Aadhaar verdict in Supreme Court LIVE Updates: A five-judge bench will deliver the judgment today. (L-R) Chief Justice of India Dipak Misra, Justice A K Sikri, Justice A M Khanwilkar, Justice D Y Chandrachud, Justice Ashok Bhushan. (Express Illustrations: Suvajit Dey)
The Supreme Court pronounced its verdict on a clutch of petitions challenging the constitutional validity of the Aadhaar Act in which it upheld the constitutional validity of Aadhaar, but put restrictions on its use. A five-judge bench, led by Chief Justice of India Dipak Misra, reserved its verdict in the case on May 10 after a 38-day hearing.
The SC was to decide on whether the Aadhaar Act, 2016, is valid, if the government can demand biometric and demographic information from every resident of the country and if a citizen’s privacy is a fundamental right.
There were three separate judgments today from Justices Sikri, Chandrachud and Bhushan. The CJI and Justice Khanwilkar will not deliver separate judgments and have concurred with Justice Sikri. In his verdict, Justice Sikri has struck down portions of the law that made it mandatory for Aadhaar to be provided to private corporations for various services. The court said it can be used only for government services. It also said that children can’t be excluded from school admissions due to lack of Aadhaar.
Justice Chandrachud has said that the Aadhaar Act shouldn’t have been passed as a Money Bill and has also told telecom companies to delete all Aadhaar data received from customers.
Justice Ashok Bhushan has largely agreed with the majority verdict and also noted that seeking biometric data wasn’t a violation of an individual’s privacy.
Aadhaar verdict in Supreme Court today: On January 17,2018, a five-judge Bench began hearing the Aadhaar case. It reserved its verdict on May 10, 2018. (Express Illustration)
Rajya Sabha MP Rajeev Chandrasekhar said the top court's verdict reaffirmed the government's efforts to eliminate 'corruption and leakages in use of public money'. In a press statement, he said, "I welcome the Aadhaar judgement today by the Supreme Court as a petitioner who joined in the original Aadhaar petition in 2013. It reaffirms the steps that Narendra Modi government took to transform UPA Aadhaar into the current corruption free Subsidy delivery platform - to ensure that crores of poor Indians who had to struggle with corrupt middlemen to avail their Government benefits no longer have to do so."
The use of the Hindi word 'Aadhaar' would not lead a person to its dictionary meaning but everyone would associate it with the card used to identify an individual that has now virtually become a symbol of a digital economy, the top court had said, while delivering its judgement. Noting that Aadhaar had also become a household name, it said its use has spread like a "wildfire". "It is better to be unique than the best. Because, being the best makes you the number one, but being unique makes you the only one," SC said. The apex court also said that 'Aadhaar' has become a symbol of a digital economy and opened up multiple avenues for a common man.
Terming the verdict as a "victory", Unique Identification Authority of India (UIDAI) CEO Ajay Bhushan Pandey said the 4:1 apex court judgement announced is in favour of Aadhaar. "It is 4:1 judgement in favour of Aadhaar. The court has declared Aadhaar constitutionally valid. It is a money bill. It can be used for pan card. It empowers poor and marginalised section. Aadhaar can be used for subsidies and government schemes so that there is no leakage of government funds. It can be used for income tax so that tax evasion and black money can be curbed," Pandey said.
Reiterating Jaitley, Union IT Minister Ravi Shankar Prasad said, "This judgement is a judgement of empowering democracy and the marginalised. The court himself said no state-sponsored surveillance is possible. The Congress's stand on Aadhaar is nothing but arrogant."
"Everyone who has been criticizing Aadhaar should understand that they cannot defy technology. The mainstream should accept changes, one can understand the fringe being against," Jaitley said. Upping the ante against the Congress, he said, "The Congress cuts a very sorry figure here, they had introduced the idea but they did not know what to do with it."
Terming the SC verdict as a "historic order", Finance Minister Arun Jaitley said, "Aadhaar's concept has been accepted after judicial review. We welcome this decision of the Supreme Court."
