Thread by @gautambhatia88

The AG has returned to Court 1. Aadhaar Day 24, Session 2.

AG continues reading Chandrachud J's plurality opinion in the right to privacy judgment.

AG reads out the part of Justice Chandrachud's judgment that refers to the Srikrishna Committee report on data privacy.

AG says that whatever more has to be done on data protection will be done by the Committee. He says that the UIDAI CEO is on the committee.

AG says that the Srikrishna Committee Report will be ready by May 15.

AG says that in the privacy judgment, other opinions, such as those of Chelameswar and Bobde JJ, have recognised that privacy is not absolute, and there are legitimate state interest that can override it.

AG says that the "just, fair and reasonable" standard will apply to adjudicate the validity of laws that are claimed to infringe privacy.

AG reads out Justice Nariman's opinion from the privacy judgment, which stated that whichever article is applicable in a particular case of privacy, the corresponding restrictions will apply, and ultimately the Court must undertake a balancing exercise.

AG cites the Right to Information Act as a reasonable restriction on privacy in the larger public interest.

AG is reading out various passages from Justice Kaul's judgment in the privacy case.

AG is reading out the part of Justice Kaul's judgment that lays out the proportionality standard for adjudicating infringements on privacy.

AG reads out the conclusion of the nine judges in the right to privacy judgment.

(You'd recall that it was this that was pronounced on 24th August 2017.)

AG says that this is the totality of the judgment, and he will now apply it to the Aadhaar Act.

AG: The right to privacy judgment says that privacy is a fundamental right under Article 21, and therefore subject to the limitations of the same article.
The lead judgment of Chandrachud J says that existence of law, legitimate state interest, and proportionality, are the tests

+ to be applied to judging a privacy violation.

AG: The test of proportionality is to be applied. So the petitioners have to establish that the tests have not been satisfied.

AG: The Aadhaar Act meets the standards and has adequate safeguards. The Aadhaar Act is a just, fair, and reasonable law. It is in pursuance of a larger public interest, including preventing dissipation of social welfare benefits, prevention of black Money and money laundering +

+ prevent income tax fraud, and lastly, prevent terrorism by linking with SIM cards.

AG says that the SC cannot second guess the value judgment of the legislature. These are all legitimate State interests.

AG: Aadhaar Act satisfies the test of proportionality by showing a rational nexus between the means and the goal.

AG says that all the subsidies under Section 7 are part of the right to a life with dignity, and will prevail over the right to privacy.

AG: When people applied for Aadhaar before the Act, they knew it was voluntary, so there's no question of violation of rights.

AG says that before the privacy judgment, there was no question of the government or the people knowing that there was a right to privacy.

Justice Bhushan objects to this.

Justice Chandrachud also objects to this.

AG reiterates that before the privacy judgment, the government could not proceed on the assumption that there existed a fundamental right to privacy.

Justice Chandrachud says that the right to privacy judgment declared that all judgments for forty years that had upheld the right to privacy were correct.

AG says that those judgments were per incuriam because there were larger benches that had held there was no right.

CJI disagrees with this argument.

Bench rises.

To continue tomorrow.

Cheers.

Shyam Divan hands over three more questions for UIDAI CEO, based on today's answers.

To be answered tomorrow.

Cheers again.