live

Aadhaar verdict updates: Supreme Court ruling destroys legitimacy of the Act's stated purposes, say lawyers

Aadhaar verdict LIVE updates: The Supreme Court verdict on the Aadhaar Act, undermines the legitimacy of the Act, law experts have said. 'This project has little or no legitimacy left. Massive legislative and structural changes will be required. I will be writing on bits of the judgement in the coming weeks.'

FP Staff September 26, 2018 13:35:07 IST
Auto refresh feeds
Aadhaar verdict updates: Supreme Court ruling destroys legitimacy of the Act's stated purposes, say lawyers

Highlights

08:47 (ist)

2015 judgment of SC allowed use of Aadhaar in govt schemes but maintained the “purely voluntary nature” of Aadhaar

While the first petition challenging Aadhaar was filed in 2012, the process for this case was kicked off by a October 2015 judgment by the Supreme Court.

This judgment allowed the use of Aadhaar in a number of government schemes, but maintained specifically that the “purely voluntary nature” of Aadhaar would continue till the court decided one way or another on the validity of the system through a constitution bench.

08:27 (ist)

In 2012, Justice Puttaswamy said that govt cannot indirectly implement Aadhaar without the legislative passage of the National ID Bill

As Supreme Court bench will decide whether Aadhaar is valid or not, social media is abuzz with information on this mammoth case. Lawyers tweeted out the history of the case since it began

"On 28.01.2009 a central government notification is issued establishing the Unique Identification Database. It states that the UID authority will, “own and operate the UID Database."

"On 03.12.2010 a bill titled as the National Identification Authority of India Bill, 2010 is introduced in Parliament. Per PRS analysis, “does not prevent any service provider from prescribing Aadhaar as a mandatory requirement”. The bill is referred to a standing committee."

"On 13.12.2010 the Standing committee on Finance issues its report on the National ID Bill. Calls it, “conceptualised with no clarity of purpose”, “overbearing manner without regard to legalities and other social harm”

"On 18.10.2012 Justice Puttaswamy files a petition in the Supreme Court with his principal prayer alleging that the Notification dated 28.01.2009 cannot indirectly implement Aadhaar without the legislative passage of the National ID Bill."

Read the entire thread here

08:14 (ist)

Some issues of Aadhaar beyond the digital identity include: 

Lawyers have flagged the validity of Aadhaar for more than just the problem it poses to the digital identity. According to one of the lawyers appearing for the petitioners in the case, here are the issues of Aadhaar: 

  • Algorithmic accountability, equality & natural justice 
  • Online platforms & the concepts of private-public functions 
  • DNA profiling, social credit scores and mass surveillance
  •  Interaction of AI & fundamental rights
07:51 (ist)

Predictions? Lawyer says irrespective of verdict, will continue to negotiate power imbalances of technology

Aadhaar is one of the most crucial verdicts which is expected this year. This week being Dipak Misra's last week as the CJI, the verdict holds historical importance as well. One of the lawyers appearing for the petitioners, Aapar Gupta tweeted and said, "Irrespective of the verdict in tomorrow's Aadhaar judgement we will continue to negotiate the power imbalances of technology. The constitution and the courts will be key players in revitalising doctrine for the development of digital rights in India."

07:19 (ist)

Insistence on Aadhaar had led to increase in Malnutrition among Adivasi children

One of the lawyers appearing for the petitioners in today's crucial hearing tweeted: In December 2013, two medical practitioners working in the Adivasi inhabited regions filed an application in the Supreme Court asserting how insistence of Aadhaar had led to increase in malnutrition among Adivasi children

LIVE NEWS and UPDATES

Sept 26, 2018 - 13:20 (IST)

Legitimacy of the Aadhaar Act has been undermined: Law experts

The legitimacy of the Aadhaar Act has been undermined. This project has little or no legitimacy left. Massive legislative and structural changes will be required. I will be writing on bits of the judgement in the coming weeks.

Sept 26, 2018 - 13:18 (IST)

Individuals too can file complaint on theft of Aadhaar data: What SC did not like about original Aadhaar Act

  • Private entities cannot avail your Aadhaar data - The Supreme Court struck down Section 57 of the Aadhaar Act. It said that private companies, individuals cannot insist on Aadhaar data to provide consimer services. 
  • Aadhaar data can't be shared with security agencies - The Supreme Court read down Section 33 (2) which means that your Aadhaar data cannot be shared with security agencies in the name of upholding national security. 
  • Individuals too can complain about theft of Aadhaar data - Earlier, according to Section 47 of the Aadhaar Act, only Government of India could complain about the theft of Aadhaar data. But Supreme Court ruled that private individuals too can complain about it. 

