 "US Supreme Court allows Trump's education dept mass layoffs amid school funding crisis")
 "Man secretly records wife’s phone call in marital discord case; not breach of privacy, rules Supreme Court")
Latest updates: Congress leader and senior advocate Salman Khurshid termed this a sad day as he commented on the unprecedented public fall out between the Supreme Court judges. He said that the roster related differences will always remain, until a computerised system is introduced. The Congress party will addres a media briefing at 6.30 pm today. According to latest reports, the Chief Justice of India is hearing cases like he always does. Bar and Bench reported that there will be no media briefing at 2 pm as media earlier reported. The report also clarified that CJI Dipak Misra met Attorney-General KK Venugopal over Unitech case and not to discuss the judges press conference. Meanwhile, top government sources told News18 that the Centre is likely to distance itself from the crisis, in the hope that the judges will be able to sort it among themselves. “This is an internal matter of the judiciary, it is best they solve it themselves,” a top source told CNN-News18, adding that Law Minister Ravi Shankar Prasad has received a copy of the dissenting note circulated by Justice J Chelameswar, Justice Ranjan Gogoi, Justice Madan B Lokur and Justice Kurian Joseph. Reacting to the press conference which shocked everyone, The Congress said “democracy is in danger” after four seniormost Supreme Court judges came out in the open to say that the situation in the apex court was “not in order”. Meanwhile, several former judges, current advocates and politicians reacted to the unprecedented press conference held by four sitting Supreme Court judges. The opinion on whether the four sitting judges were right in calling the press conference was heavily divided by few supporting them and others saying that the move was “childish and immature” and that they have denigrated the institution and the sanctity of the judiciary. Meanwhile, Chief Justice of India Dipak Misra will address the media shortly and ANI reported that Attorney General KK Venugopal will accompany him. The CJI, earlier, met Venugopal soon after the country’s top judiciary was rocked by an unprecedented press conference by four sitting judges. At the press meet, Justice J Chelameswar, the second senior-most judge in the top court, said the administration of the top court is “not in order” and that efforts to convince Chief Justice of India Dipak Misra had “failed”. Chelameswar sounded caution over the “survival of democracy” and replying to a question on whether the CJI should be impeached said it was for the nation to “decide”. Apart from J Chelameswar, other sitting judges present included Justice Ranjan Gogoi, Justice Madan B Lokur and Justice Kurien Joseph. The media briefing has been organised by Justice Chelameswar at his house. The four judges who will address the media are Justice J Chelameswar, Justice Ranjan Gogoi, Justice Madan Lokur, Justice Kurian Joseph. “It is an extremly painful moment for all four of us and there is no pleasure in holding this press conference,” Justice J Chelameswar told the press on Friday. Justice Chelameswar, the second senior most judge in the Supreme Court, today said the administration of the apex court is “sometimes not in order” and many “less than desirable things” have taken place. Besides Justice Chelameswar, the other judges were Justices Ranjan Gogoi, MB Lokur and Kurian Joseph. “Sometimes administration of the Supreme Court is not in order and many things which are less than desirable have happened…,” Justice Chelameswar said. The press conference was called at his Tughlaq Road residence here.
Supreme Court judges address media as it happened: Rahul Gandhi says questions raised by 4 judges must be thoroughly investigated
In an unprecedented event, four Supreme Court Justices will speak directly to the media. It is unclear as to what they will be speaking on.
)
Meanwhile… Aadhaar tweets out ‘myth busters’ intermittently; claims banking, financial data not tracked via UIDAI
United Kingdom revoked it biometric database, petitioner tells SC
Architecture that allows surveillance not permissible: Divan
Ensuring Aadhaar data is not misused not enough to grant it legality, petitioners argue in case
Justice Chandrachud asked that if the government ensures that Aadhaar data is used only for the purpose it is collected, will it address the concerns raised by the petitioners. To this the petitioner’s lawyer replied that the design in itself is bad as it allows State domination. Shyam Divan further argued that the problem is not that whether the State is actually tracking its citizens or not but the fact that the Aadhaar makes it possible.
Aadhaar alters the relationship between the citizen and the State
Senior Advocate Shyam Divan today submitted in court that Aadhaar seems too alter the relationship between the citizen and the State, while diminishing the status of the citizen. All rights, a citizen could earlier freely assert have now been made part of a “compulsory barter”, averring, “The barter compels the citizen to give up his biometrics ‘voluntarily’, unless the number is seeded in databases of the service provider, the citizen is denied access to these most essential facilities. “Inalienable and natural rights are dependent on a compulsory exaction.”
