Thread by @SFLCin

#AadhaarVerdict
There are three judgements. One by J. Sikri. CJI and J. Khanwilkar concur with him.
Other two judgments are by J. Chandrachud and J. Bhushan.

J. Sikri: It is better to be unique than the best. Being unique is the basis of Aadhaar. Talks about how Aadhaar is the most talked about identification system in the world.

J. Sikri reads out the summary of the arguments made by the petitioners and the respondents.

J. Sikri: The court has observed that minimal data is collected for the purposes of establishing identity under Aadhaar. There's a fundamental difference between Aadhaar and other identity proofs. Aadhaar eliminates any chance of de-duplication.

J. Sikri: Aadhaar remains secure with the CIDR. Such a system has been unparalleled.
It empowers marginalized sections of the society. They can claim various privileges with the use of Aadhaar.

J. Sikri: Right to live with dignity is part of right to privacy. We've discussed the test of privacy, dignity and proportionality.
Question is whether court should apply strict scrutiny standards or fair or reasonable standards?

J. Sikri; we've applied the fair and reasonable standards.
Human dignity is based on socio economic rights. In the present case, we've enlarged the scope of human dignity.
We've applied the principle of compelling state interest.

J. Sikri: There are sufficient security measures to protect information. There's oversight by technology and review board. Authentication records cannot be kept for more than six months. The provision that allows keeping records for five years is struck down.

Whether the act violates privacy? We've examined only sections 7 and 8 for that purpose.
The entire purpose of launching this project is inclusion. Sections 33(1) is read down and 33(2) struck down.
Section 57 is also struck down.

J. Sikri: Section 2(d) should not include meta data.

J. Sikri: Section 47 that provides for cognizance of offence. Needs suitable amendment to include grievance redressal by individual or victim herself.

Section 139AA of the Income Tax Act is upehld.

J. Chandrachud reads out his judgment.
Says large area of the judgment is dissent but there are some areas where we've agreed.

J. Chandrachud: In understanding the intersection of governance, technology and freedom, this decision will set the future. Our path will define limited government. The quest for digital India should address the digital divide as well.

If data is the new oil, it still eludes the common people.
Aadhaar must be scrutinized to check if it violates human rights.
The case is about the rule of law and institutional governance as well.

J. Chandrachud: The decision of the speaker is amenable to judicial review with respect to deciding whether a bill is a money bill or not.

Judicial review protects the spirit of the constitution. It protects arbitrary conduct. The office of the speaker is no exception to compliance with constitutional principles.

A law must recognize the principles that liberates us from our colonial laws. The structure of rjya Sabha reflects the plurality of our nation. Role of rajya Sabha is to maintain instrinsic accountability.

Aadhaar act does not qualify as money bill. Section 7 is not the central theme of the Aadhaar act and it does not meet the test of Article 110(1). Other provisions of the Act are not incidental provisions.

This debasement of a constitutional institution cannot be allowed.

This judgement accepts that there is a legitimate state aim.

The process of collection of data must be reformed and should be based on taking informed consent of the residents.

The Act and regulations are bereft of the provisions for providing consent and access to individuals authentication records.

The Aadhaar project has failed to remedy the flaws in it's design and has led to exclusion. Denying social welfare is violation of fundamental rights of citizens.

J. Chandrachud says that Aadhaar program in it's entirety is unconstitutional.

MoUs entered between UIDAI and registrars are not valid under article 299.
Grievance redressal mechanism severely compromises the independece of the mechanism.

Aadhaar does not pass the muster of Article 14 of the constitution.

Section 57 violates Articles 14 and 21.
Section 7 suffers from overbreadth since all possible welfare benefits require Aadhaar. This is function creep.

Aadhaar allows constructing profiles of individuals. This is against the right to privacy and enables potential surveillance.

Section 139aa is based on the premise that Aadhaar act is unconstitutional. Not since Aadhaar has been held to be unconstitutional, section 139aa does t stand anymore.

The assumption that every individual who opens a bank account is a potential terrorist or money launderer is draconian. The requirements should be redefined by the govt and RBI following the test of proportionality.

Linking Aadhaar with mobile poses threat to autonomy, dignity and privacy. There might be a legitimate aim but the means to achieve that aim cannot be disproportionate.

Aadhaar cannot obliterate constitutional principles. The aadhaar Act does not save the Aadhaar project.

J. Bhushan reads out his judgment now.

J. Bhashan says that he mostly concurs with J. Sikri but has dissented on a few issues.

An individual reveals a lot of his demographic information for other identity proofs. Therefore revealing demographic information for Aadhaar doesn't violate the right to privacy.

Right to identity is essential.

Whether right to privacy has been violated in collection of biometric data depends on the context in which it is collected.

Procedural problems and implementation issues does not make section 7 unconstitutional.

Decision of speaker is subject to judicial review.

Aadhaar act does not create a framework for surveillance.

Section 57 is unconstitutional.

Rule 9 of the PMLA act does not violate Articles 14 and 21.

J. Bhushan upholds bank linking and section 139AA as well.

J. Bhushan in the end appreciates all the advocates that appeared in the Aadhaar matter.