_edited_edited.jpg)
Case Name - Justice K.S. Puttaswamy (Retd) vs Union Of India
Case No. - Writ Petition (Civil) No. 494 of 2012
Relevant Acts and Section -
Parties Involved -
Petitioner: Justice K. S. Puttaswamy (Retd)
Respondent: Union of India
Facts of the Case
The Government Of India initiated a project called 'Unique Identification for BPL Families. A Committee was established for this purpose which recommended the creation of a separate Identification database. It was decided to launch the project in three phases.
January 2009 - The Indian Planning Commission submitted a notice to UIDAI.
November 2012 - Retired Justice K Puttaswamy and Mr Parvesh Sharma applied for PIL Writ Petition (Civil) No.
In a written statement, the plan has been widely challenged as it violates the fundamental rights of countless Indian citizens, namely, the right to privacy under Article 21 of the Indian Constitution.
A series of orders were forwarded to this application from time to time, some of which would be sent to us in the appropriate section.
In 2016, in contravention of the Aadhaar Act, these same Petitioners filed another application in writing challenging the decisions of the Act. All written requests are grouped together.
In May 2017, the former Minister of Trade Unions and Congress leader Jairam Ramesh moved to the SC to challenge the decision of the Aadhaar Bill to administer a debt.
Then, on August 24, 2017, the nine-judge panel of Hon'ble SC ruled that the right to privacy is a fundamental right. January 17, 2018, five-judge Supreme bench.
The court began hearing the case of Aadhar on April 25, 2018, in the Supreme Court of India.
Then, on May 10, 2018, SC upheld the decision of connecting Aadhaar with mobile.
Finally, on the historic day of September 26, 2018, the High Court of Hon'ble upheld the Aadhaar card constitution but overturned certain provisions of the Aadhaar Act, including the mandatory link of Aadhaar with bank accounts, cell phones, and school acceptance.
Issues of the Case
The issues raised in this case are: -
Whether the Aadhaar Project creates or is in the process of creating a monitoring environment and, therefore, is unconstitutional in this sector?
What is the maximum security that needs to be given to the collection, storage, and use of biometric data?)
Whether the Aadhaar Act and Rules provide such protection, including in respect of data minimization, purpose limitation, time period for data retention, and data protection and security?
That the Aadhaar law violates the right to privacy and is unconstitutional in this regard? (in terms of Sections 7 and 8 of the Aadhaar Act.)
Whether children can be brought within the ambit of Sections 7 and 8 of the Aadhaar Act?
That the following provisions of the Aadhaar Act and Regulations suffer as a result of a constitutional contravention:
Does the Aadhaar Act contradict the concept of a Government of Good Governance, Good Governance, and Constitutional Trust?
Can the Aadhaar law be passed as a 'Finance Bill' in terms of Article 110 of the Constitution of India?
Does Section 139AA of the Income Tax Act, 1961 violate the right to privacy and, therefore, is it unconstitutional?
Is rule 9(1)(a) of the Prevention of Money Laundering (Records) Act, 2005 and subsequent notices authorizing the linking of Aadhaar with bank accounts unconstitutional?
That the Circular of March 23, 2017, issued by the Department of Communications authorizing the connection of a mobile number with Aadhaar is illegal and unconstitutional?
That the actions of the respondents are in conflict with the interim orders issued by the Court, if so, are the consequences of that?
Arguments of the Petitioner
Petitioners had argued that the construction of Aadhaar, by its very nature, was possible and, therefore, could lead to exclusion in most cases. Therefore, instead of expanding the support, benefits, and services in the community sector as it is, there may be a tendency to exclude them from receiving such grants, benefits, and services.
The basic argument was that the strong implementation of the Aadhaar program could be a serious threat to the members and freedoms of the citizens of this country who should be protected by the Indian Constitution. It was also argued that Aadhar would oppose constitutional and ethical standards. It contained the power to make the intervening state a state of surveillance on the basis of the information that would be collected about each individual through the construction of an integrated electronic fence.
The majority of lawyers from various (though not all) Petitioners agreed that there would be no major dispute over the allocation of the Aadhaar number for the purpose of identifying residents in particular.
