- The apex court rejected plea of a Gujarat government lawyer that misuse of personal information could be dealt with on a "case-to-case basis" and said an all-embracing guideline was needed keeping in mind the size of the population of India.
- The bench also referred to the fact that India was a signatory of a 1948 international convention which recognised privacy as a human right.
- Referring to arguments put forward by the Maharashtra government on the issue, the court said, "Even if we accept it that the Constituent Assembly dealt with it (privacy issue) and decided against including it as a fundamental right, then how you will deal with the fact that India is a signatory to the Universal Declaration on Human Rights which recognises it."
- The bench, which also comprised justices J Chelameswar, S A Bobde, R K Agrawal, R F Nariman, A M Sapre, D Y Chandrachud, Sanjay Kishan Kaul and S Abdul Nazeer, said that there has to be an "overarching" or all-embracing guideline to ensure that the private information of individuals, put in public domain, was used only for an intended purpose.
- "If I give personal information like names, parents' name and telephone numbers for a particular purpose, then a reasonable expectation will be that it is used only for that particular purpose... (Otherwise) how we will deal with the violations?" it asked.
- On the issue that a large number of people have put their personal information in public domain, the bench said, "When you have so many users, then you cannot decide on facts of each case. You have to have over-arching principles or guidelines to regulate."
- Additional Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, representing the Unique Identification Authority of India (UIDAI) and the Madhya Pradesh government, said that even the state cannot track the activities of an individual by using the Aadhaar number and moreover, there are enough safeguards provided in the Act to protect personal information.
- "Privacy is inherently a vague and subjective concept which is incapable of any precise definition and its contours cannot be conferred with a status of a fundamental right," Mehta said.
- The arguments would continue tomorrow in the apex court which said that it might reserve the verdict in the matter.
First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win. -Mahatma Gandhi
In matters of conscience, the law of the majority has no place. Mahatma Gandhi
I have written earlier that UID/Aadhaar was a poorly designed, unreliable and expensive solution to the really good idea of providing national identification for over a billion Indians. My petition contends that UID in its current form violates the right to privacy of a citizen, guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution. This is because sensitive biometric and demographic information of citizens are with enrolment agencies, registrars and sub-registrars who have no legal liability for any misuse of this data. This petition has opened up the larger discussion on privacy rights for Indians. The current Article 21 interpretation by the Supreme Court was done decades ago, before the advent of internet and today’s technology and all the new privacy challenges that have arisen as a consequence. Rajeev Chandrasekhar, MP Rajya Sabha
Here is what the Parliament Standing Committee on Finance, which examined the draft N I A Bill said.
1. There is no feasibility study of the project]
2. The project was approved in haste
3. The system has far-reaching consequences for national security
4. The project is directionless with no clarity of purpose
5. It is built on unreliable and untested technology
What was said before the elections:
NPR & UID aiding Aliens – Narendra Modi