)
About 10 state governments, the petroleum ministry, oil marketing companies and UIDAI are a party to the petition. Advocate Shyam Divan, who represented one of the petitioners, told a three-judge Bench UIDAI was collecting biometric and demographic data without any statutory backing. He argued while the biometrics of individuals were being encrypted by the authority, there was no protection of the “demographic” data being collected by “private” operators, adding these could be misused for commercial gains.
The Bench is headed by B S Chauhan and comprises judges M Y Eqbal and J Chelameswar.
Divan reiterated UIDAI had no statutory backing, adding the entity had entered into memoranda of understanding with state governments. He added as these had no legal basis, in case of any misuse or foul play, the enrolling agencies couldn’t be legally held liable. To this, judge J Chelameswar asked Solicitor General Mohan Parasaran whether UIDAI was a government agency or a “body corporate”. When Parasaran replied UIDAI was an attached office of the Planning Commission, Chelameswar asked if that was the case, why were the contracts not in the name of the president?
Parasaran sought time to respond to the question.
The court, which also sought the distinction between UIDAI and the home ministry’s National Population Register project, said if “Aadhaar is permissible for citizens, it should also be for non-citizens”, as this might help keep a check on them. This was in response to Divan pointing out UID numbers could be given to non-citizens as well.
The next hearing is slated for February 11 and the matter is expected to continue for sometime as five more petitioners have to present their case, before the government lawyers can respond.
During Tuesday’s proceedings, Divan also elaborated on how Aadhaar’s use for authenticating an individual at various points – such as ATMs, toll plaza, offices means that “central government has a method of tagging an individual,” through the electronic trail possible through the linkage. He called the authority unconstitutional and evoked the privacy concerns involved with the project.
The SC had passed an interim order on September 23 on the petition filed by retired judge of the Karnataka High Court K S Puttaswamy stating that no one should suffer due to unavailability of Aadhaar. Later, some central ministries, three public sector undertakings requested a modification of the order, along with UID Authority of India (UIDAI). Several activists like Aruna Roy joined the petition against the Aadhaar over issues such as privacy.
ALSO READ: Aadhaar's foundation questioned
ALSO READ: Govt cuts LPG dole link with Aadhaar, raises cylinder cap
