Nifty99000 100%

Sensex99000 100%

Article rating: 3.5
Article rating: No rating
Article rating: No rating
Article rating: 3.0
Article rating: No rating
Article rating: 5.0
Article rating: No rating
Article rating: No rating
Article rating: No rating
Article rating: No rating
Article rating: No rating
Article rating: No rating
Article rating: No rating
Article rating: No rating
Article rating: No rating
Article rating: No rating
RSS

News

Aadhaar data collected from 2009 to 2016 ’badly drafted’: SC

Author: IANS/Wednesday, April 11, 2018/Categories: Government

Aadhaar data collected from 2009 to 2016 ’badly drafted’: SC

New Delhi, April 10 - The Supreme Court on April 10 said that the provision of Aadhaar Act that seeks to validate the data collected from 2009 to 2016 when the statute was enacted was "badly drafted" and it could not be read to mean waiving of fundamental rights of the people.

The five judge constitution bench headed by Chief Justice Dipak Misra told Attorney General K.K. Venugopal that the supposed deemed consent for parting with biometric data can't be stretched to mean waiving of fundamental rights to privacy of the people. 

Other judges on the constitution bench are Justice A.K. Sikri, Justice A.M. Khanwilkar, Justice D.Y. Chandrachud and Justice Ashok Bhushan.

The Aadhaar (Targeted Delivery of Financial and Other Subsidies, Benefits and Services) Act, that was enacted in 2016 seeks to validate the collection of biometric and demographic Adata of the people from 2009 till law came into existence in 2016 on the strength of administrative instructions.

Section 59 says: "Anything done or any action taken by the Central Government under the Resolution of the Government of India, Planning Commission bearing notification number A-43011/02/2009-Admin. I, dated the 28th January, 2009, or by the Department of Electronics and Information Technology under the Cabinet Secretariat Notification bearing notification number S.O. 2492(E), dated the 12th September, 2015, as the case may be, shall be deemed to have been validly done or taken under this Act."

Unimpressed by the argument advanced by the Attorney General, Chief Justice Misra said: "You have said that it was voluntary and with minimal invasion. We can't hold that the fundamental rights can be waived or compromised" by stretching the deemed consent to that extent. 

The court's observation as Venugopal sought to defend the data collected from 2009 to 2016 on the strength of administrative orders and without obtaining the consent of the people on the collection and storage of their biometric and demographic data.

The Attorney General said that people gave their biometric data voluntarily and at that point of time, it did not violate the privacy as right to privacy was not a fundamental right.

Defending the insertion of Section 139AA of the Income Tax Act that mandates the linking of PAN number with Aadhaar, Additional Solicitor General Tushar Mehta said that the said provision advanced the "legitimate interest of the State, it did not suffer from any lack of proportionality and was not arbitrary". 

He said that the provision was introduced to eliminate the duplicate PANs from the system, which he said were being used for illegal transactions. 

Mehta asserted that by linking Aadhaar with PAN helped in curbing the tax evasion, prevention, accumulation and circulation of black money and money laundering including preventing terror financing - which he described as legitimate state interest.

The top court's nine judge constitution bench had on August 24, 2017 while holding that right to privacy was fundamental, which is a intrinsic and core feature of life and personal liberty, had said that yet state can for legitimate reasons such as protecting national security, preventing and investigating crime could collect and store data about people.

"Apart from national security, the state may have justifiable reasons for the collection and storage of data", the majority judgment by Justice Chandrachud had said: "In a social welfare state, the government embarks upon programmes which provide benefits to impoverished and marginalised sections of society."

He had however calling for a robust data protection regime, which "requires a careful and sensitive balance between individual interests and legitimate concerns of the state". 

The constitution bench is hearing a batch of petitions by former Karnataka High Court Judge K.S. Puttuswamy, Magsaysay awardee Shanta Sinha, feminist researcher Kalyani Sen Menon, social activist Aruna Roy, Nikhil De, Nachiket Udupa and others challenging the constitutional validity of the Aadhaar scheme on the touchstone of the fundamental right to privacy.

Mehta will continue with his arguments on April 11.

Print Rate this article:
No rating

Number of views (89)/Comments (0)

Kavita Giridhar Mallya

IANS

Other posts by IANS
Contact author

Leave a comment

Name:
Email:
Comment:
Add comment

Name:
Email:
Subject:
Message:
x

Videos

Ask the Finapolis.

I'm not a robot
 
Dharmendra Satpathy
Col. Sanjeev Govila (retd)
Hum Fauji Investments
 
The Finapolis' expert answers your queries on investments, taxation and personal finance. Want advice? Submit your Question above
Want to Invest
 
 

Categories

Disclaimer

The technical studies / analysis discussed here can be at odds with our fundamental views / analysis. The information and views presented in this report are prepared by Karvy Consultants Limited. The information contained herein is based on our analysis and upon sources that we consider reliable. We, however, do not vouch for the accuracy or the completeness thereof. This material is for personal information and we are not responsible for any loss incurred based upon it. The investments discussed or recommended in this report may not be suitable for all investors. Investors must make their own investment decisions based on their specific investment objectives and financial position and using such independent advice, as they believe necessary. While acting upon any information or analysis mentioned in this report, investors may please note that neither Karvy nor Karvy Consultants nor any person connected with any associate companies of Karvy accepts any liability arising from the use of this information and views mentioned in this document. The author, directors and other employees of Karvy and its affiliates may hold long or short positions in the above mentioned companies from time to time. Every employee of Karvy and its associate companies is required to disclose his/her individual stock holdings and details of trades, if any, that they undertake. The team rendering corporate analysis and investment recommendations are restricted in purchasing/selling of shares or other securities till such a time this recommendation has either been displayed or has been forwarded to clients of Karvy. All employees are further restricted to place orders only through Karvy Consultants Ltd. This report is intended for a restricted audience and we are not soliciting any action based on it. Neither the information nor any opinion expressed herein constitutes an offer or an invitation to make an offer, to buy or sell any securities, or any options, futures or other derivatives related to such securities.

Subscribe For Free

Get the e-paper free