The Supreme Court ordered the government to ensure that state governments do not insist on the unique identification or Aadhaar card for social security entitlements.
A bench comprising justices J Chelameswar, SA Bobde and C Nagappan reiterated its earlier order of September 23, 2013, which had asked authorities to desist from linking social benefits with Aadhaar cards. The bench is hearing a batch of petitions challenging the legality of what they say is an intrusive biometric system of identification run by private operators.
The top court had acted on fears expressed by activists that a large number of people would be excluded from the purview of state-conferred social security benefits such as unemployment allowances, the public distribution system (PDS), widows' pensions etc.
“It is brought to our notice that in certain quarters the Aadhaar card is being insisted (upon) by various authorities. We do not propose to go into specific instances. As a notice has been issued to the Centre and all states, we expect all authorities to scrupulously adhere to our interim order,“ the court said on Monday.
The bench had in its interim order directed that no person should be made to suffer for want of an Aadhaar card after the government insisted that it was a voluntary scheme and there was no coercion involved.
The bench indicated that it would now hear all petitions in the second week of July. The court shrugged off remarks by additional solicitor general Maninder Singh, who seemed to suggest that it was up to the states to ensure that the order was obeyed. “Don't say that. The Centre has dismissed state governments and imposed President's rule for not obeying your directions.We receive letters in private about authorities insisting on Aadhaar cards. It is your duty to ensure that states comply with our order. When I visited a village, people told me that even for payment of revenue or cess, authorities ask for Aadhaar,“ justice Chelameswar observed.
Senior advocate Gopal Subramanium, appearing for one of the PIL petitioners, former Karnataka High Court judge KS Puttaswamy , brought to the court's notice that authorities in several states were still insisting on Aadhaar cards for service such as subsidies, benefits and scholarships besides marriage and vehicle registration.
He said the Delhi government had issued a circular on March 9 insisting on Aadhaar cards for the registration of marriages.“Arranged marriage or love marriage? At least they don't say before you start loving you must have Aadhaar card,“ justice Chelameswar quipped sarcastically.
Subramanium had earlier pointed out that the Bombay High Court had even issued a circular insisting on Aadhaar cards before paying judges' salaries. Justice Bobde said Aadhaar was being insisted upon even for promotions. That circular has since been diluted, Subramanium told the court.
The petitions have challenged the scheme on the ground that it required an individual to part with personal information such as fingerprints, blood group and iris scans, and was hence violative of the right to privacy guaranteed to every citizen. They also claimed that the scheme was a waste of public money and would expose India's vulnerabilities on the security front to foreign powers as the scheme was completely in the hands of private entities.
A bench comprising justices J Chelameswar, SA Bobde and C Nagappan reiterated its earlier order of September 23, 2013, which had asked authorities to desist from linking social benefits with Aadhaar cards. The bench is hearing a batch of petitions challenging the legality of what they say is an intrusive biometric system of identification run by private operators.
The top court had acted on fears expressed by activists that a large number of people would be excluded from the purview of state-conferred social security benefits such as unemployment allowances, the public distribution system (PDS), widows' pensions etc.
“It is brought to our notice that in certain quarters the Aadhaar card is being insisted (upon) by various authorities. We do not propose to go into specific instances. As a notice has been issued to the Centre and all states, we expect all authorities to scrupulously adhere to our interim order,“ the court said on Monday.
The bench had in its interim order directed that no person should be made to suffer for want of an Aadhaar card after the government insisted that it was a voluntary scheme and there was no coercion involved.
The bench indicated that it would now hear all petitions in the second week of July. The court shrugged off remarks by additional solicitor general Maninder Singh, who seemed to suggest that it was up to the states to ensure that the order was obeyed. “Don't say that. The Centre has dismissed state governments and imposed President's rule for not obeying your directions.We receive letters in private about authorities insisting on Aadhaar cards. It is your duty to ensure that states comply with our order. When I visited a village, people told me that even for payment of revenue or cess, authorities ask for Aadhaar,“ justice Chelameswar observed.
Senior advocate Gopal Subramanium, appearing for one of the PIL petitioners, former Karnataka High Court judge KS Puttaswamy , brought to the court's notice that authorities in several states were still insisting on Aadhaar cards for service such as subsidies, benefits and scholarships besides marriage and vehicle registration.
He said the Delhi government had issued a circular on March 9 insisting on Aadhaar cards for the registration of marriages.“Arranged marriage or love marriage? At least they don't say before you start loving you must have Aadhaar card,“ justice Chelameswar quipped sarcastically.
Subramanium had earlier pointed out that the Bombay High Court had even issued a circular insisting on Aadhaar cards before paying judges' salaries. Justice Bobde said Aadhaar was being insisted upon even for promotions. That circular has since been diluted, Subramanium told the court.
The petitions have challenged the scheme on the ground that it required an individual to part with personal information such as fingerprints, blood group and iris scans, and was hence violative of the right to privacy guaranteed to every citizen. They also claimed that the scheme was a waste of public money and would expose India's vulnerabilities on the security front to foreign powers as the scheme was completely in the hands of private entities.
No comments:
Post a Comment