HARISH V. NAIR | MAIL TODAY | NEW DELHI, NOVEMBER 27, 2013 | UPDATED 08:49 IST
The Supreme Court, while hearing PILs against "mandatory" Aadhaar cards on Tuesday, mocked an argument that it was wrong to force children to part with personal details before they attain the age of consent.
"What consent are you talking about? Do you know 69 per cent girls in India are married off before the age of 18 without their consent and 30 per cent are made child labourers without their consent?" Justice B.S. Chauhan asked a lawyer, appearing for one of the petitioners, who pointed out that children in Kerala are forced to give their personal details as Aadhaar card is a mandatory requisite for admission to government schools.
"For such children rice, roti and dal is more important than consent for Aadhaar cards. Do you know majority of these students attend school because of mid-day meal? What is the quality of education? More than teaching, the teachers are involved in cooking the mid-day meal. Mr. lawyer, you are being impractical and uncalculative," Justice Chauhan said.
The bench was hearing a batch of petitions on the ground that Aadhaar cards violates and transgresses individual rights of citizens. The court asked states and union territories to respond to the petitions challenging the constitutional validity of an Aadhaar card and it being made mandatory for getting benefits under the government's social welfare schemes.
The apex court, in its interim order, had said that Aadhaar card should not be made mandatory for people to avail government services. The Centre, Unique Identification Authority of India (UIDAI) and three oil PSUs - IOCL, BPCL and HPCL - had later on moved the Supreme Court seeking modification of its earlier order that Aadhaar card is not mandatory and no person should suffer to get the benefits of government schemes.
The petitioners, including former High Court Judge K. Puttaswamy, are seeking to restrain the Centre and the UIDAI from issuing Aadhaar cards by way of an executive order of January 28, 2009. "It violates the right to privacy of individuals by collecting personal information which can be misused", senior advocate Shyam Divan, appearing for one of the petitioners, contended.
He submitted data for Unique identification number being collected by private individuals which presents a grave risk to the privacy of citizens.