Aadhaar Day 19. Second session. Petitioners to conclude.
Mr Surendranath argues that if it is shown that the Aadhaar Act is arbitrary and violates Article 14 and due process, it is unconstitutional, and no actual violation need be shown.
Mr Surendranath cites two articles. Sikri J says that we have come to a stage where there is so much information about Aadhaar on both sides. How do we sift through and decide?
Mr Surendranath says that the core point is that you are derived of control in the decision-making process - that is, at the time of authentication.
Mr Surendranath talks about the incident in Spain where the FBI had to apologize to a person because his fingerprints had been a wrongly matched. He says that countries all over the world are moving away from fingerprint-based identification.
Mr CU Singh is next. He says that one crucial issue is that of the rights of children.
Mr C U Singh reads out the Convention on the Rights of Child, to which India has acceded.
CU: The right of the child to privacy is expressly protected in the Convention and in Indian laws.
CU: There is a principle of "fresh start" under the JJ Act that requires deletion of records.
CU: A child in India, under law, cannot consent or enter into contracts. In this background, to say that a child should be made subject to a mandatory regime of Aadhaar stands on a different footing.
CU points out that nowadays infants are being footprinted immediately after birth. He says that this is not permissible.
CU says that the right of the child to education cannot be made subject to Aadhaar.
CU says that the Puttaswamy judgment specifically recognised the right of the child.
CU Singh hands over a concluding note that sets out the major issues that the Court most decide in Aadhaar.
(The concluding note will be uploaded later.)
Lastly, CU Singh points out that Aadhaar has been made compulsory for EPFs.
CU: This has been done without statutory backing, and is therefore illegal.
CU: the last point is about the right of the homeless, who because of a lack of a fixed abode, are suffering specific problems that must be addressed.
CU Singh concludes. Sanjay Hedge is the last counsel. He says that he is representing a conscientious objector.
Mr Hegde says that there are religious objectors whose freedom of conscience must be respected.
Sorry, there is one last intervention application. This is on the right of transgender persons. It is argued by Jayna Kothari.
JK: With respect to transgenders, demographic information becomes a major issue.
JK: Aadhaar Regulation 4 of 2016 require demographic information. The form has third gender, but there is no uniformity across the board, and you have to produce other documents to get an Aadhaar, some of which may not have had that option.
JK: Non-recognition leads to denial of benefits.
JK points to a decision of the Supreme Court of the Philippines that struck down a national ID system.
Petitioners conclude.
Bench rises. The State will commence arguments tomorrow. 11 30.
Cheers.
