Sabarimala...

In New Delhi, the top court hinted that it will decide on Tuesday when or whether to take up a clutch of petitions against its September 28 judgment that said divinity and devotion cannot be subjected to the rigidity and stereotypes of gender.

Travancore Devaswom Board (TDB), responsible for the administration of the 800year-old temple, said it will file a status report in the Supreme Court after the recent protests in which devotees clashed with police, damaged buses and even intimidated journalists.

The next challenge for the temple administration will be a three-month annual pilgrimage season beginning in the second week of November.

According to TDB, 35 million visited the temple last year in this period.

Kerala’s Left government has faced criticism by the opposition Congress and the Bharatiya Janata Party, as well as some fringe groups, over the handling of the emotive and religiously sensitive issue, but chief minister Pinarayi Vijayan has stressed that his administration is committed to implementing the top court order.

Braving heavy rains on Monday, two women, including a Dalit activist, tried to enter the temple even as police promised them protection.

In a story familiar by now, they too had to retreat in the face of angry protests.

Tension continued to stalk the base camps of Nilakkal and Pamba, from where the 5-km trek to the shrine begins, despite authorities imposing restrictions under Section 144 of the CRPC that prohibits the gathering of more than four people. Bhanumati Amma, a 62-year-old woman who has been camping near the 18 holy steps that lead to the sanctum sanctorum, said, “If a woman enters the temple, she will have to go over my body.”

“It is one of the most sacred pilgrimages in the country. Why are politicians and courts in a race to hurt devotees’ sentiments?” asked Nagarjuna Reddy, a doctor from Vijayawada who came to visit the shrine. Inspector general S Sreejith, who offered prayers at the shrine early on Monday, said, “I am a devotee but also dutybound.”

Arghya Sengupta

“The judgment isn’t clear on this question. It is clear on the fact that the circular that mandated Aadhaar linkage is unconstitutional. If that is bad in law, then actions taken under that law are also illegal. The court has not said whether this applies prospectively, or if there’s going to be some time period for compliance,” said Arghya Sengupta, research director, Vidhi Centre for Legal Policy, which provided assistance to the UIDAI in drafting the Aadhaar Act.

The SC has scrapped the department of telecommunications circular, but hasn’t specified what happens to actions taken under that circular, he said. “I would say that if the SC were to order someone to delete data that has been collected, then that would be one thing. On the other hand, to keep data when there is no clear direction to that effect may not also be correct. Since this aspect has not been deliberated upon, and is one that is quite significant for public interest, a clarification must be sought from the court,” Sengupta added.

“In the silence of the majority, you can’t say this one aspect of the minority could plug this void. That’s a wrong way to read the judgment.”

Telcos don’t have to delete Aadhaar data: Rahul Matthan

Reading the text of the judgment closely, Rahul Matthan, a partner-lawyer in technology and media practice at the law firm Trilegal, and author of Privacy 3.0., said, “I don’t think telcos need to delete Aadhaar data. The majority opinion is the operational part of the judgment. Justice Chandrachud wrote the dissent and so what he said cannot alter the operational part of the judgment.”

“One argument being used is that when the minority concurs with the majority on an issue, anything additional it says on that point amplifies the majority. The majority says Aadhaar should not be linked to mobile numbers and because the dissent not only agrees with this but goes further and asks for Aadhaar data to be deleted, some are arguing that telecom data should be deleted. I disagree. A dissent cannot be a partial dissent. Justice Chandrachud disagrees with the majority and has recorded his views without any attempt to impose them on the majority. We have to respect that and trust that if the majority had agreed they would have reflected his views in the operational judgment,” Matthan said.

Matthan also highlighted some of the gaps in the judgment. “In reading down section 57, the judgment has only said that private companies cannot use the authentication system. Nowhere has it said that data previously collected by them must be deleted. In fact, in para 367, they say that a person may use his Aadhaar card voluntarily as a proof of identity. Justice Chandrachud is the only one who speaks of deletion and even he only speaks of it in the context of telcos. Nothing has been mentioned in the context of banks or anything else.” industry body of mobile service bodies, have all said telcos will not delete data unless requested by the customer.

“The Honourable Supreme Court in its judgment in Aadhaar case has nowhere directed that the mobile number which has been issued through Aadhaar EKYC has to be disconnected. If anybody wishes to get her/his Aadhaar EKYC replaced by the fresh KYC, s/he may request the service provider for delinking of her/his Aadhaar by submitting fresh OVDS as per earlier DOT Circulars on mobile KYC,” UIDAI said in a joint statement with the department of telecommunications last week. Meanwhile, COAI has confirmed that telcos would not be deleting Aadhaar data unless specifically requested for. “There is no question of delinking Aadhaar en-masse. Delinking will be done only on the customer’s request,” said Rajan Mathews, director general, COAI.