It’s been a busy day for the Supreme Court. Apart from the Aadhaar verdict, the top court today announced two other important decisions. This includes a five-judge bench’s decision in the reservation in promotions case, as well as Chief Justice Dipak Misra-led bench’s decision to allow live streaming of court proceedings.
All about Aadhaar
A five-judge bench comprising Chief Justice Dipak Misra and Justices AK Sikri, AM Khanwilkar, DY Chandrachud and Ashok Bhushan announced the much-awaited Aadhaar verdict today. Announcing the judgement, four of the five judges upheld the legality of Aadhaar.
While Sikri, Misra and Khanwilkar concurred, two other judgments were delivered by Chandrachud and Bhushan. The latter concurs with a majority part of Sikri’s judgment, except on three issues.
The national security exception for disclosure of Aadhaar information as per Section 33(2) was struck down by Sikri, Live Law reported. Section 57 of Aadhaar Act, which allows private entities to avail Aadhaar data, was also struck down.
In his judgement, Sikri was also quoted as saying that the Central Board of Secondary Education. University Grants Commission and schools cannot ask for Aadhaar for enrollment.
The top court has also stated that Aadhaar cannot be mandated for opening bank accounts. It also struck down mobile-Aadhaar linking. Meanwhile, the top court has stated that Aadhaar can be passed as a Money Bill. It also upheld pan-India linking of Aadhaar.
Meanwhile, the top court has stated that upheld the pan-India linking of Aadhaar
Justice Chandrachud in his judgement struck down Aadhaar. He also stated that the Aadhaar Act cannot be treated as Money Bill. Registering his dissent, Chandrachud was also quoted as stating that the absence of an independent regulatory framework compromises data protection. In addition, he stated that “allowing private players to use Aadhaar will lead to profiling which could be used in ascertaining political views etc of citizens.”
“Aadhaar program in its entirety is unconstitutional,” LiveLaw quoted Chandrachud as saying.
While Aadhaar has been upheld, several people, including lawyers and journalists, have hailed Chandrachud’s dissent.
The Bench had reserved its judgement on May 10 after a 38-day long hearing. It was hearing a string of writ petitions, pending since 2012, challenging the constitutionality of the Aadhaar project.
In the course of the hearing, the Unique Identity Authority of India (UIDAI) and the government had repeatedly reiterated that “Aadhaar has covered 99 per cent of the population and is voluntarily accepted as a unique identifier by the masses”.
An Aadhaar card gives the poor the dignity of an identity, the government argued, The Hindu reported.
This found some resonance in Sikri’s 40-page judgement summary. He stated that Aadhaar empowers marginalised sections as it gives them an identity.
However, the petitioners in the case had argued that “Aadhaar is an electronic leash that leads the gullible citizen towards a totalitarian State”, according to The Hindu. They had also argued that “aggregation of personal data of citizens in a central base is prone to leakage. The record of personal data of every citizen would enable the State in future to profile citizens, track their movements, assess their habits and silently influence their behaviour.”
You can find the complete judgement here.
Other judgements to look out for
The Supreme Court on Wednesday also agreed to live-streaming and video recording of court proceedings. “Sunlight is the best disinfectant,” NDTV quoted the top court as saying. The apex court added that public had a “right to know” and that live-streaming of proceedings will promote transparency in the judiciary.
The verdict was passed on a batch of petitions. This also included the petition filed by senior advocate Indira Jaising, law student Snehil Tripathi and NGO ‘Centre For Accountability and Systemic Change’ on the issue.
In another case, the top court stated that the judgment in the 2006 M Nagaraj vs Union of India case need not be referred to a seven-judge Constitution Bench. However, the bench held that the 2006 verdict “is wrong to the extent that it directs the collection of quantifiable data for providing reservations”.
The 2006 judgement dealt with the question of reservations in promotions for the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes community. In the case, the “Court had held that while the State governments are not bound to provide for reservations for the benefit of SC/ST communities when it comes to promotions, they must fulfil certain criteria should they choose to implement accelerated promotions for the SC/ST communities,” Bar and Bench reported.
The parameters had included backwardness of the class, the inadequacy of representation in the service and Compliance with Article 335 of the Constitution of India. The first two though “would be determined based on the quantifiable data which the State governments were required to collect and collate”, reports stated.
