The court reiterated its order of September last year that no one should suffer for not having the card. A bench of judges B S Chauhan and J Chelameswar passed the order in a case from Goa involving gang rape. A court there had asked the Unique Identification Authority of India (UIDAI) to share the biometric data of residents in the state to crack the case. The authority petitioned the high court at Mumbai against this but the latter did not prevent the sharing of Aadhaar details with the probe agency.
Solicitor General Mohan Parasaran, who argued for UIDAI, was told by the judges that they were receiving a number of letters complaining the government was insisting on an Aadhaar card for providing services despite the September order. “You issue instructions withdrawing the notifications making the Aadhaar card mandatory for availing of services,” the court said. Parasaran, who also represented the government said, “We will do it immediately.” The court observed it had already passed an order in this regard and it should be strictly implemented.
While staying the high court order, the Supreme Court issued notice to the Central Bureau of Investigation, which is probing the gang rape, seeking its response to the UIDAI petition.
The apex court has been hearing for some time a challenge to the validity of the Aadhaar scheme, moved in several public interest petitions. The hearings are yet to be completed.
The privacy issue, one of the main attacks on the scheme, was highlighted in this case of the gang rape of a seven-year-old girl in a school 14 months earlier. The investigators have some fingerprints and they want the Aadhaar cards of all residents to ascertain the identity of the suspects. The card is supposed to be the authoritative record for fingerprints, iris and facial images.
UIDAI told the Supreme Court if the high court upheld the Goa court order, it would open a floodgate of such demands by courts and other authorities. It said the UIDAI system was developed “for civilian use and for non-forensic purposes”. If the data is used for non-civilian purposes, it would affect scores of innocent people, the appeal said.
Sharing information with other agencies would violate a person’s right to privacy, since the current data sharing policy and guidelines clearly provided that biometric data cannot be shared without the consent of a resident, it was argued.
You’ve reached your limit of {{free_limit}} free articles this month.
Subscribe now for unlimited access.
Already subscribed? Log in
Subscribe to read the full story →
Smart Quarterly
₹900
3 Months
₹300/Month
Smart Essential
₹2,700
1 Year
₹225/Month
Super Saver
₹3,900
2 Years
₹162/Month
Renews automatically, cancel anytime
Here’s what’s included in our digital subscription plans
Exclusive premium stories online
Over 30 premium stories daily, handpicked by our editors


Complimentary Access to The New York Times
News, Games, Cooking, Audio, Wirecutter & The Athletic
Business Standard Epaper
Digital replica of our daily newspaper — with options to read, save, and share


Curated Newsletters
Insights on markets, finance, politics, tech, and more delivered to your inbox
Market Analysis & Investment Insights
In-depth market analysis & insights with access to The Smart Investor


Archives
Repository of articles and publications dating back to 1997
Ad-free Reading
Uninterrupted reading experience with no advertisements


Seamless Access Across All Devices
Access Business Standard across devices — mobile, tablet, or PC, via web or app
)