A panel of five Supreme Court justices will hear the case on June 9. (Folder)
New Delhi:
Supreme Court to rule on June 9 on requests to reconsider verdict confirming Centre’s flagship Aadhaar program as constitutionally valid but rescinding some of its provisions, including its link to bank accounts, cell phones and admissions in schools.
A bench of five judges, made up of Chief Justice SA Bobde and judges AM Khanwilkar, DY Chandrachud, Ashok Bhushan and L Nageswara Rao, will consider the oral argument by which they challenged the verdict of September 26, 2018.
The written submissions filed by lead counsel Shyam Divan on behalf of the petitioners requested that the hearing be heard in public and stated that they challenged the accuracy of the judgment on the grounds that the Aadhaar (targeted delivery of grants, benefits and financial and other services). The 2016 law was incorrectly certified as a money bill by the president of Lok Sabha.
<< It is alleged that Aadhaar failed to meet the strict standard set out in Article 110 (1). That legislation which has serious consequences on the right of citizens to be adopted without regard to Rajya Sabha is nothing more than a fraud on the Constitution, as noted in the minority judgment, "said the written statement filed through the lawyer Vipin Nair.
The petitioners referred to two superior court verdicts, one of which was dated November 13 of last year, by which the supreme court had entirely quashed the rules formulated by the Center on the conditions of appointment and service of members. of various courts, and made the issue of examining the validity of the adoption of the 2017 finance law as Money Bill bigger.
The other verdict, which was quoted by the petitioners, is that of November 14 of last year, in which the district court had referred to a larger court the applications for review of its historic 2018 judgment authorizing the women and girls of all ages to enter the Sabarimala of Kerala. temple, as well as other contentious issues of alleged discrimination against Muslim women and Parsi.
“In view of this, it is humbly requested that this court be happy to authorize IA No. 6225/2019 and give the petitioners the opportunity to make an oral presentation before a public hearing, in order to allow them to explain and justify their reasons for reconsidering the judgment under review, “said Divan’s written submission.
Observing that Aadhaar does not tend to create a “surveillance state” or to violate the right to privacy, the Supreme Court declared on September 26, 2018 that the Centre’s biometric identity project was constitutionally valid but in limited the scope, judging that it was not compulsory for bank accounts, mobile connections or school admissions.
A five-judge constitutional court led by then chief justice Dipak Misra said that although Aadhaar would remain mandatory for filing the tax return and assigning a permanent account number (PAN) , it would not be mandatory to link Aadhaar to bank accounts and the telecommunications service providers cannot search for its connection for mobile connections.
In a 4-1 verdict which also quashed certain disputed provisions of the Aadhaar law, the highest court had, however, held that Aadhaar would remain mandatory for filing the income tax return (RTI) and assigning an account number permanent (PAN) and for benefiting from the facilities of social protection schemes and government grants.
“It is better to be unique than the best. Because being the best makes you number one, but being unique makes you the only one,” the supreme court said after a long and deadly court battle against the government’s ambitious plan. … the largest biometric identification database in the world.
Deciding that seeding Aadhaar would not be necessary to open bank accounts, benefit from mobile services, by CBSE, NEET, JEE, UGC and for school admissions and free education for children, the Superior Court had observed that Aadhaar had also become a household name and that its use had spread like wildfire.
He ruled unconstitutional the part of section 57 of the 2016 law on targeted delivery of subsidies and financial benefits and other services (Aadhaar) that authorized private entities such as telecommunications companies or other companies to take advantage of Aadhaar’s biometric data.
Judge DY Chandrachud, who was a member of the judiciary, delivered a dissenting judgment in which he ruled that the Aadhaar law should not have been adopted as a monetary bill because it amounted to fraud in the Constitution and is likely to be canceled.
But the majority verdict of the other four judges, including the CJI at the time, confirmed the passage of the Aadhaar bill as a monetary bill by Lok Sabha.
Observing that Aadhaar was supposed to help the benefits to reach the marginalized layers of society, he said that the regime took into account the dignity of people not only from a personal point of view but also from the point of view of the community and served the much greater public interest. .