As reported by Live and Law‘People’s Constitution is being sought to be converted into a State’s Constitution’
Aadhaar act cannot be used to deny basic amenities, rights or benefits, says petitioner’s lawyer Shyam Divan
Collection of crucial biometric data for 7 years illegal, passing Aadhaar act doesn’t cure illegality, petitioner tells court
Aadhaar a giant electronic leash, says petitioner in court
Hearing resumes, final arguments in Aadhaar case begins
The final arguments in Aadhaar case begin before the Constitution Bench of Supreme Court. At the start of the arguments, Attorney General sought time bound arguments. A-G reminded the Bench that Ramjanmabhoomi land title dispute case is also scheduled to be taken up from 8 February.
Retired High Court judge and accused IM Quddusi moves CBI court against leak of phone records
Since Supreme Court’s 2013 verdict on homosexuality, at least 10 countries have legalised homosexuality
A total of five countries — Uruguay, New Zealand, France, Brazil, and England and Wales — legalised gay sex in 2013. Here is the full report on how the world has changed its views on homosexuality since 2013.
What two recent SC judgments tell us about court’s altered view on sexuality and privacy in India
Ajay Kumar writing for Firstpost details that two judgments, one regarding rights of transgender people and the other about the Right to Privacy show that the court’s view has changed considerably on sexuality and privacy.
Judges meeting for lunch
India Today reported that the CJI is meeting the judges for lunch. Three of the dissenting judges are present at the meeting. Justice Chelameswar is absent. Justice Bobde and Justice Goel are not present as well.
Petitioners’ profiles
Hearing to resume at 2.30 pm
Shyam Divan explains the different aspects of the project
Meanwhile companies are unable to stop themselves from sending informative messages
Shyam Divan takes Court through work of the petitioners to counter the State’s claims that there are only elitist concerns against Aadhaar
The petitioners include ex-servicemen, social workers, Magsaysay award winners among others.
Shyam Divan for the petitioners: Aadhaar a system of exclusion
Shyam Divan for the petitioners: You cannot live as a citizen of India without an Aadhaar
Shyam Divan is taking the court through the history of the case
Link to Shyam Divan’s opening statement
The petitioners’ alternative argument
Petitioners: The State is empowered with a ‘switch’ by which it can cause the civil death of an individual
Shyam Divan lays out the scope of the constitutional challenge
Petitioners: The case at hand is unique. There are few judicial precedents to guide us
Petitioners argue that if the Aadhaar programme is allowed to continue unimpeded, it will hollow out the Constitution
Attorney-General KK Venugopal asks for time allotment for arguments
The Aadhaar bench has assembled in Courtroom 1
“Tuesday was a sunny day at the Supreme Court after days of clouds over its cohesiveness and probity”
“A new day seems to be in order in the Supreme Court after clouds over its cohesiveness and probity. The CJI should now show the light and redeem the institution’s glory by getting all his brother and sister judges along, to end this crisis and convert it into a chance to bring about all necessary institutional reforms,” writes Utkarsh Anand on News18 .
Main arguments before the court
Livelaw reported that the petitioners argue that details for Aadhaar are collected by private contractors and NGOs hired by UIDAI without any safeguard. This makes them prone to misuse. They claimed that empirical research shows that the biometric identification denoted for UID, namely the the iris scan and fingerprint identification, is faulty and is could be abused.
Five-judge bench led by CJI Dipak Misra will start hearing the Aadhaar case at 11.30 am
#AadharMythBuster being used on Twitter to promote Aadhaar
Union ministers including Ravi Shankar Prasad and Rajyavardhan Rathore are using #AadharMythBuster to extol the virtues of Aadhaar.
Some policy experts are not impressed with those efforts.
Justice J Chelameswar is not in the Supreme Court today
Why the Chief Justice’s power must be kept in check
The Chief Justice is largely sheltered from public view while exercising his administrative powers, according to Business Standard . The authors write, “This creates an administrative authority, free of many of the constraints imposed on other agencies. The administrative powers of the Chief Justice have grown with time. However, the Court has failed to devise a parallel mechanism to keep a check on these powers… A slew of corrective measures are now required.”
Court to take up 29 pleas against Aadhaar
The court will take up 29 pleas against Aadhaar. The final hearing on the pleas challenging Aadhaar comes five years since the first was filed.