Thread by @prasanna_s

#Aadhaar hearing. Post-lunch session resumes. Gopal Subramanium continues for Petitioners. Thread.

Refers again to Puttaswamy judgment referring to potentiality of danger because of State and non-state dataveillance.

Says in this Act, we need no guesswork...but that ubiquitous dataveillance is the intent and object of the Act and the regulations.

DYC J points to his judgment and paras on Posner writings on privacy being a terrorist's friend etc etc.

GS submits that is very different and the situation in Aadhaar has no application. We are not dealing with terrorists but the entire population.

GS refers to contracts with L1. And the exploitation of data by private players such as Digital Lenders association. Or ongrid or trustid. Aggregating and profiling data for all sorts of purposes that have no nexus with the stated object of the act.

Abridgement by law either for purpose of Article 19 or 21 is only law in presenti...cannot be a retroactive law such as Section 59.

DYC J makes a fine distinction. A mere absence of law is curable. But breach that has already occurred cannot be deemed have not occurred.

GS says there is another point. What lacked authority at the time cannot be retroactively conferred authority.

GS refers to Article 73 proviso. Says the entries relatable to Aadhaar programme are in concurrent list...20, 23 and 24.

Therefore GS says Union had no authority to operate an executive scheme. Also refers to 243G and Part IX and items under Panchayat.

DYC J says possibly identification may relate to Entry 97. Residuary powers.

There is further discussion between DYC J and GS on whether a FR invasion can be cured by Section 59 of the Act.

Both Sikri J and DYC J saying that a mere absence of law can be cured by a retroactive law without showing a further injury.

GS says invasion in this case was complete once you unlawfully collected information. And more.

All those cannot be cured!