Thursday, 04 May 2017 | Pioneer News Service | New De
A day after Attorney General Mukul Rohatgi insisted that not a single Aadhaar card was duplicated out of the total database of 113 crore, the Government on Wednesday suffered a loss of face in the Supreme Court when the petitioners showed the Supreme Court how till September 1, 2016, more than 1.69 lakh Aadhaar cards were cancelled on complaints of duplication.
Rohatgi had on Tuesday submitted that duplication of Aadhaar cards is non-existent. He stated it was impossible to duplicate biometrics received under the UID programme and the Centre did not come across even a single instance to show Aadhaar can be duplicated.
Countering him on Wednesday, senior advocate Shyam Divan produced a copy of response under the RTI Act. It contained a query whether the Unique Identification Authority of India (UIDAI), the authority controlling Aadhaar services, received any complaint of duplication of Aadhaar cards. The RTI applicant sought details of number of cards cancelled due to duplication.
Diwan was appearing for two petitioners — retired Army Major General SG Vombatkere and Ramon Magsaysay awardee Bezwada Wilsonwho — wanted that the Government should not be allowed to mandatorily link Aadhaar with PAN.
Divan produced a copy of the RTI response to the court. It said, “A total of 1,69,563 Aadhaar cards as on September 1, 2016 were cancelled on complaints of duplication.” This came as a big blow to the Centre’s claim to vouch for Aadhaar being foolproof.
Diwan also questioned the A-G’s second submission that the Aadhaar (Targeted Delivery of Financial and Other Subsidies, Benefits and Services) Act 2016 made it mandatory for citizens to prepare their UID cards. He read out from the Act itself that state clearly that making an Aadhaar card is voluntary and left to the discretion of the citizen. He further established his argument by producing material from the UIDAI website, advertisements issued in print media, all stating that the Aadhaar service is voluntary and not mandatory.
“The language of Act is completely different from the submission by the A-G. I cannot imagine the Centre to have an argument contrary to what the Act says. If it was mandatory, the Act should have penal consequences for persons who do not have Aadhaar. There is nothing in the Act to this effect,” he added. He concluded that the submission of the A-G cannot be accepted and since an instrument of state will never play fraud with the people by misrepresenting information, it must be held that Aadhaar is a voluntary scheme.
Senior advocate Arvind Datar, appearing for the second petitioner, CPI leader Binoy Viswam, said that the question before the court concerns civil liberties and the arguments by A-G present a “frightening” scenario. According to him, the Centre lacked the competence to enact Section 139AA of Income Tax Act, requiring Aadhaar linkage with PAN and filing of income tax returns from July 1, 2017. He submitted that when Aadhaar Act is voluntary, IT Act cannot make Aadhaar mandatory.