It was humbly argued that the Right to Privacy was an integral part of the Right to Life and Personal Freedom, and any restriction imposed on it must be in accordance with the law established by law; that is, it must satisfy the requirements of the Article 14 and 19. Also, the law that sets those limits must be fair, impartial, and reasonable. In terms of facts and circumstances of the case, the restrictions imposed by the government on the exercise of the right to privacy were both oppressive and unreasonable, as there was no proper separation, and there was no connection between that list and the purpose of the law.
The information sought from the public violates the integrity of the body and mind, in addition to being unlawful for the purpose of the Act. Also, religious segregation was not only discriminatory but also forced people to disclose their religion and violated Article 25 Constitution of India, 1950. In addition, making Aadhaar Cards obligatory for for-profit purposes and non-profit programs may limit people's choice; while placing them under the constant scrutiny of the state. This would mean a serious violation of the right to life as it would violate human dignity, which is a fundamental principle of the Constitution.
Arguments of the Respondents
Respondents stated in the affidavit that the respondent's attempt would ensure that no one who is eligible for such benefits etc., who is denied access to the form of such benefits, regardless of circumstance, is found to be guaranteed, his fingers or iris are not identical and lead to failure.
Respondents, however, dismissed the arguments of the petitioners that the enactment of the Aadhaar Act made the State accountable. It was reported that a small amount of blank information was obtained from the person who registered for Aadhaar. Personal information is affected, including name, date of birth, address, gender, mobile phone number, and email address. The last two are optional and are designed to transfer relevant information to AMH and One Time Password (OTP) authentication. This information was personal and always in the hands of the public.
Section 2 (k) of the Aadhaar Act explicitly provides that regulations may not include race, religion, nationality, ethnicity, nationality language, copyright records, income, or medical history. Therefore, sensitive information is not released. This straightforward release, in context, ensures that the scope for entering additional personal information is small and limited. It has also been argued that biometric data was limited to fingerprints and iris scans, which are considered advanced biometric information. Such information, too, is widely used around the world to determine who a person is. The argument was, the data collected was invalid and unaffected information.
Complete reports on data protection and confidentiality of information prepared by the Group of Experts by the Indian Planning Commission under the chairmanship of Retd. Justice A.P. Shah, presenting the report on October 16, 2012. Five key elements of the report were expected to serve as the basis for the legal defence concept of Privacy.
The framework proposed by the expert team was based on five key factors:
Technical neutrality and international cooperation
Multi-width privacy
Horizontal operation in state and non-government institutions
Compliance with privacy policies
A co-operative state
The Union Government, on 31 July 2017, had established a committee headed by Retd. Justice B N Srikrishna, a former Indian Supreme Court Judge to review the country's data protection policy and make recommendations. The Committee recently released its report and the first draft of the Personal Data Protection Bill, 2018, which carefully considers the processing of personal data where such data is collected, disclosed, shared, or otherwise processed within the Indian subcontinent. The bill included provisions and regulations from the European General Protection Regulation (EUGDPR).
Arguments in favour of Aadhaar and make it obligatory: -
Aadhaar will reconstruct the role of the state in the social sphere.
Aadhaar is the most widely owned ID in the country, with an estimated 92 crore people under it. Restricting the voluntary use of Aadhar could mean that most people will not be able to use it to access various social services.
Aadhaar can help eliminate duplication and impersonation on the muster roll and list of beneficiaries, closing the leaks that have now emerged in many social programs.
It will affect approximately one crore employees under MGNREGA, who use Aadhaar to pay their monthly salary, and about 30,00,000 pensioners.
Contrary to the privacy issue, UIDAI claims that the captured data is secure and encrypted directly to the source and that all biometric data stored on Indian Government servers is "with world-class security standards."
Aadhaar number will also help eliminate duplicate cards and fake cards for those who have benefited from these programs.
"Aadhaar" will be able to reduce the involvement of middle-class donors.
To date, government subsidies have had products such as food grains, fertilizer, water, electricity and service education, health care by providing them at a lower cost than the market to the beneficiaries. This has led to inefficiency. The Aadhaar-enabled DCT (Direct Cash Transfer) program will improve the situation and will ensure timely payments to target beneficiaries, reducing transaction costs and rewards.
There is a real chance that India can save thousands of rands by leaking by simply ensuring that subsidies are given to the right citizen.
In this way, the government's ability to focus and provide services to the right group of people increases as it receives investment (limited resources) where the mouth is. For example, in some places, the governments of the world have received Crores of duplicate allotment cards.
