Thread by @gautambhatia88

Aadhaar Day 20. Attorney General is beginning the case for the Union.

AG says that there are many technical aspects in this case involving security, storage of information, steps taken to prevent leakages etc. He says an enormous effort has been put in to ensure security. There have been sixty committees since 2006.

AG says that these committees have also examined alternatives like smart card. He says that Aadhaar is not a fly-by-night scheme, but a serious effort to insulate deserving beneficiaries from the effects of corruption.

AG: Many countries have adopted a unique identification system. The World Bank has looked into every aspect in a report called Identification for Development.

AG: The World Bank has referred to Aadhaar as well in that report.

AG: We will explain how security is protected at every step from enrolment to CIDR. The CEO of UIDAI has prepared a power point presentation and he can also explain it to the Court.

AG reads out the qualifications of the CEO of UIDAI.

AG says that tomorrow afternoon at 2 30 the CEO can make a technical presentation.
CJI tells the AG that "first you make the legal contentions."

CJI says that petitioners have argued on privacy, anonymity, dignity, surveillance, aggregation, presumptive criminality, unconstitutional conditions, absence of a law, security. He asks the AG to respond to those.

AG says that many doubts and fears that have been raised will be clarified by the presentation. He says that there is also a four minute video showing the thirteen foot wall around the CIDR.

Chandrachud J says that the petitioners also began with a factual superstructure, so the AG's request might be a fair one.

CJI says that first you begin, then we'll see.

AG: the core effort of the Aadhaar Act is to protect the huge amounts of money spent to bridge the gap between rich and poor. When the British left, poverty was 66% and illiteracy was 87% . Now both are down to 27% But in absolute terms it is higher.

AG: The money being diverted was more than 1000 crore. Middleman and public servants were diverting funds. Corruption was massive.

AG: Even China is less corrupt than us according to Privacy International. So something had to be done. The Act was framed to take into account every fear, and have the least possible invasion of privacy.

AG: Under the architecture of the Act, the invasion of privacy is at the lowest possible level.
Before the Act, the Court had ordered that Aadhaar be voluntary. So there should be no question of fundamental rights violations. If it was voluntary, how could there be violation?

AG: The Indian SC has said that the right to life is not a right to a mere animal existence, but a right to live with dignity.

Sikri J says that it's an interesting question when two rights clash - such as right to privacy and right to life.

Sikri J says that in this case both sides are invoking the right to dignity.

CJI says that the AG's argument seems to be that the individual right to privacy must give way to the right to distributive justice.
AG says that in this country, if you are poor, you become invisible.
Sikri J: that this argument must be dealt with in the context of exclusion

AG says that lots of NGOs have said there is exclusion, but the Court hadn't heard from any affected person.
Chandrachud J says that it cannot be said that individual rights are subordinate to distributive justice. He gives the example of the Bengal Famine.

(This is Amartya Sen's argument that famines don't occur in democracies because of the freer flow of information.)

There is some discussion between the AG and the Bench on the causes of the Bengal famine.

(Some criticism of Churchill.)

Back to the case. AG says that what about the fundamental Rights of poor people to exist without hunger and lying on the pavement would prevail over the right to privacy.

Bhushan J says that the poor have an equal right to privacy. Their rights can't be violated any more than the rights of the rich.
AG says that this is a question of balancing rights and not a question of violation.

AG repeats the point that there can be no question of violation of fundamental rights before 2016, because it was voluntary.
Chandrachud J says that it's not so simple. When people agreed to obtain Aadhaar, they did not accept a surrender of their data, or +

+ commercialisation. Besides, the safeguards of the Act didn't exist back then.
AG says that the poor people who were the beneficiaries between 2009 and 2016 have not complained.

Sikri says that it's not limited to that class - that is, the class of section 7 beneficiaries.
AG says that as far as bank accounts, income tax and phones are concerned, we will deal with them separately.

AG repeats that the fundamental question in this case is one of balancing.

AG says that Aadhaar is an enabler for millions of residents. It enables their right to food, livelihood and pensions. A handful of petitioners want it to be struck down on grounds of privacy.

AG: Object of the Act is targeted delivery for genuine beneficiaries. It furthers the Article 21 right of the poor people of India, and advances the Directive Principles.

AG reads out the statement of objects and reasons of the Aadhaar Act.

(Sorry, I've had to rush to another court.)

Back. AG is reading out various reports on inclusiveness and the right to food.
AG reads out the SC's PUCL right to food case, which had made specific references to the DP Wadhwa Report, and recommending computerisation of PDS.

AG reads out the extract from the PDS judgment that asked Nandan Nilekani to suggest ways of computerising the PDS. AG says that Nilekani has conceptualised the UIDAI.

AG reads out the part of the PUCL judgment approving issuance of Aadhaar and linking to PDS.

Bench rises for lunch. Resuming at 2 30.

Cheers.