Posted on Thursday, October 08, 2015 by Chelsea West
India's Aadhaar Program Faces Judicial Setback
However, since the Chief Justice of India has the powers to constitute a constitution bench, he can expedite the bench for Aadhaar if the Centre succeeds in convincing the court about its urgency.
The present Supreme Court ruling however, can be considered a victory for privacy advocates who have been attacking Aadhaar over privacy concerns since the UID uses biometric data which will be available to various authorities and organisations if it is extended for other services.
Refusing to modify its August 11 interim order allowing linking Aadhaar cards with only public distribution system for distribution of food grains, cooking fuels and LPG cylinders, the Supreme Court today said demands to extend it to more schemes shall be dealt with by the larger constitution bench to which the matter is being referred to. The Centre and its various arms had on Tuesday pitched strongly for voluntary use of Aadhaar cards to provide benefits of various welfare schemes, other than PDS and LPG, at the doorsteps of the aged and weaker sections of society, which are the target groups.
In a related development, a South Carolina constitutional bench is also now debating whether privacy is a fundamental right.
Similarly, the RBI has sought the modification of the order saying that if customers voluntarily share their Aadhaar number, then they may be permitted to do so for the goal of banking transactions.
Over 90 crore citizens have already been issued Aahaar cards by the Unique Identification Authority of India (UIDAI) and crores of rupees had been spent on the UIDAI scheme to connect six lakh villages with various welfare measures.
The Court's 11th August order referring the matter to a larger bench had come on a batch of petitions including by Karnataka High Court's former judge KS Puttaswamy, who have contended that the biometric details being collected for the issuance of Aadhaar violated the fundamental right to privacy of the citizens as personal data was not protected and was vulnerable to exposure and misuse.
"We are of the opinion that it is better that these applications for modification, clarifications and relaxations are also heard by a larger bench", Justice Chelameshwar, heading the bench, said.
It was submitted that the court could not modify its order after referring the matter to a Constitution Bench.