The government has imposed a condition that makes it obligatory to quote an Aadhaar number when applying for a PAN card and when submitting Income tax returns. The main purpose of this experiment is to link PAN with Aadhaar and, thus, and to identify tax refugees.
The Central Government reportedly objected to finding that people provided details of PAN cards purchased from fake documents. There were a number of cases where a person with multiple PAN cards ended up being used to transfer funds to shell companies. By forcing you to quote an Aadhaar number while applying for a PAN card, it will reduce this inconvenience.
Nandan Nilekani, the brain behind the Unique Identification Authority of India (UIDAI), recently said the government was serious about enforcing Aadhar. He said the move would improve the system and identify fraudulent practices in the country.
The Aadhaar Act regulations say that Aadhaar's personal number can be "permanently" abandoned or temporarily disabled by the Unique Identification Authority of India.
Citizenship after entry from neighbouring countries can be described as a "lost link" in India's efforts to rise as a major power. Aadhaar can be called a technology that links the drive in the right direction. "
Judgment of the Case
The Supreme Court affirmed the legitimacy of Aadhaar states that adequate security measures have been taken to protect the information, and it is difficult to present citizens on the basis of Aadhaar. A five-judge bench headed by CJI Dipak Misraaskas government to provide additional security measures and reduce data retention time.
Most commercial banks, payment banks, and e-wallet companies such as Paytm have so far been urging customers to do their KYC using an Aadhaar card and warning account holders that their services will be blocked if they fail. Now they can no longer search for Aadhaar data.
In addition to purchasing a new SIM card, telecom service providers may not request Aadhaar information from their customers.
CBSE, NEET, UGC students also do not need the Aadhaar number to appear in the tests. Even schools cannot claim an Aadhaar admission card.
The Aadhaar card is required for access to social security services and government subsidies as it empowers the poor and discriminated against.
The Supreme Court did the opposite for the children saying that no child can be denied benefits from any program if he or she does not have an Aadhaar card. The Supreme Court has overturned Section 57 of the Aadhaar Act on the grounds that it is "unconstitutional." This means that no company or private company may want to identify Aadhaar from you. The constitutional bench of the high court has also eliminated national security inequalities under the Aadhaar Act.
The prestigious Supreme Court said there was a significant difference between Aadhaar and other proof of ownership. Aadhaar cannot be repeated and is, therefore, a different reference. He also added that the main purpose of Aadhaar is to empower the targeted sections of the community while giving them ownership. Therefore, the Aadhaar card has been made mandatory for the acquisition of government welfare programs.
The Aadhaar program was one of the most prominent projects in the Indian Government. Launched with the sole purpose of empowering a targeted segment of society, it was launched as a program to provide a unique identification number for every citizen in India. This program has replaced many wars of privacy rights. The question of dignity, the choice of information, and consent form the basis of the claims for privacy rights surrounding the Aadhar system. On a historic day on 26 September 2018, a five-judge panel confirmed the implementation of the Aadhaar Act but overturned many provisions that led to a significant reduction in law enforcement.
The public judgment written by Judge AK Sikri, while declaring the Aadhaar Act to be unconstitutional, overturned provisions such as section 33 (2) and section 57. UIDAI said the plan was unreasonable. The limitation of the right to privacy and the constitutional principles of equality and dignity requirements are reduced while maintaining the constitutional function of the Aadhaar Act as appropriate.
However, in most cases, the demands of the right to self-determination and the right to choose are not protected by the observance of the law of Aadhaar. Aadhaar's need to obtain government schemes and benefits and to link Aadhaar to a PAN card approved by a majority decision of the Supreme Court does not provide a convincing constitutional reason. Even the slightest omission of beneficiaries of government schemes due to the lack of Aadhaar or the guarantee problem can lead to a violation of the protection of dignity as required by the constitution.
Although the majority repealed Article 33 (2) and Section 57, the larger basis for maintaining the Aadhaar law as a constitution failed to meet the test of reasonable intentions and reasonable means of suppressing the right to privacy. Aadhaar's decision explicitly condemns the possibility that private organizations may use a method of authenticity. It also sends a clear message that the right to privacy will now be paramount in any other legal action.
For a more simple understanding, refer to the article " How To Handle People Leaking Your Intimate Photos Legally?" by clicking the button below.
Comments