed as a witness in the case.

Sushant Singh Rajput had allegedly committed suicide at his Bandra flat in Mumbai on Sunday.

Comments

Add new comment

  • Coastaldigest.com reserves the right to delete or block any comments.
  • Coastaldigset.com is not responsible for its readers’ comments.
  • Comments that are abusive, incendiary or irrelevant are strictly prohibited.
  • Please use a genuine email ID and provide your name to avoid reject.
News Network
April 3,2020

New Delhi, Apr 3: Jamiat Ulema-e-Hind leader Mahmood Madani on Thursday said that misbehaviour with doctors cannot be tolerated as they are working to protect everyone.

"We can only spread awareness about coronavirus that its only cure is by taking precautions. The government shared the precautions that people should not take part in any gathering, be clean and maintain social distance. After the reports, it will clear that how it is spread in the country," Madani told news agency.

"People who are objecting to testing in Lok Nayak Jai Prakash Narayan Hospital are very wrong and they should follow the instructions.

Hospital authorities and administration should talk to them. Today doctors are our soldiers who protect us and wrong behaviour with doctors cannot be tolerated," he added.

He further said that Jamiat wrote to the PM Narendra Modi that they will provide a place for 10,000 people in different states. Our workers also distributed food to one lakh people, he added.

People who attended a religious prayer meeting from March 13-15 at Markaz in the Nizamuddin area of Delhi were sent to Lok Nayak Hospital for coronavirus test on March 30.

The Union Ministry of Health and Family Welfare on Thursday said that there are 2,069 coronavirus positive cases in India, including 1,860 active cases, 156 cured/discharged/migrated people and 53 deaths.

Comments

Add new comment

  • Coastaldigest.com reserves the right to delete or block any comments.
  • Coastaldigset.com is not responsible for its readers’ comments.
  • Comments that are abusive, incendiary or irrelevant are strictly prohibited.
  • Please use a genuine email ID and provide your name to avoid reject.