Congress's Kapil Sibal says that they will move Supreme Court seeking that a larger bench consider whether the Aadhaar Act should have been passed as a Money Bill or not.
Only Justice Chandrachud on the five-judge bench said that the law shouldn't have been passed as a Money Bill and called it 'subterfuge'.
Lawyer for the petitioners, Arvind Datar, said that the judgment has said that no meta data, which is granular data within Aadhaar, can be further analysed.
He said they were happy that meta data from Aadhaar can' t be shared with private corporations. Now whatever data is stored for authentication has to be struck down after six months, the lawyer said.
The lawyer also said that the judgment has to be read carefully to understand what all has been said.
Lawyers like Apar Gupta, who have been vocal critics of Aadhaar, have said that the scheme has little legitimacy left.
Here's how others have reacted.
ANI reports that Attorney General KK Venugopal has said that he is "very happy with the judgement". It is a landmark and remarkable judgment, he said.
Congress spokesperson and lawyer for the petitioners Abhishek Manu Singhvi has said that the verdict is a blow for the BJP. He said that the judgment is very important. BJP spokesperson Sambit Patra also said this judgment a good one.
Just in case you missed it, the Supreme Court struck down various provisions of the Aadhaar Act while holding it constitutional.
Here's a guide on what each of these sections dealt with.
Chief Justice of India Dipak Misra, and Justices A K Sikri, A M Khanwilkar and Ashok Bhushan favoured the Aadhaar Act. Justice D Y Chandrachud dissented.
So in sum, Aadhaar stays but there are a lot more restrictions on who can seek the data of people.
Speaking outside court, lawyer for the petitioners Prashant Bhushan has said that the court has ruled that Aadhaar will not be mandatory any more. Bhushan said that there was a difference in opinion over whether the legislation could have been passed as a Money Bill. He said Justice Chandrachud's judgment is a very strong comment on how the bill was passed by Parliament. Bhushan says it gives major relief to people who have been complaining about needing Aadhaar for everything. Additionally, reports say that the judgement may be 1000 pages long. Talk about heavy reading.
In his judgement, Justice Askok Bhushan has said that seeking biometric details for Aadhaar does not violate an individual's fundamental right to privacy. He also said that Aadhaar's architecture does not facilitate surveillance, reports G Ananthakrishnan.
The Supreme Court's verdict on Aadhaar means it's no longer compulsory for you to provide Aadhaar-based fingerprint authentication for various services from private companies. Here's a helpful guide on what you don't need it for.
Justice Ashok Bhushan reading his judgment says that he "broadly agrees” with the judgement of Justice Sikri, which is the majority judgement.
Justice Chandrachud says seeding mobile phones with Aadhaar data poses grave danger to individual liberty, reports G Ananthakrishnan.In his judgment, the Supreme Court judge has instructed telecom operators to delete all data they have collected from users.
Justice Chandrachud has punches holes in Aadhaar safety and agrees with Justice Sikri that section 57 which requires private parties to seek Aadhaar is unconstitutional, reports G Ananthakrishnan
The Indian Express's G Ananthakrishnan has more inputs on the verdict being read.
"Ruling party many not have majority in Rajya Sabha, but it shouldn’t have introduced Aadhaar bill as Money Bill...That would qualify as subterfuge...The debasement of democratic institutions cannot be allowed," Justice Chandrachud says.
So here are the broad contours of the judgment so far - Private companies can't demand Aadhaar - Children can't be denied any benefit due to not having Aadhaar. So no Aadhaar is needed for school admissions or any other government scheme which benefits children. - You have to link your PAN card with Aadhaar but don't have to provide Aadhaar to banks, telephony companies or any other corporation- Individuals can approach courts to file cases under the Aadhaar Act.
One of the clauses of contention was the fact that Parliament passed the Act without the Rajya Sabha debating it. This is because it was classified as a money bill. However, Justice Chandrachud has said he differs with Justice Sikri on whether the bill should be a money bill. Justice Chandrachud says that it shouldn't have been a money bill.
The Supreme Court has also struck down a section of the law which prevented individuals from filing cases under the Aadhaar Act. Earlier, only the UIDAI and its officials could file cases, but now even indviduals can.
