Thread by @SFLCin

#Aadhaar hearing (day 26) will begin shortly.

AG continues reading from the note on biometrics.

J. Chandrachud reiterates that the problem with Aadhaar is that the administrative authority can define section 2(g) of the act. This might not meet the test of proportionality.

AG continues reading from the note. Says finger imaging technology is 99.9% accurate.

AG goes on reading from this journal article: ir.lawnet.fordham.edu/ulj/vol22/iss4…

AG is reading the concluding paragraph of the note.

AG submits that biometrics is a very safe and accurate technology. Says biometrics can problems such as money laundering, bank frauds, income tax evasion etc.
J. Sikri says that bank frauds weren't caused because of multiple identities.

J. chandrachud: Aadhaar will not prevent an individual from operating layers of commercial transactions. It won't prevent bank frauds either. Can only help in providing benefits under section 7 at most.

J. Chandrachud: Mere legitimate state interest does not ensure proportionality. Your submission lacks this nuance.
AG says that Aadhaar will help in income disparity and eliminating poverty. J. Sikri says that the gap is widening. More than 70% wealth is in the hands of 1%

J. Chandrachud: Proportionality is key. How far can the state cast the net of Aadhaar. Only section 7 seems to be understandable.

J. Sikri: You cannot assume that the entire population consists of defaulters and violaters. What is the logic in linking all sim cards to aadhaar.
AG says terrorism will be curbed by doing this.

J. Chandrachud: Do terrorists apply for sim cards? It's a problem that you're asking the entire population to link their mobile phones with Aadhaar.
AG says that we are asking for minimal information via Aadhaar. Says most information is already available in public domain.

AG says that the question is to what extent has Aadhaar invaded privacy? Says it's as minimum as possible

Bench rises for lunch. To reassemble at 2.30 pm.

AG resumes his submissions. Says Aadhaar is required only for section 7 benefits, banks, income tax and mobile nos. Apart from that it's purely voluntary. Emphasizes that linking Aadhaar with mobile no.will help in curbing terrorism.

AG says court needs to balance two competing rights. Maintains that right to food, right to employment, right to medical care, etc trump right to privacy. Can right to privacy be invoked to deprive other sections of the society, asks AG.

AG repeats that the invasion to privacy is so minimal that it can't even be considered an invasion. Cites X v. Hospital Z wherein right to privacy was balanced against right to information.

The appellant ( a man) had HIV and had the right to non disclosure. However, the court had held that his fiance had the right to know of his disease.
J. