12965 - SC is incorruptible, there is no govt interference in judiciary: ASG - TNN

SC is incorruptible, there is no govt interference in judiciary: ASG

PTI | Mar 10, 2018, 19:02 IST

MUMBAI: The Supreme Court of India is "incorruptible" and any claim of perceived interference by the executive in the judiciary is unfounded, additional solicitor general Pinky Anand said on Saturday. 

Anand, whose tenure as the ASG was recently extended till 2020 by the Union government, said constant apprehensions or questions on the judgments or views taken by the courts, including the SC, must stop as they affect the sanctity of the institution, and referred to the matters like Judge Loya's death and Aadhaar. 

"The Supreme Court is incorruptible. There is no interference by the government in the day-to-day functions of the courts. However, constant apprehensions or questions on the judgments or views taken by the courts, including the SC, must stop," Anand said at an event in Mumbai. 

"SC decides all cases solely on the rule of law. However, these constant questions affect the sanctity of the institution. These questions, be it the matters of Judge Loya, Aadhaar, Hadiya, at some point, we need to call it a day," Anand said, referring to the death of the judge, who was presiding over the trial of the Sohrabuddin Shaikh encounter case, and other controversial issues before the apex court. 

She was responding to her co-participant and senior lawyer Indira Jaising's allegations of corruption within the judiciary and the consequent unprecedented press conference held by four SC judges earlier this year.

Earlier, during the day, Jaising had alleged that the executive often interfered with the judiciary, particularly, in appointments of judges in the high courts and the Supreme Court.

"Most appointments are political. Even if the collegium recommends the name of a particular judge, the government sits indefinitely on that appointment if it is not politically convenient. And this (political interference in the appointment of judges) used to happen even before 2014," Jaising said.

LATEST COMMENT

Why there was controversy between 4 judges and Chief justice?will ASG clarify?

Ravindran Nambiar Menaputhiyaveettle

"One must remember that without a free press and an independent judiciary, we (the citizens) will be at immense loss," she said.

Both Jaising and Anand, however, agreed that despite apprehensions, and questions of judicial overreach and under-reach, the citizens still had faith in the rule of law. That is why cases of all sorts, be it something as personal as marriage, the right to privacy, demonetisation, and the mandir issue, reach the courts, both said.

8776 - Centre blinks on privacy for Aadhaar - TNN

Centre blinks on privacy for Aadhaar

Dhananjay Mahapatra,TNN | Sep 30, 2015, 01.00 AM IST

NEW DELHI: Finding it tough to implement social welfare schemes without Aadhaar cards, the Centre on Tuesday sought the Supreme Court's permission to use the Unique Identification Number data to identify beneficiaries for various schemes after junking its stand that citizens had no fundamental right to privacy.

Citing previous conflicting judgments on right to privacy by the SC, the Centre had defended Aadhaar cards, which contain citizens' biometric data, to counter the petitioners' plea that the casual manner of storing and protecting valuable personal details of citizens was prone to misuse and violation of right to privacy.

The Centre's non-negotiable stand on 'no right to privacy' had resulted in a three-judge bench of Justices J Chelameswar, S A Bobde and C Nagappan referring the matter to a larger bench on August 11 with an interim order barring the government from making Aadhaar cards mandatory for identification of citizens for deriving benefits under social welfare schemes.

Having decided to link social welfare schemes to Aadhaar cards, the Centre was caught in a bind and passed on the baton to Gujarat to commence arguments for a clarification to the August 11 order.

Appearing for the Centre, additional solicitor general Pinky Anand told the bench on Tuesday that Gujarat had a much more comprehensive clarification application and the state's counsel, senior advocate Harish Salve, would do a better job in explaining the peculiar circumstances that had forced the governments to approach the court for a clarification.Salve said citizens had full right to privacy, a stand that was exactly opposite to the stand taken by the Centre through attorney general Mukul Rohatgi during the arguments that preceded the August 11 interim order.

8469 - SC reserves order on transfer of Aadhaar Challenge to Const. Bench; AG says Privacy not a Fundamental Right

SC reserves order on transfer of Aadhaar Challenge to Const. Bench; AG says Privacy not a Fundamental Right

By: Apoorva Mandhani | August 6, 2015

Supreme Court had long back declared that privacy was not a Fundamental Right. He said that the judgment of 1964 (Kharak Singh v. State of UP) has been wrongly interpreted for 40 years says AG

The Supreme Court has reserved its verdict for Tuesday regarding the Centre’s plea to transfer the petitions challenging Government’s Aadhaar card project to a Constitution bench as the subject matter is one concerning authoritative pronouncement.

“Whether the Right to Privacy is a fundamental right guaranteed under Part III of the Constitution of India, in the light of express ratio to the contrary by an eight-judge bench in M P Sharma case and also by a six-judge bench of this court in Kharak singh’s case,” one of the questions raised by Attorney General Mukul Rohatgi, who appeared for the Centre, reads. “If so, what are the contours of the Right to Privacy,” another question says.

Additional Solicitor General Pinky Anand also handed out questions which may be referred to the larger bench.

Attorney General Mukul Rohatgi had yesterday reiterated the Government’s stand that privacy is not a Fundament Right as it is not expressly guaranteed under the Constitution of India.

He further referred to earlier pronouncements, in cases like A.K. Gopalan, Maneka Gandhi and Bank Nationalization, and submitted that the discrepancies in the interpretation of certain Fundamental Rights should be allowed to be “squared up” by a larger bench.

The Bench, comprising Justice J. Chelameswar, Justice S.A. Bobde and Justice C. Nagappan was hence told that a larger bench needs to decide whether privacy was a part of right to liberty and thus a Fundamental Right.

The AG further brought to the Court’s attention that the Supreme Court had long back declared that privacy was not a Fundamental Right. He said that the judgment of 1964 (Kharak Singh v. State of UP) has been wrongly interpreted for 40 years.

He hence contended that a few smaller benches had later “wrongly” held that right to privacy was a fundamental right by reading it in Article 21 (right to life) of the Constitution.

This would not “eclipse the view held by the bench of eight and later six judges that privacy was not a fundamental right”, Rohatgi said.

The Supreme Court however slammed the AG for his stand, stating, “If a man is not safe in his own house, then what remains in Article 21 (right to life and liberty)? Where is the liberty then? If privacy is not there in liberty, then what else can be there? To say that it (right to privacy) is not at all there will not be right. We will not accept it.”

Later in his submissions, Rohatgi proposed that “The invasion of privacy is of no consequence because privacy is not a fundamental right and has no meaning under Article 21. The right to privacy is not a guaranteed under the constitution, because privacy is not a fundamental right.” Article 21 of the Indian constitution refers to the right to life and liberty. Rohatgi relied on the fact that surveillance of individuals is not prevented under constitution, but Justice Bobde responded, saying that “Keeping a watch on someone is a manner of breaching privacy, in terms, that all these manners of breach of privacy is not an invasion of a fundamental right. This is not to say that privacy is not a fundamental right. Unless privacy was a part of liberty, it would have been struck down.”

In response to Rohatgi’s statement that the “Violation of privacy doesn’t mean anything because privacy is not a guaranteed right”, Justice Bobde said that privacy is “a part of liberty. Privacy telescopes to liberty and the breach of privacy leads to a violation of liberty which is protected under Article 21 of the Constitution.”

Meanwhile, the Petitioners shared affidavits of instances where citizens had been denied their rights: among them, an instance of a non-processing of a scholarship for a poor person, another of an individual denied a voters identity card for the lack of an Aadhaar card, and another of bank accounts not being allowed without Aadhaar.

Subramaniam cited a June 2015 document focused on seeding Aadhaar. This document pointed out that the rationale behind Aadhaar is to guarantee that all of the information being collected is available across databases in a central repository, indicating that the state will have access not just to the information being collected by it for the purpose of validating identity, but also to all the linked information present in databases.

Relying on this document, Subramaniam contended that the Government saw the NREGS as one of the best ways of seeding the Aadhaar database. He further highlighted the fact that the document states that the owner of the data is the UIDAI, and not the person whose data is being collected. This suggests that the UIDAI has the liberty to use the data for commercial purposes.

