SC okays Aadhaar with restrictions

Govt barred from sharing personal info, has to publicise that Aadhaar is not mandatory, needn't be shown to claim benefits

The Supreme Court on Tuesday passed an interim order, which clarified that the government shall not share any personal information received on Aadhaar with any person or authority. It has to give wide publicity through electronic and other media that Aadhaar is not mandatory.

The production of the unique identity shall not be a condition to get any benefit provided by the government the court said. No one shall be denied social welfare benefits such as food and fuel from the public distribution system for not having the card.

 

These interim orders will prevail till a Constitution Bench decides the petitions alleging that the unique identity scheme violates the right to privacy. The three-judge Bench was hearing the question of right to privacy for three weeks and now it has referred the issue to a larger Bench.

The Bench headed by Justice J Chelameswar did not set any date for hearing the constitutional issues, but in the order merely stated that it will be heard “as early as possible”. The chief justice has to decide the date and the number of judges who will constitute the constitution bench.

 

A constitution Bench became necessary because the government, through Attorney General Mukul Rohtagi, had vehemently argued that there was no right to privacy enshrined in the Constitution. Several Constitution Benches of five judges had also asserted over decades that Article 21 of the Constitution granting life and liberty to all persons did not include right to privacy. Only smaller benches in recent times took it for granted that Article 21 includes right to privacy. The government argued that this is a grey area which should be decided by a larger bench consisting of judges more than five judges. This was accepted by the present Bench.

The whole morning was devoted to arguments on  the interim order to be passed till the final decision of the Constitution bench. The attorney general argued that almost 90 per cent of the people in the country have already been covered by the scheme. They did it voluntarily and it was not mandatory to get any benefit. The scheme was to “empower” the lower strata of society who do not have any identity unlike the well-to-do people who have passport or driving licence. Further, it also eliminates “ghosts” or fake who prevail in the field of public distribution system and other areas causing huge loss to the public exchequer. He asserted that withdrawing the scheme at this stage would be “retrograde step”.