Thread by @prasanna_s

#Aadhaar hearing. KVV resumes arguments for Petitioners.

Resumes his attack on Section 59...the illegality of the purported validation provision.

Reads Delhi Cloth Mills case where it clearly held how a law can deem facts but cannot deem legal consequences.

Indra Sahwney case (2000 one..not the 1992) being read where legislative declaration of legislative facts are amenable to judicial examination.

In thia case for example, informed consent is a key compliance issue. This Section 59 cannot declare compliance when it did not exist!

DYC J asks about the consequence of S 59 being unlawful.

KVV responds that all data collected between 2009 and 2016 ought to be destroyed -

...forthwith.

KVV then moves to his next issue of the issue of defacto mandatoriness.

KVV says the barter in the effective mandatoriness of Aadhaar is an unconstitutional condition. Refers to St. Xaviers and Olga Tellis case.

KVV then moves to his argument of choice and bodily privacy and breezes through the ratio of a few European and South African cases.

DYC J comments on the interesting bit of information on Justice Sachs.

Justicr Sachs opinion in Jordan v State was cited. Sachs J had met the person who had placed a bomb under his car years later. And TRC had forgiven all of them. (Digression)

Then moves to this argument on State insisting what is the problem for people sharing data with govt when they have no trouble sharing it with google or facebook.

KVV exposits that with wide powers, the degree of scrutiny is high when it comes to State.

Justice Sikri agrees.

KVV now says compulsion by State in this case is neither proportionate or reasonable.

Cites the recent living will judgment. CJI and Khanwilkar J judgments that held that subjecting people to experiments as guinea pigs is violation of dignity.

Says no different in this case when masses are subjected as guinea pigs to a probabilistic biometric experiment.

KVV next says the presumption of criminality in every person that is the premise of the Aadhaar system is the complete anathema to proportionality!

Cites MK v France 2013 ECHR for that exact proposition where storage of the data of entire population was struck down as disproportionate.

Hypothetically explains how collecting dna samples and semen samples of all males in the country to so as to identify...

...perpetrators of any given sexual assault or offence ....such a legislation cannot pass muster under our Constitution.

..next he says how centralised storage and control of access to personal data is disproportionate and violates article 14 and 21.

Also unduly long retention of the data is disproportionate. So is longterm storage of transaction data. So is the preclusion of the aadhaar number holders from being able to access or correct data.

Each aspect of collection and storage is violation therefore of 14 and 21.

Next he comes to the aspect of use. How there is no purpose limitation for the project.

Refers to S 33(2) and failure to comply with PUCL telephone tapping guidelines.

Says Section 57 has been dealt with extensively and says he does not want to elaborate on it.

Says he will spend the next 30 minutes on expositing how Section 7 is unconstitutional.

Refers to Economic Survey data on auth failures. Asks Court to direct govt to tell them the latest auth failure data. KVV says even if one person is denied, the Section has to go.

Says the design and concept of aadhaar programme...not merely its implementation..is inherently exclusionary and therefore arbitrary.