Sept 26, 2018 - 13:16 (IST)

Legitimacy of its stated purposes is destroyed: Aapar Gupta

"Today's judgment as read out in court signals massive changes in the Aadhaar project and the Act. The legitimacy of its stated purposes is destroyed. Even the majority signals significant concern by reading down portions."

Sept 26, 2018 - 13:00 (IST)

Congress party welcomes Aadhar verdict, calls it slap on face of Modi govt 

The Congress Wednesday welcomed the Supreme Court decision to strike down Section 57 of the Aadhaar act, which allowed private entities to access Aadhaar data, and termed it a "slap on the face of BJP". 

 
"We welcome the Supreme Court's decision to strike down Section 57 of the Aadhaar Act. Private entities are no longer allowed to use Aadhaar for verification purposes," the Congress said on Twitter minutes after the verdict. 
Several Congress leaders also spoke on the judgement. 

Sept 26, 2018 - 12:53 (IST)

Reading down of Section 57 to impact RBI's KYC guidelines 

The majority verdict has read down Section 57, clarifying that private parties can no longer mandate Aadhaar , but statutory authorities can when there is a backing of a law. More clarity is required on what would be a valid law as per this section. The striking down of the DOT order on Aadhaar-sim linking and of the PMLA rules on Aadhaar-bank account linking indicate that every law will not be justified under this head. The striking down of Aadhaar-bank account linking further, will also impact the RBI new norms on KYC which had mandated Aadhaar subject to the decision of the Supreme Court in the Aadhaar case.

Sept 26, 2018 - 12:52 (IST)

Aadhaar does not violate privacy: Justice Bhushan

Justice Bhushan said that Aadhaar passed the three fold test in 9 judge bench decision. It does not violate an individuals privacy. The judge further noted that problems in implementation and shortcomings do not make Section 7 unconstitutional. He said that the no material evidence has come to light to suggest that exclusion has increased post Aadhaar.

Sept 26, 2018 - 12:42 (IST)

Here are a few key observations made by the majority view of the Supreme Court

Justice Sikri: “Lot of people who will benefit due to inclusion cannot be denied due to exclusion of few; Can’t throw baby out with bathwater”

Justice Sikri: "It is better to be unique than to be best”.

Justice Sikri: "Fundamental difference from UID and other IDs. Uniqueness of UID is the difference as claimed by Government of India."

Justice Sikri: "Empowers marginalised section of societies as it gives identity to such persons."

Sept 26, 2018 - 12:36 (IST)

Supreme Court upholds Aadhaar Act and scheme by 4:1 majority 

In a historic judgment, the Supreme Court upheld the validity of the Aadhaar Act and scheme by a 4:1 majority. The judgment was pronounced by a bench of Chief Justice Dipak Misra and Justices AK Sikri, AM Khanwilkar, DY Chandrachud and Ashok Bhushan. Justice Chandrachud's views dissented from the majority.

Justice Sikri wrote a judgment on behalf of himself, CJI Misra and Justice Khanwilkar.

Sept 26, 2018 - 12:32 (IST)

Aadhaar Verdict: What is allowed and what isn't

  • Private firms cannot insist for Aadhaar information
  • Cellphone companies cannot ask for Aadhaar details
  • Aadhaar no more mandatory for opening bank accounts
  • Schools cannot seek child's Aadhaar details, including their admission​
  • Aadhaar, however, is mandatory to be linked with PAN card and for filing of income tax returns

Sept 26, 2018 - 12:28 (IST)

Supreme Court: Aadhaar bill as Money Bill is open to judicial review

"Decision of Speaker to certify Aadhaar bill as Money Bill is open to judicial review. Aadhaar Act has been rightly passed as money bill." 

"Section 139AA does not infringe right to privacy," says Supreme Court. Pronouncement of judgment stands over. Bench rises.

Aadhaar verdict today LATEST updates: The Supreme Court verdict on the Aadhaar Act, undermines the legitimacy of the Act, law experts have said.  "This project has little or no legitimacy left. Massive legislative and structural changes will be required. I will be writing on bits of the judgement in the coming weeks."

"Today's judgement as read out in court signals massive changes in the Aadhaar project and the Act. The legitimacy of its stated purposes is destroyed. Even the majority signals significant concern by reading down portions."

