Thread by @prasanna_s

#Aadhaar hearing. Resumes. Gopal Subramanium resumes arguments for petitioners. I resume the lousy job I have been doing trying to curate his submissions to br live tweeted.

GS now reading Jija Ghosh judgment on human dignity and wants to link it to Puttaswamy 9 judge bench.

Recalls Subramaniam swamy judgment on how even reputation is part of dignity.

Emphasises the need for proportionality. He says he can understand if it is a question of an offence of impersonation and therr is a procedure followed. But a whole population cannot be...

...subjected to a process assuming the entire population are impersonators.

This Indian culture respects the inherent divinity of every person (answering a question by CJI following GS giving a sanskrit verse to show justice and dignity are inextricably connected).

... GS asks whether this Act is amenable to law. Whether it embodies a culture of accountability. Points to how centre washes its hands when referred to starvation deaths...often pointing fingers at state government or the ration officer!

DYC J asks the difference between identity and identification. Whether identification under the Act impair the right to identity.

GS refers to the nature of our society...the differrnces the special vulnerabilities etc and how a homogenous mechanism of identification with no alternatives is per se a violation of dignity...clarifying for DYC J.

This Act has an element of objectification and depersonalisation of the individual.

If a person can exist independent of Aadhaar, and if the Act does not accommodate that possibility, then it must go!

GS goes on to European judgments. Also clarifies for DYC J question some weeks earlier on the extent of applicability of those judgments.

GS says that because the UDHR and ICCPR have been read as part of domestic law and therefore there is no reason to hold those...

...are not applicable. FRs keep expanding and progressing...this Court cannot hold a retrogression on them.

Gets back to dignity and how the very act of seeking identification for things such as birth death or scholarships is a pejorative and attribution of indignity.

GS angrily says the state is making a moral judgment on the poorest of the poor in saying they make ghost cards.

Says if there is pilferage, identify them and take action...not treat every person with indignity, he pleads.

Refers to how for all the astronomical leakage figures, nothing is pleaded as to action taken against those responsible!

Socio economic rights are complementary to political rights. The latter is not subservient to the former.

GS: Act lacks both substantive and procedural reasonableness.

Continues reading Puttaswamy (Para 224) on reasonableness of laws.

Again refers to the Aadhaar architecture. Probababilistic. Uncertain. Absolutely not normative. This can never be rational or a reasonable method of identification.

GS: The onus of identification is on the state under our Constitution.

GS: Refers to Maslow and Viktor Frankl "Meaning of Man" and self actualisation and how it is part of the understanding of dignity under the Indian Constitution.

GS recalls the German case on microcensus that argued that the possibility of aggregation per se is a violation of the right of personality...right of self actualisation.

GS refers to how governments can come and go and we do not know who will inherit this database even if we don't pute any malice to this Govt.. This law will remain. The judges will have to keep that in mind.

GS compliments A-G KK Venugopal on his longevity and the longevity of his excellence and how governments may not be able to emulate that. A-G smiles and says it is wholly unnecessary.

CJI joins in the debate and comments on the necessity of getting rid of ego for...

...achieving peace (or some such thing).

DYC J asks GS to read para 299 and asks about reasonable expectation of privacy.

GS now deals with DYC J para in puttaswamy on prevention of dissipation of social benefits as a legitimate state purpose.

"Legitimate" by very definition is bounded ...has boundaries. When the aim is effusive or is unbounded as is the case with Aadhaar, it has no legitimacy of purpose.

GS comes back to algorithms and their nature and the attributes of an acceptable algorithm...

Court rises for lunch.