Earlier, Senior advocate Gopal Subramanium, appearing for Mathew Thomas, one of the PIL petitioners, had filed an application seeking initiation of contempt proceedings against the Centre and others, including RBI, and the Election Commission, for allegedly insisting on Aadhaar cards to grant benefits of various schemes to citizens, saying it was not mandatory.

You may read: Aadhaar cannot be made mandatory says Supreme Court, asks Government to abide by the interim order passed

In furtherance of earlier orders, Centre has communicated to the States and concerned authorities to make Aadhaar card optional for availing various schemes, Additional Solicitor General Pinky Anand had told the court.

You may also read: Unique Identification Disaster? SC holds UID not mandatory, no biometric data to be shared without consent.

Topics:

Aadhaar Card Case

Attorney General Mukul Rohatgi

Kharak singh's case

Right to Privacy

Supreme Court of India

8408 - Centre opposes contempt plea in Supreme Court, says Aadhaar not mandatory - dna

Centre opposes contempt plea in Supreme Court, says Aadhaar not mandatory

Thursday, 30 July 2015 - 8:50pm IST | Place: New Delhi | Agency: PTI

The government said that persons, having Aadhaar cards, were being asked to provide it to authorites but this was optional, she told the bench that also comprised Justices S A Bobde and C Nagappan.

Government opposed in the Supreme Court a plea on Thursday seeking initiation of contempt proceedings against it, the Reserve Bank of India (RBI) and others for allegedly insisting on Aadhaar cards to grant benefits of various schemes to citizens, saying it was not mandatory.

In pursuance of earlier orders, the Centre has conveyed to the states and concerned authorities not to make Aadhaar cards, issued by Unique Identification Authority of India (UIDAI), mandatory for availing various schemes, Additional Solicitor General Pinky Anand told a three-judge bench headed by Justice J Chelameswar.

The government said that persons, having Aadhaar cards, were being asked to provide it to authorites but this was optional, she told the bench that also comprised Justices S A Bobde and C Nagappan.

Senior advocate Gopal Subramanium, appearing for Mathew Thomas, one of the PIL petitioners, had filed an application seeking initiation of contempt proceedings against the Centre and others including RBI and the Election Commission. He had alleged that the Government and others were in violation of earlier orders that had said that no person should be denied any benefit or "suffer" for not having Aadhaar cards.

"In the meantime, it has been brought to the notice that the Aadhaar identification (card) is being insisted upon by various authorities. We are not going into the specific instances...We expect that the Union of India (UOI) and states and all their functionaries shall adhere to the order dated September 23, 2013," the court had said.

Prior to this, the bench had said, "no person should suffer for not getting the Aadhaar card in spite of the fact that some authority had issued a circular making it mandatory...".

The bench is hearing a batch of pleas against decisions of some states to make Aadhaar cards compulsory for a range of activities including salary, provident fund disbursals, marriages and property registrations.

Earlier, the court had said Aadhaar will not be mandatory and a person, who does not have Aadhaar, should not suffer in availing of government benefits and services like gas connections, vehicle registration, scholarships, marriage registration and provident fund. 

Earlier, the apex court had asked the Centre not to issue Aadhaar cards to illegal immigrants as it would legitimise their stay.

"The scheme is complete infraction of Fundamental Rights under Articles 14 (right to equality) and 21 (right to life and liberty). The government claims that the scheme is voluntary but it is not so," senior advocate Anil Divan, arguing for Justice (retd) K S Puttaswamy, former judge of Karnataka High Court who has filed one of the PILs, said. "Aadhaar is being made mandatory for purposes like registration of marriages and others. 

Maharashtra government has recently said no marriage will be registered if parties don't have Aadhaar cards," Divan said.

Justice Puttaswamy, in his PIL, has also sought a stay on the implementation of the scheme. Making Aadhaar mandatory for various purposes raises questions over the government's authority to implement such schemes, the plea had said, adding that it also highlighted "the perils of the manner of its implementation".

The Centre had said that the consent of an individual was indispensable for Aadhaar and it has been launched to "promote inclusion and benefits of the marginalised sections of the society that has no formal identity proof." 