The Supreme Court today upheld the validity of the Aadhaar Act and scheme by a 4:1 majority. It said that the government cannot compel individuals to use Aadhaar as the sole identification tool. The court also ruled that private entities and corporates cannot hoard Aadhaar data.

The judgment was pronounced by a Bench of Chief Justice Dipak Misra and Justices AK Sikri, AM Khanwilkar, DY Chandrachud and Ashok Bhushan. Justice Chandrachud dissented from the majority.

Supreme Court has noted that Aadhaar empowers the marginalised society. Justice Chandrachud although has held the Aadhaar Act as unconstitutional on the basis of money bill, has also gone into separate provisions and the project. However he held that Aadhaar cannot have been a money bill. Not even Section 7. Passing a Bill which is not a money bill as a money bill a subterfuge and a fraud on the constitution.

This is a dissent from Justice Sikri's view.

Aadhaar cannot be mandated for opening of bank accounts, says Supreme Court. Aadhaar cannot be mandatory for mobile connections; DoT notification to that effect unconstitutional. The Supreme Court said that UGC, which has made it mandatory cannot happen. "Enrollment of children, consent of parents is essential. Aadhaar for school education would not be necessary coz it is neither welfare or subsidy."

Aadhaar verdict updates Supreme Court ruling destroys legitimacy of the Acts stated purposes say lawyers

Representational image. AFP

Supreme Court introduces a significant voluntary component to Aadhaar judgement. Justice AK Sikri has said struck down Section 47, Section 33, Section 57, Section 33(1) has to be read down that individual afforded hearing. 33(2)- Information shared for national security struck down. Section 57 that includes body corporates is unconstitutional. Sikri said: "Enrolment of children only with parental consent. They should be given an option to exit on attaining majority."

Justice AK Sikri said, "We follow the "larger public interest" as against the "compelling public state interest" test. Respect grounded in human dignity is exposited in the judgment. Also discussed is dignity not only in reference to individual but also dignity within the community. Question on whether strict scrutiny or just fair and reasonable standard to be adopted in testing constitutionality of laws. Says Puttaswamy leaves that open. And that this judgment had adopted the latter standard."

Justice Sikri reads out the majority judgment in the case. "The unique identification proof also empowers and gives identity to marginalised sections of the society The unique identification proof also empowers and gives identity to marginalised sections of the society."

Justice Sikri started his Aadhaar judgment by saying, "It is better to be unique than the best." He further added that Aadhaar has become the most talked about expression in the recent years.

He said it is better to be unique than the best. "Aadhaar has become the most talked about expression in the recent years," he said.

5-judge Supreme Court Bench assembles in the top court with Justice AK Sikri pronouncing his judgment now.

The Aadhaar verdict, at the least, have a major impact on the amendments made to the Aadhaar Act via the Bill, in relation to privacy and data protection practices used for Aadhaar itself. Further, the court’s rulings with respect to data protection in relation to Aadhaar will also help determine what practices are constitutional under the Bill within the terms of the judgment.

The five-judge Constitutional bench of Supreme Court will pronounce the verdict at 10.30 am. During the last hearing, lawyers appearing for the petitioners told the Supreme Court that over the time as Aadhaar authenticating becomes ubiquitous, tracking and profiling will become more comprehensive.

The arguments against Aadhaar began with the assertion that data collection was happening in the absence of a law, that personnel were not qualified to collect and handle sensitive data and that the biometric process itself was unreliable. Fingerprints can be cloned and iris scanners bypassed.

The Supreme Court will pronounce its crucial verdict on a batch of pleas challenging the constitutional validity of Centre's flagship Aadhaar scheme and its enabling 2016 law. While the first petition challenging Aadhaar was filed in 2012, the process for this case was kicked off by a October 2015 judgment by the Supreme Court which allowed the use of Aadhaar in a number of government schemes.

The judgment specifically maintained that the “purely voluntary nature” of Aadhaar would continue till the court decided one way or another on the validity of the system through a constitution bench.

In 2012, Justice Puttaswamy had filed a petition in the Supreme Court saying that the government cannot indirectly implement Aadhaar without the legislative passage of the National ID Bill.

Aadhaar is one of the most crucial verdicts expected this year. This week being Dipak Misra's last week as the Chief Justice of India, the verdict holds historical importance as well. One of the lawyers appearing for the petitioners, Aapar Gupta tweeted and said, "Irrespective of the verdict in tomorrow's Aadhaar judgement we will continue to negotiate the power imbalances of technology. The constitution and the courts will be key players in revitalising doctrine for the development of digital rights in India."

