Rss

  • stumble
  • youtube
  • linkedin

SC Five-judge Constitution Bench to hear on #Aadhaar validity

Shifting of the enrolment operations into State premises would result in greater convenience for residents, says UIDAI CEO Ajay Bhushan Pandey. File picture

A five-judge Bench of the Supreme Court will hear on a bunch of petitions challenging the constitutionality of the Aadhaar scheme, primarily whether the scheme which requires the parting of biometric details of citizens to access welfare and benefits, is a violation of the right. The hearing will be held on July 18 and 19.

Attorney General K.K. Venugopal for the Centre and senior advocate Shyam Divan joined forces on Wednesday and made an urgent mention before a Bench led by Chief Justice of India J.S. Khehar for the early setting up of a Constitution Bench to hear the petitions.

Mr. Venugopal submitted that the scheme touches the lives of millions of people and its validity requires immediate adjudication by an appropriate larger Bench. The Chief Justice then fixed the hearing for July 18.

The Supreme Court had referred the case for hearing before a Constitution Bench in October 2015, but the case continued to hang in limbo ever since, despite several reminders from the petitioners. This is the first time that the Centre has formally joined the petitioners’ side to mention for an early hearing by a larger Bench.

Mr. Divan, along with advocates Vipin Nair and P.B. Suresh, submitted that the case had come up for hearing on July 7 before a three-judge Bench led by Justice J. Chelameswar, who had remarked orally that the constitutionality of Aadhaar scheme should be decided “once and for all” and probably by a nine-judge Bench.

The hearing commenced on July 7 with Justice Chelameswar enquiring why the court had not heard the main plea on the constitutionality of Aadhaar despite a Bench led by him, way back in 2015, having referred it for hearing by a Constitution Bench.

It was a three-judge Bench led by Justice Chelameswar which had on October 7, 2015 referred to a Constitution Bench the question whether a person can voluntarily shed his right to privacy by enrolling for Aadhaar to access government welfare services.

The court on July 7 also took note of the fact of the enactment of the Aadhaar Act giving the scheme a statutory status. The court had recently upheld a statutory provision making linking of Aadhaar with PAN mandatory.

During the hearing, Mr. Venugopal highlighted two judgments of the court — M.P. Sharma and Kharak Singh of 1954 and 1963, respectively, both of which had held that Article 21of the Constitution, including the right to privacy, was subject to reasonable restrictions.

M.P. Sharma case was decided by an eight-judge Bench of the Supreme Court while the Kharak Singh verdict was delivered by a six-judge Bench.

Hence, Mr. Venugopal suggested that it has to be first decided whether the petitions should be referred to a Bench of nine judges for hearing and decision.

Recently, the Centre had termed Aadhaar a “transformational home-grown IT project.” The Centre said on Friday that the fundamental right of identity and various e-governance initiatives of the government to provide food security, livelihood, jobs and health to the “teeming masses” cannot be sacrificed at the altar of right to privacy of an “elite” few who have neither applied for nor want Aadhaar.

One of the petitions being heard is filed by former NCPCR chairperson and Magsaysay winner Shanta Sinha, against 17 government notifications allegedly making Aadhaar mandatory to access welfare schemes and benefits.

http://www.thehindu.com/news/national/five-judge-constitution-bench-to-decide-if-aadhaar-violated-right-to-privacy/article19263018.ece

Related posts

Comment (1)

  1. K SHESHU BABU

    The supreme court constituting a larger bench to hear petition on the privacy aspect of aadhar is a positive step. The larger bench may give a transperant verdict on the issue

Leave a Reply

%d bloggers like this: