Bhushan J says that these kinds of problems may not be a ground for holding a statute unconstitutional.
Kapil Sibal replies that the point is exclusion.
ASG Tushar Mehta stands up and says that nobody has been excluded because of lack of Aadhaar.
He says that circulars have been issued saying that if there is authentication +
ASG Tushar Mehta reads out a cabinet release that says that provisions have been made to handle exceptions.
ASG says that these mechanisms are already in place.
Sikri J says that many people may not be knowing that there is a provision that you can update your data.
ASG says that they have taken care of all that. He says that Aadhaar is citizen friendly and all problems have been +
The AG says that if biometrics and iris scans fail, you are entitled to produce any alternative ID. He says that there is no question of exclusion.
KS says, on that interpretation, people will refuse to authenticate.
Sikri J says that we can interpret the section in this way: if authentication fails, then +
KS says that that would amount to adding the word "or" in the section.
Chandrachud J says that we can interpret the Act in a way to ensure that there is no exclusion.
The opposition Conservative party opposed it on the ground that it was fundamentally changing the relationship between individual and State.
Kapil Sibal says that this is a recognition of the pitfalls.
KS: "My entitlements should depend on my status, not on my identity. I might be a pensioner with a pension card issued by the government, but the government can still deny me."
Sikri J observes that those alternative forms are acceptable even at the time of enrolment.
KS: Yes, exactly. Acceptable for enrolment but not for identification. What's the basis for this?
KS says that Article 21 of the Constitution guarantees choice, and Aadhaar takes it away.
KS says that there should be a choice in exactly that.
To continue on Tuesday. (the court is hearing the Ayodhya case in the afternoon.)