The Aadhaar litigation in Supreme Court has now spanned over 6 years. At least, 26 Judges have heard the matter at various points of time. The verdict is expected to be read out at around 10.30 am on Wednesday.

A five-judge constitution bench headed by Chief Justice Dipak Misra had on 10 May reserved the verdict on the matter after a marathon hearing that went on for 38 days, spanning four-and-half months.

As many as 31 petitions, including one by former high court judge KS Puttaswamy, have been filed in the matter.

When the judgment was reserved by the court, Attorney General KK Venugopal had told the bench, which also comprised Justices AK Sikri, AM Khanwilkar, DY Chandrachud and Ashok Bhushan, that this matter had become the "second longest" one in terms of days of hearing after the historic Kesavananda Bharati case of 1973.

The Kesavananda Bharati case, which was heard by a 13-judge bench, by a majority of 7:6 had propounded the doctrine of the 'Basic Structure and of the Constitution'. It had held that the amendments which may affect this structure were subject to judicial review.

A battery of senior lawyers, including Shyam Divan, Gopal Subramaniam, Kapil Sibal, P Chidambaram, Arvind Datar, KV Vishwanath, Anand Grover, Sajan Poovayya and a few others, had argued on behalf of the petitioners opposing the Aadhaar Scheme on various grounds.

Besides the former high court judge, the top lawyers argued for petitioners, who included Magsaysay awardee Shanta Sinha, feminist researcher Kalyani Sen Menon, social activists Aruna Roy, Nikhil De, Nachiket Udupa and CPI leader Binoy Visman.

A key argument against the Aadhaar scheme was that it was violative of the nine-judge bench verdict that had held that Right to Privacy is a fundamental right under the Constitution.

The Centre, the Unique Identification Authority of India (UIDAI), the governments of Maharashtra and Gujarat and the RBI had argued in favour of the Aadhaar (Targeted Delivery of Financial and Other Subsidies, Benefits And Services) Act, 2016 and were represented by the Attorney General, Additional Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, senior advocates Rakesh Dwivedi and Jayant Bhushan and lawyer Zoheb Hossain.

During the arguments, the Centre had strongly defended its decision to seed Aadhaar numbers with mobile phones, telling the top court that it could have been hauled up for contempt if the verification of mobile users was not undertaken by it.

However, the court had said that the government had misinterpreted its order and used it as a "tool" to make Aadhaar mandatory for mobile users.

The court had also not agreed prima facie with the government's contention that the Aadhaar law was correctly termed as a Money Bill by the Lok Sabha Speaker as it dealt with "targetted delivery of subsidies" for which funds came from the Consolidated Fund of India.

The counsel for one of the petitioners had termed Aadhaar as "an electronic leash" and said that the government could completely destroy an individual by "switching off" the 12-digit unique identifier number.

On the other hand, the Centre had said that the law was valid and allowed minimal invasion to ensure the right to life of millions of Indians by ensuring seamless delivery of subsidies, benefits and services to the poorest of poor.

Updated Date:

Find latest and upcoming tech gadgets online on Tech2 Gadgets. Get technology news, gadgets reviews & ratings. Popular gadgets including laptop, tablet and mobile specifications, features, prices, comparison.

also read

SC rejects SBI plea for resuming insolvency proceedings against Anil Ambani; matter listed for 6 Oct
Business

SC rejects SBI plea for resuming insolvency proceedings against Anil Ambani; matter listed for 6 Oct

The State Bank of India had moved the apex court to recover Rs 1,200 crore that it had loaned to two firms of the then-chairman of Reliance Communications

'Insidious and rabid': SC stays Sudarshan TV from broadcasting 'UPSC jihad' show, calls on media to self-regulate
India

'Insidious and rabid': SC stays Sudarshan TV from broadcasting 'UPSC jihad' show, calls on media to self-regulate

The apex court said the manner in which some media houses are conducting debates is cause for concern as all type of defamatory things are being said

Sudarshan TV violated programme code with 'UPSC Jihad', Centre tells SC; showcause notice issued against channel
India

Sudarshan TV violated programme code with 'UPSC Jihad', Centre tells SC; showcause notice issued against channel

On September 21, the top court had pondered over the nature and extent of its order regulating ''Bindas Bol'' programme on alleged infiltration of Muslims in bureaucracy saying it did not want to “curtail” freedom of speech