Does the ‘Aadhaar’ violate the right to privacy?
On this case, the five judge bench of the Supreme Court is scheduled to hear on Wednesday. The Constitutional Bench of Chief Justice Deepak Mishra, Justice AK Sikri, Justice AM Khanvilkar, Justice D.V. Chandrachud and Justice Ashok Bhushan will decide on this very important matter.
Many petitions challenging the validity of the Aadhaar card scheme are pending in the Supreme Court. These petitions have been filed by many well-known people, including retired Justice Puttaswamy of High Court, Chairman of the National Child Rights Protection Commission (NCPCR), Shanta Sinha, Retired Major General SG Vombatkare, Dalit Rights activist Bezwada Wilson. Aadhaar is a very important project of the Modi government. Many of his plans are going to be affected by this decision.
Why a constitutional bench was needed?
It is because of the two old decisions of the Supreme Court which came in the 50s and 60s that appear against each other in this case. In the case of MP Sharma, the bench of the eight judges of the Supreme Court has said that the right to privacy is not a fundamental right and that is the same conclusion of the Bench of six judges in Khadak Singh case. However, later, the small benches of the Supreme Court, in many cases, called privacy as a fundamental right. Therefore, the big bench of nine judges is now considering the whole issue.
Many accusations are on Aadhar:
The government is forcing to make it compulsary:
The lawyer representing the main petitioner Shanta Sinha has alleged that the court order is that the Aadhaar is not mandatory at the moment, it should be allowed to be voluntary, but the government is compulsorily obliging it in all schemes of Welfare, such as scholarship, right to food. The government has issued notification and said that after June 30, basis of around 17 such Welfare Schemes will be mandatory. In this case, the petition against the compulsion of Aadhar card should be heard immediately. The bench should pass the order for this. The Central Government can also keep its side today too.
Violation of privacy:
On behalf of some other petitioners senior lawyers Gopal Subramaniam, Shyam Diwan, Arvind Datar and Soli Sorabjee have quarreled. Subramanyam had said during the previous hearing that if the Articles 14, 19 and 21 of the Constitution were to be seen together then the scope of the fundamental rights of the citizen becomes very large. If it is said that there is no right to privacy then it will be unrealistic. Apart from this, in another case related to this, senior advocate Shyam Diwan argued that ‘My eyes and finger prints are my personal property. I can not be compelled to give information to anyone. The government is also not entitled to this information.
Soli Sorabjee had said, “Not to mention the right to privacy does not affect the constitution. If you look at the rights received from the Constitution, the court can easily say that privacy is a fundamental right. Just like the press freedom is not mentioned separately. But it is considered as part of the freedom of expression. ‘
It was also argued by the petitioners that MP Sharma and Kharak Singh were related to the criminal case. Among them, the police had the right to find and monitor the surveillance. The right to privacy was not considered to be the fundamental right on that basis. Later, in the case of Govind vs. MP and Maneka Gandhi, the rights of the common citizen were discussed. The conclusion of the court is different from the old cases.
In the case of Govind vs. Madhya Pradesh, Rajgopal versus Tamil Nadu, the small bench of the Supreme Court has recognized Nizam as a fundamental right. In the year 1978, Menaka Gandhi versus Union of India case, the bench of seven judges of the Supreme Court, considered to be part of the fundamental rights of life, Article 21 of the Constitution. In this regard, the right to privacy will be considered as per Article 21.
Biometric Identity and Data Protection:
The petitioners also questioned the safety of biometric data gathered for the basis. Apart from this, what is the biggest problem is that it is not mandatory to form the basis in the Aadhaar Act. But still it is being made mandatory for all government schemes other than income tax. It is alleged that the government wants to monitor every activity of citizens through a basis. Whereas, right to be left alone is a mandatory part of the right to privacy.
What is the government saying?
The government has not yet fully kept it aside but it has consistently believed that privacy is a natural right. It is also a social concept. It should be respected but it can not be considered as a fundamental right. If this were the case then the constitution makers had given it place in the constitution.
The government argues that if privacy is assumed to be the fundamental right, then it will be difficult to run the system. While giving loans, they give every necessary information to the bank while taking loans, but the information given to the government is being said to be problematic. In the future, referring to any privacy can refuse fingerprint, photo or any information for any necessary government work.
Government lawyers argued that the base has created more than 97 percent of the people. He had no problem in giving information to the government. Due to the base, corruption in government schemes has been curbed. Right-to-be left alone can do austerity on the Himalayas. It is impossible to live without any interference from ordinary citizen government.
Question of court:
Judge DY Chandchud, member of the bench, during the hearing, had remarked that “the right to privacy will have to be seen separately in every case.” Not every government action can be stopped in the name of privacy. needed.” The court had told the Central Government that through print and electronic media, it is to inform the people that the Aadhaar card is not mandatory for the use of government schemes.
On October 15, 2015, the Supreme Court’s Barrage Bench had allowed the government to use the basis for PM Janshan Yojana, MNREGA, PF and Pension Scheme in addition to PDS, Kerosene and LPG distribution, but the Supreme The Court had then clarified that even in these cases the basis would not be mandatory. The Supreme Court had made a change in the order of 11th August and the government has allowed the use of the basis voluntarily for the said schemes.
Many Important decisions have been made before
- 23 September 2013
In its interim order the Supreme Court had said that the Aadhaar card should not be compulsory. No authority mandates Aadhaar card for any public service or government benefit. - March 24, 2014
The Supreme Court had said that no person can be deprived of any government benefits or plans in the name of not having the Aadhaar card.
- March 16, 2015
The Supreme Court had reiterated that it was the duty of the Central Government that the order of the Supreme Court be followed and the Aadhar card should not be made compulsory for any government benefit. - August 11, 2015
The Supreme Court has clarified that Aadhar Card will not be mandatory for any government welfare scheme. It can not be mandatory for any kind of government benefit. Although the government has Liberty that it can use the basis in PDS, kerosene and LPG distribution, it is clear that even in these cases the basis will not be mandatory.
Aadhaar not mandatory
The court had told the Central Government that through print and electronic media, it is to inform the people that the Aadhaar card is not mandatory for the use of government schemes. However, whether this has happened or not, the discussion is still pending.
- October 15, 2015
The Supreme Court’s Barrage Bench had allowed the government to use the basis for PM Janshan Yojana, MNREGA, PF and Pension Scheme in addition to PDS, Kerosene and LPG distribution. Although arrangements were made to use only it has not been made mandatory. But the Supreme Court, while making changes in the order of August 11, has also given the exemption of use of the scheme voluntarily for these schemes. - 09 June 2017
Constitutional validity of Section-13AAA AA of the Essential Essential IT Act of the basis for IT returns was vindicated by the Supreme Court and it did not violate Article 14 and 19 of the Constitution, the bench headed by Justice AK Sikri said That the provision of 139 AA has been changed to the IT Act, under which it is a matter of mandatory basis for IT returns and there is a provision to link the basis of PAN.
The Supreme Court said that those who do not have PAN card will have to provide aadhaar for PAN and IT Act has been void in this regard. The court said that to provide new PAN, the Aadhaar number will be given. Those who have PAN card will depend on the decision in the case of Right to privacy related to the case basis, who have already enrolled the Aadhaar card, the Act will be applicable for them.
