Supreme Test

Aadhaar-related cases could tell us whether our jurisprudence is fit for an age of technology

Written by Pratap Bhanu Mehta | Published:May 6, 2017 12:05 am
Aadhaar card, Aadhaar, unique identification, SC Aadhaar, PAN cards, Aadhaar PAN cards, Fake pan cards, Biometric data, Aadhaar news, India news, Indian Express It will also be a test case for whether the checks and balances of our constitutional scheme stand, or whether they will get blown away at the slightest whiff of executive power.

The challenge to Section 139 AA of the Income Tax Act, otherwise known as the Aadhaar/Pan challenge, is an immensely consequential case for the credibility of the Supreme Court. This is not the occasion to rehearse the specific arguments at stake. Some of the concerns have been expressed in a previous column. The legal scholar Gautam Bhatia’s summaries are a wonderfully accessible introduction to the arguments presented in court. But it is important to remember why this case will have huge ramifications for the institutional credibility of the Supreme Court. It will also be a test case for whether the checks and balances of our constitutional scheme stand, or whether they will get blown away at the slightest whiff of executive power.

First, the court has created a credibility crisis for itself. Its mendacious evasions on the issue of privacy rights emanating from Aadhaar have eroded its credibility. In a context where the Supreme Court has found time to take over entire private bodies like the BCCI and run them, the idea that it did not have time to conduct hearings since October 2015 on an issue of such vital importance is frankly scandalous. That delay tied the petitioners’ hand even in the case at hand, where they could not invoke the privacy-based argument. Some deft lawyerly ingenuity has injected those arguments in this case anyway. But it is an Orwellian conception of constitutional justice when petitioners cannot make arguments because ostensibly, those arguments are being heard, except there are no hearings.

Second, the state has taken an aggressively anti-rights stand, one that goes way beyond what even any moderate case for well-defined uses of Aadhaar would warrant. The idea that there is no right to privacy, or that we have no absolute right over our bodies is, in the form in which the state deploys them, chilling. We can cut some rhetorical slack for the fact that this could be a way of countering some extreme arguments that would make even reasonable administrative measures impossible. But even plausible limitations to a right, or a claim that a particular administrative measure does not actually violate a right, depend upon specifying the nature and content of the right in the first place. The state is blithely acting as if no rights were at stake. By refusing to clarify the nature and scope of these rights, the court is abetting the state’s presumptuousness. This anti-rights aggression by the state, its short shrift to protections, is actually weakening trust in the state.

Third, the delay in sorting out matters relating to Aadhaar has given the executive carte blanche to go ahead and change the facts on the ground to the point where we might be just handed a fait accompli. Governance by fait accompli is neither just, nor legitimate. The Supreme Court’s own authority and orders are being subverted in the notifications for the use of Aadhaar; the amendment to the IT Act is a backdoor means of getting what the Aadhaar Act does not seem to provide. The Supreme Court needs to decide whether its word means anything at all.

The substantive merits of Aadhaar can be debated. But the most disturbing thing about the manner in which Aadhaar has been enacted is the disregard for all institutional proprieties. Aadhaar seems to be making all institutions niraadhaar. For a long time, it operated without governing legislation. Then, the legislation came in the form of a money bill that has, in effect, nullified every principle of parliamentary accountability that we know of. It has also set a dangerous precedent which is now being deployed with impunity in legislation. Historically, the courts have created legitimacy for themselves, not by meddling in policy and governance or populist grandstanding, but by making sure that the institutional forms of a democracy are respected. The courts’ increasingly monumental silence on these issues is mystifying.

Fourth, the court has come under a lot of criticism that the sophistication of its “policy jurisprudence” falls short of the requirements of a modern economy and regulatory state. Some of this criticism may be exaggerated. But there is reason to think that the court’s understanding of complex economic and regulatory issues needs to evolve. But we are now entering a world of unprecedented technological advances. And here, the gap between the needs of our time and our laws may be even wider. Many technological changes will enable new economic possibilities. These will also have a far-reaching impact on the nature of surveillance, the threats we face, our deepest sense of self, and our moral vocabulary. They are creating new forms of power relations and vulnerability that will severely test traditional institutions.

The Aadhaar-related cases are the most significant test of whether our jurisprudence is fit for an age of technology, whether it has the care, sophistication and nuance to measure up to the challenges of our era. These cases give the Supreme Court an opportunity to establish itself as an intellectual leader in this area. It can choose to pick up the mantle or become an exemplar of intellectual abdication.

Finally, one of the court’s functions is the articulation of a constitutional morality that cuts through moral cant. In the absence of that constitutional leadership, the vacuum is filled by all kinds of specious arguments. Two arguments are particularly troubling. One is the implicit contrast being set up in the Aadhaar debate between the rights of the poor and the rights of the rich: Aadhaar for poor service delivery recipients, not for the privileged. The rich and poor are differently situated. But the core issues are similar: Aadhaar was supposed to be an enabler, not a means of denying rights. What is the redress where the poor are being denied rights? The accountability of the authentication process affects everybody. This case should be about common rights as citizens, not about different classes of people. The second is the culturalist cant going around: “Privacy is not an Indian idea”, or that foreign and comparative law is not applicable for this reason.