“Technology confronts the future of freedom itself...Quest for digital India must be cognisant of the digital divide...Digital nation must not submerge the identities of a digitised citizen,” says Justice Chandrachud.
No meta data to be stored in current form. If the information of a person’s personal information is sought to be released, he or she shall have an opportunity to be heard
Justice Sikri: "For children enrolment, consent of parent or guardian needed. On attaining majority, if child wants to exit, should be given permission to do so. Aadhaar not compulsory for school admissions."
Justice Sikri judgement strikes down Section 57 of Aadhaar Act, 2016, which says private body corporates can seek Aadhaar data. Says it’s unconstitutional.
Supreme Court satisfied that there is sufficent defence mechanism for authentication. Some provisions relating to authentication are however struck down. Section 33(2) (National security exception for disclosure of Aaadhar information), Section 57 of Aadhaar Act struck down. "We have concluded that it is simply difficult to care the profile of a person on the basis of data stored in CIDR. Authentication data should not be stored beyond 6 months. Current rule that it can be archived for 5 years struck down," Justice Sikri says.
Justice Sikri: "Education took us from thumb impression to signature. Technology has taken us from signature to thumb impression"
Justice Sikri says that concept of human dignity has been enlarged in the (privacy) judgment. Proportionality is to be adjudged after laying down certain certain norms: privacy, whether there's larger public interest...
Justice Sikri: The main plank of challenge to Aadhaar project and Aadhaar Act is that it infringes Right to Privacy. Justice Sikri says that heavy reliance has been placed on Privacy judgment of 2017.
Justice Sikri: 'Aadhaar eliminates any chance of duplication, Justice Sikri observes. Sikri also states that enrolment was fool proof. Justice Sikri says it empowers marginalised socities.' Justice Sikri also states that other documents submitted to obtain Aadhaar are valid documents of identity.
'Attack on aadhaar by petitioners is based on violation of rights under Part III of the Constitution, will lead us to become a surveillance State.'
Justice A K Sikri says he has written a judgment for himself, CJI Dipak Misra and Justice A M Khanwilkar. "It is better to be unique than to be best.. Aadhaar is based on being unique..." Justice Sikri says, reading out the majority verdict on Aadhaar. "Aadhaar has become the most talked about expression in the recent years," J Sikri adds.
The bench in court No 1 is currently assembling post which three justices will deliver their verdicts. Three of the justices will read out their verdicts. CJI Misra and Khanwilkar will not be reading out their verdicts as they have concurred with one of the three justices. Justice AK Sikri, Justice DY Chandrachud and Justice Ashok Bhushan will read out their verdicts in that order.
A battery of senior lawyers, including Shyam Divan, Gopal Subramaniam, Kapil Sibal, P Chidambaram, Arvind Datar, K V Vishwanath, Anand Grover, Sajan Poovayya and a few others, had argued on behalf of the petitioners opposing Aadhaar on various grounds. Besides former HC judge Puttaswamy, the top lawyers argued for petitioners, who included Magsaysay awardee Shanta Sinha, feminist researcher Kalyani Sen Menon, social activists Aruna Roy, Nikhil De, Nachiket Udupa and CPI leader Binoy Visman.
With the verdict expected in the next 30 minutes, here a quick look at the timeline of Aadhaar and its legal battle - right from its inception during the UPA tenure to the pending verdict that will be delivered today. Click here to read it.
Rajana Sonawane was the first recipient of the Aadhaar Card. It was in September 29, 2010 that the first card was handed over by UPA chairperson Sonia Gandhi. Sonawane, a resident of Tembhli, Maharashtra, said the card was the "aadhaar (support) of her life". "Wherever I go, it will come in handy... the card will be useful at the ration shop and for getting employment," she said.
The first challenge to the constitutional validity of Aadhaar came in 2012. A retired judge of the Karnataka High Court, Justice K S Puttaswamy, challenged the Aadhaar Act. Puttaswamy told The Indian Express that he “realised that the Aadhaar scheme was going to be implemented without the law being discussed in Parliament. As a former judge, I felt the executive action was not right. I filed the petition because I felt that my right was affected.”
