#Aadhaar final hearing- Day 11: Hearing to commence soon.
Hearing resumes. Gopal Subramaniam continues on petitioner's behalf.
GS: Refers to the Puttaswamy judgment. Says that the law which impairs dignity is per se unconstitutional.
GS: Says that as per privacy judgment, between concerns of state and rights of individuals, it is the rights of individuals which will have prominence.
GS: Says that Aadhaar must satisfy the test of substantive and procedural reasonableness. Further says that there cannot be a waiver of Fundamental Right.
GS: Says that the legitimacy means that the aim is discernable and the means to achieve that aim is equally discernable.
GS: Says that the Act suffers from excessive delegation and hence is violative of Article 14.
GS: Says that there cannot be retrospective validation of actions which violate fundamental rights.
GS: Points out 2 observations:
1. Existential identity cannot be judgmentalised by the State. The negation of such identity, even if by an algorithm, may have far reaching consequences.
1. Existential identity cannot be judgmentalised by the State. The negation of such identity, even if by an algorithm, may have far reaching consequences.
GS: Refers to the Aadhaar PAN case- Binoy Viswam. Says that State has taken 3 positions:
1. Social good.
2. The services to be provided- which can also be of private players.
3. Admission by the State that there are serious flaws in collection, retention, etc. of information.
1. Social good.
2. The services to be provided- which can also be of private players.
3. Admission by the State that there are serious flaws in collection, retention, etc. of information.
GS: Says that in the absence of a data protection law, Aadhaar Act cannot survive. DP Law is based on fairness, information sharing principles. But this Act doesn't satisfy any of the criteria.
Internet troubles. Tweets maybe a little erratic.
GS: Says that the entire authentication is based on algorithms. Says that an algorithm's behaviour cannot be predicted even by the State.
GS: Says that pensions, scholarships are important entitlements. Says the facilitation of those entitlements by the State is the important part. Does this Act facilitate those entitlements?
GS: Now moves on to the privacy judgment. Says that the golden thread in Ar. 14, 19 & 21 is dignity, liberty and privacy. Says that the law must be compatible with the golden thread.
GS: Reads out the relevant paras from the judgment.
GS: Says that we cannot have discreet silos of human nature which can be connected.
GS: Now refers to the part of the judgment which talks about privacy being a natural and inherent right.
GS: Says that existential identity means the identity for survival. Says it can become transactional and even then it is protected as an inalienable right under the Constitution.
GS: Says that exclusion tantamounts to discrimination. And the Act which discriminates, does not protect the right to privacy.
GS: Says that natural rights are not conferred by the State. They exist by virtue of being a human.
GS: Reads on the privacy judgment on inalienable nature of the rights.
GS: Reads out parts from the privacy decision referring to Canara Bank case. Asks to consider the consequences of this case.
GS: Says that assignment of a number to an individual, identification through a number is completely destructive of dignity.
GS: Reads further on from privacy judgment.
GS: Says that nobody knows the behaviour of algorithms. They have their own unpredictable nature.
GS: Says that right to privacy is an element of human dignity.
GS: Refers to judgments of various jurisdictions.
Bench rises for the day. Hearing to resume tomorrow.