Of course there are cultural variations. But the idea that challenges emanating from the powers of a modern state, protecting people against the denial of rights, surveillance, data sharing, invasions of the body, can be settled by culturalist arguments is plain nonsense. The Supreme Court needs to call this bluff before it becomes legal common sense.

Not since ADM Jabalapur has the Supreme Court faced such a crisis of credibility. The urgency and clarity of the court in the Aadhaar cases will decide whether it can overcome that crisis.

The writer is president, CPR Delhi and contributing editor, ‘The Indian Express’

For all the latest Opinion News, download Indian Express App

  1. M
    mr rick
    Jul 9, 2017 at 1:22 pm
    Do you know that you can hack any ATM machine !!! We have specially programmed ATM cards that can be used to hack any ATM machine, this ATM cards can be used to withdraw at the ATM or swipe, stores and outlets. We sell this cards to all our customers and interested buyers worldwide, the cards has a daily withdrawal limit of $5000 in ATM and up to $50,000 spending limit in stores. and also if you in need of any other cyber hacking services, we are here for you at any time any day. Here is our price list for ATM cards: BALANCE PRICE $2,500----------------$150 $5,000----------------$300 $10,000 ------------- $650 $20,000 ------------- $1,200 $35,000 --------------$1,900 $50,000 ------------- $2,700 $100,000------------- $5,200 The price include shipping fees,order now: via email...rickatmcardoffer also add us up on whatsapp_
    Reply
    1. A
      alicia julio
      May 25, 2017 at 1:01 am
      I am Alicia Julio from Spain, I want to share my testimony on how i got the blank ATM card. I was so wrecked that my company fired me simply because i did not obliged to their terms, so they hacked into my system and phone and makes it so difficult to get any other job, i did all i could but things kept getting worse by the day that i couldn’t afford my 3 kids fees and pay my bills. I owe so many people trying to borrow money to survive because my old company couldn’t allow me get another job and they did all they could to destroy my life just for declining to be among their evil deeds. haven’t given up i kept searching for job online when i came across the testimony of a lady called Judith regarding how she got the blank ATM card. Due to my present state, i had to get in touch with Hacker called OSCAR WHITE of oscarwhitehackersworld@gmail and he told me the procedures and along with the terms which i agreed to abide and i was told that the Blank card will be deliver to me without
      Reply
      1. A
        Amit Singh
        May 8, 2017 at 12:44 pm
        Signs are ominous Mr. Mehta. I have gut feel that supreme court is again going to fail its citizens as in ADM Jabalpur.
        Reply
        1. G
          Gopal
          May 8, 2017 at 4:10 am
          This article shows the nexus that exists within sections of our intelligentsia and the judiciary to thwart democracy and good governance. The place to debate Aadhaar is the parliament and even in these papers. The court is the place to argue the law not to create new law. Instead, the article throws out meaningless terms like “cons utional morality” which properly translates into “my morality dictated by my politics to create my laws”. It is as deeply anti-democratic as it gets. Aadhaar solves a number of critical delivery problems and reduces the scope for corruption by eliminating the possibility of duplication. Our intelligentsia and our judiciary is master of rhetoric – they speak in the name of the poor to push for policies that increase corruption and worsen the delivery of services.
          Reply
          1. S
            Shyamal Kumar Chakraborty
            Jul 1, 2017 at 5:52 pm
            You've misunderstood. The author's contention was that the court was expected to protect democratic ins utions and the cons ution -- and its protracted silence on privacy issues are disturbing. You forget that debate on Aadhaar was bypassed by making it a money bill. Don't let the government dupe you. Unless of course...
            Reply
          2. N
            Nayantara
            May 7, 2017 at 9:52 pm
            As usual, only Indian Express has the guts to publish articles like this.
            Reply
            1. S
              Seshubabu Kilambi
              May 7, 2017 at 8:05 pm
              Aadhar test will be the ' foundation' of surveillance
              Reply
              1. M
                Murali
                May 7, 2017 at 4:32 pm
                Dear Mr. Mehta, Please read the article given below it shows how shallow your argument is. As a learned person i expected an holistic vision from you but not a unidirectional one.Without casting any malifide opinions about your, may we request your to read this article and provide a solution and not a problem. : economictimes diatimes /news/economy/policy/big-brother-100-small-brothers-are-watching-you/articleshow/58560199.cms Kind regards Murali Karri
                Reply
                1. N
                  N S
                  May 7, 2017 at 1:25 pm
                  what this man essentially saying is better SC struck down Aadhar linkage, if they do not do so myself and our ilk will abuse SC
                  Reply
                  1. Load More Comments