Back in Court. Shyam Divan is requesting the Court for an interim stay on mandatory linking of services pending final adjudication.
Shyam Divan has just finished arguments.
Gopal Subramanium continues the case.
GS: This Court has exercised judicial power in favour of citizens, to insulate them against compulsion, duress, or any form of force through which they would have to part with their personal information. That is the spirit of this Court's orders.
GS: All the orders have one pattern. The reason why this Court specifically asked the government to comply was because there were numerous violations.
GS: There were cases of exclusion. Cases of compulsion. That's why interim orders were passed.
GS: The orders of this court have two bases. One basis is voluntariness and the rights of citizens. That basis cannot be removed by statute.
GS: If the basis of those interim orders is the dignity of citizens, to protect fundamental rights, cannot be abrogated by legislation.
GS: Even when you have a validating statute, you see if there was a basis that could be validly removed.
GS: The orders were passed before the right to privacy judgment, and they subsist after the judgment.
GS: The Central Government has passed 139 notifications under Section 7 of the Aadhaar Act.
GS: These 139 notifications cover every activity of citizens.
GS: This Court exists to protect the most vulnerable. Can this Court stand by when a notification is passed making Aadhaar compulsory for children of bonded labourers?
Chandrachud J says that Section 7 authorised Aadhaar to be made mandatory services.
GS: For the purposes of our hearing today is whether Section 7 can authorise a compulsion contrary to the orders of the Court.
GS: Notifications under Section 7 are not even delegated legislation, they are conditional legislation.
GS: The rule of law contemplates obedience to the orders of the Court. Otherwise it will become a rope of sand.
GS reiterates that the earlier orders of the Court are based on dignity, consent and the right to personal information. That rationale must continue.
GS concludes.
Arvind Datar says that even if you assume that aadhaar can be made compulsory under Section 7, that's only for services paid for by the Consolidated Fund
Arvind Datar asks what does making Aadhaar mandatory for death certificate have to do with Section 7.
Datar asks what do exam hall tickets have to do with Section 7. This is clear overreach.
Datar reiterates that you can't make Aadhaar mandatory by a notification.
Datar points to the draconian consequences.
Datar concludes.
Another Sr Counsel begins (I don't know his name). Says that there's no data protection law yet.
Sr Counsel points to examples of data leaks.
Khanwilkar J says that this cannot happen under Section 28 and 29 of the Act.
Anand Grover (next counsel) says that he will answer this question. He says that the moment you link, silos break down.
Anand Grover says that the data protection law is not in place yet.
Anand Grover says that biometrics and iris scans are not foolproof.
Anand Grover says that this leads to exclusion. 8 crore people have been excluded.
Anand Grover says that the data is outsourced to private parties.
Sikri J says that all the data is encrypted.
Some debate about the extensions.
The AG says that all deadlines can be extended to 31st March and the case be heard in January.
Sorry, network failed completely. The AG has offered to extend all deadlines to 31 March apart from new accounts.
Last ten minutes have been an argument about whether new bank accounts have to be linked with Aadhaar
The CJI says he will pass an order on new bank accounts.
CJI says that if in a town of 20000 people, 200 are anti-social, can't you control the whole town?
Orders on the interim hearing to be passed tomorrow.
The Court will hear the full Aadhaar challenge from January 11.
Bench rises.
Cheers.
