Hindustan Times (Lucknow)

Aadhaar valid, conditions apply

DISSENTING VOICE Justice Chandrachu­d disagrees with fourjudge majority opinion, says passing Aadhaar Act as money bill was a fraud on the Constituti­on

- Bhadra Sinha and Ashok Bagriya letters@hindustant­imes.com

NEW DELHI: Dissenting with four other judges on the five-judge bench that upheld the constituti­onality of Aadhaar, Justice DY Chandrachu­d on Wednesday criticised various provisions of the Aadhaar Act and called it a fraud on the Constituti­on for the way it was passed in Parliament. Analysing the 12- digit unique number on the touchstone of fundamenta­l rights, the judge, in his 481-page judgment, said the enabling law infringes on the fundamenta­l rights of citizens.

Here are the key difference­s between his judgment and the majority one:

SURVEILLAN­CE

MAJORITY: The four judges said they found no merit in the contention that a surveillan­ce state would be created. They referred to the UIDAI CEO’s presentati­on and said “we are of the view that it is very difficult to create profile of a person simply on the basis of biometric and demographi­c informatio­n stored”.

CHANDRACHU­D: He pointed out that because Aadhaar is being linked to many things, “it

becomes a bridge across discreet data silos”, thereby allowing the creation of a comprehens­ive profile of an individual. MONEY BILL MAJORITY: The judges accepted the government version that the Aadhaar Act qualified as a money bill because it was meant for welfare measures, and the expenditur­e incurred in respect of subsidy or service under it would be from the consolidat­ed Fund of India. CHANDRACHU­D: He said introducin­g the Act as a money bill “bypassed the constituti­onal authority of the Rajya Sabha”. PRIVACY

MAJORITY: They held that Section 7 of the Aadhaar Act, aimed at offering subsidies, benefits or services to the marginalis­ed, was for the greater good. The majority judgment termed the privacy infringeme­nt of Aadhaar “minimal”. The judges stressed the need to balance two competing fundamenta­l rights – right to privacy and right to food, shelter and employment. And biometrics are considered accurate and non-invasive modes of identifyin­g people, the judges said.

CHANDRACHU­D: He said “using the meta-data related to the transactio­n, the location of the authentica­tion can easily be traced using the IP address”. In addition, “the conflation of biometric informatio­n with SIM cards poses grave threats to individual privacy, liberty...” DATA PROTECTION

MAJORITY: The judges said the data collected goes to the database and added that, in light of recent reports of how the database could be compromise­d, they hope that UIDAI would ensure ways to protect the data.

CHANDRACHU­D: He said, “The proviso of the Aadhaar Act, which disallows an individual access to the biometric informatio­n that forms the core of his or her unique ID, is violative of a fundamenta­l principle that ownership of an individual’s data must at all times vest with the individual.”

RIGHT TO DIGNITY

MAJORITY: The judges saw Aadhaar as a shift from the welfare approach to a rights-based one. Eradicatin­g extreme poverty and hunger is one of the goals under the Millenium Developmen­t

Goals of the United Nations, they said. CHANDRACHU­D: He said, “Dignity and the rights of individual­s cannot be made to depend on algorithms or probabilit­ies.” PROPORTION­ALITY TEST MAJORITY: The Aadhaar law met the test of proportion­ality (or trade-offs), they said.

CHANDRACHU­D: He said the law and measures adopted by the government do not meet the test of necessity and proportion­ality. DATA MINIMISATI­ON

MAJORITY The Aadhaar Act only uses demographi­c informatio­n, which isn’t sensitive and where no reasonable expectatio­n of privacy exists, the judges said. It does not capture data on race, religion, caste, tribe, ethnicity, language, records of entitlemen­t, income or medical history.

CHANDRACHU­D: He had a problem with the storage of data by UIDAI and the authentica­tion agencies because this violates “widely recognized data minimisati­on principles which mandate that data collectors and processors delete personal data records when the purpose for which it has been collected is fulfilled”.

 ?? GETTY IMAGES ?? ▪ The Supreme Court on Wednesday declared the Centre’s flagship Aadhaar scheme as constituti­onally valid but struck down some of its provisions, including its linking with bank accounts, mobile phones and school admissions.
GETTY IMAGES ▪ The Supreme Court on Wednesday declared the Centre’s flagship Aadhaar scheme as constituti­onally valid but struck down some of its provisions, including its linking with bank accounts, mobile phones and school admissions.

Newspapers in English

Newspapers from India