8407 - 'Aadhaar Card Not Mandatory to Get Benefits' - Indian Express

'Aadhaar Card Not Mandatory to Get Benefits'

By Kanu Sarda

Published: 31st July 2015 03:23 AM

NEW DELHI:The Centre on Thursday opposed before the Supreme Court a plea seeking initiation of contempt proceedings against it, the Reserve Bank of India (RBI) and others for allegedly insisting on Aadhaar cards to grant benefits of various schemes to citizens, saying it was not mandatory.

Additional Solicitor General Pinky Anand told a three-judge Bench headed by Justice J Chelameswar that as per apex court’s earlier orders, the Centre has conveyed to the states and concerned authorities not to make Aadhaar cards, issued by Unique Identification Authority of India, mandatory for availing various schemes .

The government said that persons, having Aadhaar cards, were being asked to provide it to authorities but this was optional.

Senior advocate Gopal Subramanium, appearing for Mathew Thomas, one of the PIL petitioners, had filed an application seeking initiation of contempt proceedings against the Centre and others including the Election Commission.

He had alleged that the Government and others were in violation of earlier orders that had said that no person should be denied any benefit or “suffer” for not having Aadhaar cards.

“When the hearing is going on, how can the government bring in more evidence in the court stating the benefits of Aadhaar,” Subramaniam argued.

The Bench is hearing a batch of pleas against decisions of some states to make Aadhaar cards compulsory for a range of activities including salary, provident fund disbursals, marriages and property regis rations.

Earlier, the court had said Aadhaar will not be mandatory and a person, who does not have Aadhaar, should not suffer in availing of government benefits and services like gas connections, vehicle registration, scholarships, marriage registration and Provident Fund.

Justice Puttaswamy, in his PIL, has also sought a stay on the implementation of the scheme.

The Centre had said that the consent of an individual was indispensable for Aadhaar and it has been launched to “promote inclusion and benefits of the marginalised sections of the society that has no formal identity proof.”

8405 - Centre opposes contempt plea in Supreme Court, says Aadhaar cards not mandatory for benefit schemes - Economic Times

Centre opposes contempt plea in Supreme Court, says Aadhaar cards not mandatory for benefit schemes

By PTI | 30 Jul, 2015, 10.06PM IST

NEW DELHI: Government today opposed in the Supreme Court a plea seeking initiation of contempt proceedings against it, the Reserve Bank of India (RBI) and others for allegedly insisting on Aadhaar cards to grant benefits of various schemes to citizens, saying it was not mandatory. 

In pursuance of earlier orders, the Centre has conveyed to the states and concerned authorities not to make Aadhaar cards, issued by Unique Identification Authority of India ( UIDAI), mandatory for availing various schemes, Additional Solicitor General Pinky Anand told a three-judge bench headed by Justice J Chelameswar. 

The government said that persons, having Aadhaar cards, were being asked to provide it to authorites but this was optional, she told the bench that also comprised Justices S A Bobde and C Nagappan. 

Senior advocate Gopal Subramanium, appearing for Mathew Thomas, one of the PIL petitioners, had filed an application seeking initiation of contempt proceedings against the Centre and others including RBI and the Election Commission. 

He had alleged that the Government and others were in violation of earlier orders that had said that no person should be denied any benefit or "suffer" for not having Aadhaar cards. 

"In the meantime, it has been brought to the notice that the Aadhaar identification (card) is being insisted upon by various authorities. We are not going into the specific instances... 

"We expect that the Union of India (UOI) and states and all their functionaries shall adhere to the order dated September 23, 2013," the court had said. 

Prior to this, the bench had said, "no person should suffer for not getting the Aadhaar card in spite of the fact that some authority had issued a circular making it mandatory...". 

The bench is hearing a batch of pleas against decisions of some states to make Aadhaar cards compulsory for a range of activities including salary, provident fund disbursals, marriages and property registrations. 

Earlier, the court had said Aadhaar will not be mandatory and a person, who does not have Aadhaar, should not suffer in availing of government benefits and services like gas connections, vehicle registration, scholarships, marriage registration and provident fund. 

Read more at:

http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/articleshow/48286368.cms?utm_source=contentofinterest&utm_medium=text&utm_campaign=cppst