Thread by @prasanna_s

#Aadhaar hearing. I am in Court now. A-G on his legs. Repeating his point on prevention of dissipation of social benefits, money laundering, tax evasion and terrorism are all legitimate state interests. Therefore Section 7, and other PMLA notifications are valid.

DYC J asks about Section 57 and private usage. A-G says he will come to it later.

A-G now reading an American Appeals court judgment to make the point that fingerprinting is not an invasive technique...and that it is similar to taking signatures.

A-G: After emergency no govt has been guilty of surveillance. That argument has no force.

Continues to read the judgment where the taking of fingerprints was justified under the Sovereign's police powers.

A-G now reading Justice Stevens opinion in caselaw.findlaw.com/us-supreme-cou…

Reads this para.

Sikri J comments about the drastic difference betweem US Supreme Court and ECHR judgments. A-G asks him to choose the reasoning that appeals most to the judges.

A-G then reads a US judgment that upheld the requirement of disclosure of SSN under a certain law.

DYC J says that is more like PAN and that the judgment may not apply for Aadhaar which is qualitatively different because it collects personally sensitive info.

...Shyam Divan adds there is no requirement of authentication either. DYC J agrees.

Reads another US judgment on retinal imaging requirement to repel the "Mark of the Beast" argument that @sanjayuvacha advanced.

A-G reading another judgment that upheld retention of fingerprints for convicted persons.

Sikri J tells him its a totally different situation here as we are not only dealing with convicted persons but all persons. A-G agrees and moves to his next case.

A-G reading another judgment (US) upholding SSN usage to prevent fraud.

Bench rises for the day. To continue tomorrow.