Aadhaar ruling will be more significant than Emergency verdict, Sibal tells SC
Dhananjay.Mahapatra@timesgroup.com
New Delhi: Congress member and senior advocate Kapil Sibal told the Supreme Court on Tuesday that consequences of the Aadhaar verdict would be far more critical for the country and generations of citizens than the court’s 1976 decision upholding suspension of fundamental rights, including right to life, during the Emergency.
Appearing for the Bengal government before a five-judge Constitution bench, Sibal said the SC verdict in the ADM Jabalpur case damaged the supremacy of the Constitution in a limited manner as the decision upholding suspension of fundamental rights was temporary and ended with the lifting of Emergency.
“Aadhaar, on the other hand, is the most important case dealt by the SC in the last 70 years. What it decides in these petitions will determine the future of the nation. Adverse consequences of Aadhaar on citizens’ fundamental rights is unlimited. It will be applied not only to the present generation but to our grandchildren and beyond. That is the enormity of the issue. The SC’s decision will decide the future of India and charter the country’s future course... whether or not fundamental rights enjoy inviolable status,” he said.
The 1976 ADM Jabalpur judgment was roundly condemned and the SC was criticised for succumbing to the pressure of the then government headed by Indira Gandhi. Justice H R Khanna was the lone dissenter on the fivejudge bench and the government wreaked vengeance on him by superseding him. Refusing to bend to the coercion, Khanna had resigned.
The judgment was declared wrong by a nine-judge Constitution bench last year for the first time, and interestingly, the thumbs down was authored by Justice D Y Chandrachud, whose father Justice Y V Chandrachud was one of the four who had upheld the Indira Gandhi government’s power to suspend fundamental rights.
Sibal said Aadhaar with biometrics was a sure invitation for disaster in a digital world, where corporate entities thrive on compiling metadata on people to boost business. “In the present business scenario, one who has access to meta data on people’s choices and behaviour becomes successful. With biometrics of more than a billion citizens in a central database, it is an invitation to hackers to steal data and make a serious violation of right to privacy,” Sibal said.
He suggested an alternative to Aadhaar. He said a provision in the Citizenship Act provided that the Union government could maintain a national register for citizens and issue a national identity card to each person. “Why is that not being implemented? We are not against national ID cards but we are opposed to Aadhaar because it carries biometrics and demographic details that will open up every person’s private life. There are other identities like passport, ration card and caste certificates. Why cannot these be utilised for establishing identity for getting entitlements under welfare schemes?” he said.
Justice Chandrachud said, “There may be a lot of people without any identity card in this country. Minus Aadhaar, they have no identity to avail benefits under welfare schemes. This means, the government can provide Aadhaar as an identity.”
Sibal said that if Aadhaar had been something like a smart card, one with personal details but without central storage of the data, no one would have a problem. “But keeping biometrics and insisting on its linkage to everything is the main problem and cause of anxiety,” he added.
He said facts were staring at the repercussions for a person without Aadhaar. There were reports that 40 persons had died because they were denied rations for want of Aadhaar; that a woman was not admitted to hospital and she delivered a baby at the hospital gate because she did not have Aadhaar. “Why should the common man suffer like this, Sibal asked before concluding his arguments.
Dhananjay.Mahapatra@timesgroup.com
New Delhi: Congress member and senior advocate Kapil Sibal told the Supreme Court on Tuesday that consequences of the Aadhaar verdict would be far more critical for the country and generations of citizens than the court’s 1976 decision upholding suspension of fundamental rights, including right to life, during the Emergency.
Appearing for the Bengal government before a five-judge Constitution bench, Sibal said the SC verdict in the ADM Jabalpur case damaged the supremacy of the Constitution in a limited manner as the decision upholding suspension of fundamental rights was temporary and ended with the lifting of Emergency.
“Aadhaar, on the other hand, is the most important case dealt by the SC in the last 70 years. What it decides in these petitions will determine the future of the nation. Adverse consequences of Aadhaar on citizens’ fundamental rights is unlimited. It will be applied not only to the present generation but to our grandchildren and beyond. That is the enormity of the issue. The SC’s decision will decide the future of India and charter the country’s future course... whether or not fundamental rights enjoy inviolable status,” he said.
The 1976 ADM Jabalpur judgment was roundly condemned and the SC was criticised for succumbing to the pressure of the then government headed by Indira Gandhi. Justice H R Khanna was the lone dissenter on the fivejudge bench and the government wreaked vengeance on him by superseding him. Refusing to bend to the coercion, Khanna had resigned.
The judgment was declared wrong by a nine-judge Constitution bench last year for the first time, and interestingly, the thumbs down was authored by Justice D Y Chandrachud, whose father Justice Y V Chandrachud was one of the four who had upheld the Indira Gandhi government’s power to suspend fundamental rights.
Sibal said Aadhaar with biometrics was a sure invitation for disaster in a digital world, where corporate entities thrive on compiling metadata on people to boost business. “In the present business scenario, one who has access to meta data on people’s choices and behaviour becomes successful. With biometrics of more than a billion citizens in a central database, it is an invitation to hackers to steal data and make a serious violation of right to privacy,” Sibal said.
He suggested an alternative to Aadhaar. He said a provision in the Citizenship Act provided that the Union government could maintain a national register for citizens and issue a national identity card to each person. “Why is that not being implemented? We are not against national ID cards but we are opposed to Aadhaar because it carries biometrics and demographic details that will open up every person’s private life. There are other identities like passport, ration card and caste certificates. Why cannot these be utilised for establishing identity for getting entitlements under welfare schemes?” he said.
Justice Chandrachud said, “There may be a lot of people without any identity card in this country. Minus Aadhaar, they have no identity to avail benefits under welfare schemes. This means, the government can provide Aadhaar as an identity.”
Sibal said that if Aadhaar had been something like a smart card, one with personal details but without central storage of the data, no one would have a problem. “But keeping biometrics and insisting on its linkage to everything is the main problem and cause of anxiety,” he added.
He said facts were staring at the repercussions for a person without Aadhaar. There were reports that 40 persons had died because they were denied rations for want of Aadhaar; that a woman was not admitted to hospital and she delivered a baby at the hospital gate because she did not have Aadhaar. “Why should the common man suffer like this, Sibal asked before concluding his arguments.
No comments:
Post a Comment