[Aadhaar] Read The Summary Of Majority (4:1) Judgment

Much awaited Aadhaar Judgment is finally out.The judgment authored by Justice AK Sikri, which has concurrence of Chief Justice Dipak Misra and Justice AM Khanwilkar, has read down some of the provisions of the Aadhaar (Targeted Delivery of Financial and Other Subsidies, Benefits and Services) Act 2016, struck down a few but significant ones (mainly Section 33(2), 47 and 57), and upheld the rest.Chronology of Aadhaar case* Jan 2009: Planning Commission notification on UIDAI.* 2010-2011: National Identification Authority of India Bill, 2010 introduced.* Nov 2012: Retired Justice K S Puttaswamy and others file PILs in SC challenging validity of Aadhaar.* Nov 2013: SC orders all states and Union Territories be impleaded as respondents.* Mar 3, 2016: Aadhaar Bill, 2016 introduced in Lok Sabha; later passed as Money Bill.* May 2017: Former Union minister and Congress leader Jairam Ramesh moves SC Challengingthe Centre's decision to treat Aadhaar bill as a money bill.* Aug 24, 2017: SC nine-judge bench rules that right to privacy is a fundamental right.* Dec 15: SC extends deadline for mandatory linking of Aadhaar with various services and welfare schemes till March 31, 2018.* Jan 17, 2018: SC five-judge bench begins hearing Aadhaar case.* Jan 25: SC asks Chhattisgarh HC to modify in 10 days its order directing all trial courts in the state to mandatorily accept copies of Aadhaar card for releasing an accused on bail.* Feb 19: Delhi BJP leader Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay seeks direction to EC to take appropriate steps to implement an Aadhaar based election voting system'.* Feb 21: SC says the alleged defect that citizens' biometric details under the Aadhaar scheme were being collected without any law, could be cured by subsequently bringing a statute.* Mar 7: SC says Aadhaar number not mandatory for enrolment of students in all India exams.* Mar 13: SC extends March 31 deadline of Aadhaar linking till it gives its order.* Mar 22: UIDAI CEO says breaking the Aadhaar encryption may take "more than the age of the universe for the fastest computer on earth".* Mar 28: Social activist Reshma Prasad seeks direction to the Centre to create a separate third gender category option on PAN cards for transgenders.* Apr 3: Centre tells SC Aadhaar law is just, fair & reasonable.* Apr 17: SC raises concerns that there is a threat of Aadhaar data misuse.* Apr 25: SC questions Centre on mandatory seeding of Aadhaar with mobile.* May 10: SC reserves verdict.* Sep 26: SC upholds constitutional validity of Aadhaar but strikes down certain provisions including its linking with bank accounts, mobile phones and school admissions.The following summary from the judgment gives clear idea about which all provisions got erased from the statute and which all will remain in a changed form. Section 2(d) which pertains to authentication records, such records would not include metadata as mentioned in Regulation 26(c) of the Aadhaar (Authentication) Regulations, 2016. Therefore, this provision in the present form is struck down. Liberty, however, is given to reframe the regulation, keeping in view the parameters stated by the Court. Insofar as Section 2(b) is concerned, which defines ‘resident’, the apprehension expressed by the petitioners was that it should not lead to giving Aadhaar card to illegal immigrants. We direct the respondent to take suitable measures to ensure that illegal immigrants are not able to take such benefits. Retention of data beyond the period of six months is impermissible. Therefore, Regulation 27 of Aadhaar (Authentication) Regulations, 2016 which provides archiving a data for a period of five years is struck down. Section 29 in fact imposes a restriction on sharing information and is, therefore, valid as it protects the interests of Aadhaar number holders. However, apprehension of the petitioners is that this provision entitles Government to share the information ‘for the purposes of as may be specified by regulations’. The Aadhaar (Sharing of Information) Regulations, 2016, as of now, do not contain any such provision. If a provision is made in the regulations which impinges upon the privacy rights of the Aadhaar card holders that can always be challenged. Section 33(1) of the Act prohibits disclosure of information, including identity information or authentication records, except when it is by an order of a court not inferior to that of a District Judge. We have held that this provision is to be read down with the clarification that an individual, whose information is sought to be released, shall be afforded an opportunity of If such an order is passed, in that eventuality, he shall also have right to challenge such an order passed by approaching the higher court. During the hearing before the concerned court, the said individual can always object to the disclosure of information on accepted grounds in law, including Article 20(3) of the Constitution or the privacy rights etc. Insofar as Section 33(2) is concerned, it is ...

[Aadhaar] Read The Summary Of Majority (4:1) Judgment

Ashok Kini

Tags