Former Chairperson of UIDAI Nandan Nilekani earlier this year said there is an orchestrated campaign to malign Aadhaar.
“If you are just taking a negative view, and not a constructive view, then you also have other (negative) reactions. I think, everybody has to accept Aadhaar is here to stay,” Nilekani had said, adding he was confident of the Supreme Court upholding Aadhaar under the fundamental right of privacy because it meets the test of the law being proportionate and reasonable.
In January this year, a report in The Tribune claimed that there were gaping holes in the security of the database. The UIDAI denied the report and initiated legal proceedings against the reporter and the paper.
"The leaks, breaches and misuses have become too frequent for the denial to be convincing. The leaks have not been either sparse or rare... Some things have become clear over time. One, that the UID project is not just about the UIDAI," Usha Ramanathan, one of the key campaigners against Aadhaar, argued in an Op-ed piece titled 'All is not well for Aadhaar' in The Indian Express. You can read it here.
The Aadhaar hearing is the "second longest" one in terms of days of hearing after the historic Kesavananda Bharati case of 1973. The Kesavananda Bharati case, which was heard by a 13-judge bench, by a majority of 7:6 had propounded the doctrine of the 'Basic Structure and of the Constitution'. It had held that the amendments which may affect this structure were subject to judicial review.
The Supreme Court verdict on Aadhaar is expected anytime after 10.30 am when the CJI's court convenes. There will be three judgments read out - Justice AK Sikri, Justice DY Chandrachud and Justice Ashok Bhushan. Chief Justice of India Dipak Misra and Justice AM Khanwilkar have concurred with one of the above three judges and therefore will not be reading out their independent verdicts.
Among the main arguments by the government was that Aadhaar would help weed out ghost beneficiaries of welfare schemes. A note submitted by Attorney General K K Venugopal said “this is not simply a case where the court is being called upon to test the validity” of the Aadhaar Act “against the right to privacy of the petitioners”. Instead, it is a case “where on one hand the state is using Aadhaar as an enabler of various facets of the right to life of teeming millions of Indian residents including their right to food, the right to livelihood, the right to receive pensions and other social assistance benefits like scholarships etc. by the genuine beneficiaries whereas on the other hand it is sought to be struck down by a handful of petitioners claiming a right to privacy”.
Prasanna S, a lawyer who has assisted one of the petitioners in the Aadhaar case, writes about how the Srikrishna Committee report and a draft data protection bill are effectively an indictment of the UIDAI's many practices and principles. Prasanna argues that the draft bill unequivocally disapproves of the UIDAI’s practices that many of the safeguards sound as if the committee, of which the CEO of UIDAI is a member, intended to say sorry to the Indian public on behalf of the government. Read his piece here.
The Supreme Court’s verdict making individual privacy a fundamental right is likely to have an impact on today's Aadhaar judgment. The landmark privacy judgment has an impact on daily lives in ways that range from eating habits to online behaviour, and from sexual preferences to welfare scheme benefits. We compiled an A-Z on the privacy verdict. You can read that here.
Today's verdict will be delivered by a bench headed by Chief Justice of India Dipak Misra. It also comprises Justices A K Sikri, A M Khanwilkar, D Y Chandrachud and Ashok Bhushan. We are seeing several verdicts being pronounced this week as Justice Misra's term ends October 2. Before he retires, he is expected to deliver verdicts on all matters he was hearing during his tenure as CJI. In the Aadhaar matter, he has not written his own judgment and will concur with one of the other judges. Follow us as we get you the latest from Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court will pronounce the much-awaited verdict on Aadhaar this morning. The SC will address issues of validity of the Aadhaar Act, misuse for surveillance and right to privacy. The Aadhaar programme is the world’s largest biometric and identity database with 122.56 crore numbers issued to Indian citizens or persons living in India for more than 180 days; these have been used for 2,322 crore authentications.
Verdict day in Aadhaar battle: Here's a look back at the journey of UID