The din against mandatory use of Aadhaar will increase in the coming days with yet another petition in the Supreme Court, challenging the provisions of the Act in its current avtar.
The top court on Tuesday will hear a new petition, drawn by advocates Udayaditya Banerjee and Samiksha Godiyal, challenging the Aadhaar Act and the notifications issued under section 7, days after it reserved its order on a batch of petitions challenging certain provisions of the Act and the compulsory enrolment for Aadhaar under the Finance Act.
In the petition, Shanta Sinha and one Kalyani Sen Menon have contended that the Act violates their fundamental right to self-determination among others. "There are certain things the government simply cannot do because it fundamentally alters the relationship between the citizen and the state. The wholesale collection of biometric data including finger prints and storing it at a central depository per se puts the state in an extremely dominant position in relation to the individual citizen," the petition read.
The petitioners have stated that the Centre, by issuing notification through its various ministries and making enrollment for Aadhaar compulsory, has flouted various interim orders passed by a three-judge bench and concurred upon by a constitution bench which asserts that Aadhaar is voluntary.
"Further the State cannot put itself in a position where it can track an individual and engage in surveillance…the notion of limited government would mean that every individual citizen and citizenry collectively are entitled to live work and enjoy their varied lives without being under the continuous gaze of the State," focusing on the right to self-determination and an individual's right to privacy.
The petitioners have also contended that the Centre has resorted to coercive measures in an attempt to compel the citizens to enroll for Aadhaar, a clear contradiction of the provisions of the Act. Besides, the petitioners have contended that the impugned Act coerces an individual to part with their personal information.
"No democratic country in the world has devised a system similar to Aadhaar which operates like an electronic leash to tether every citizen from cradle to grave. There can be no question of free consent in situations where an individual is coerced to part with its biometric information (a) to be eligible for welfare schemes and or (b) under the threat of penal consequences."
The petitioners have thus prayed for several measures of relief which will be argued upon before the same bench that has already heard a matter pertaining to a similar batch of petitions.
Senior Advocate Shyam Divan, who concluded his fiery argument against the Aadhaar Act, is expected to lead the charge for this petition as well.
Representing a batch of petitioners Senior Advocate Arvind Datar had submitted that unless the court intervened, if the government invalidated the Permanent Account Number (PAN) card if it was not linked to the Aadhar card — one of the provisions of the Finance Act, then an individual would be crippled.
While Datar restricted his arguments on the merits of the law, Divan took the opportunity to highlight how dangerous it would be to allow private entities — who have been contracted by the government to make Aadhar cards, access to your most important and personal details of your life.
"We gave birth to a state. We are sovereign. [Is the state] by an electronic leash, going to walk us around like a dog for the rest of our life?," he submitted. "No where in the world, electronic tagging to this extent is taking place. The last time citizens were numbered it was in [Nazi] concentration camps," Divan had said.
& ANALYSIS
While in earlier petitions only certain sections of the Finance Act were challenged, the new petition challenges the Aadhaar Act itself.
The petitioners contend that the Centre has resorted to coercive measures in an attempt to compel the citizens to enroll for Aadhaar, a clear contradiction of the provisions of the Act.
The Centre, however, had earlier itself submitted that the Aadhaar Act was not voluntary as it has been perceived and that the citizen has no absolute right over his body.
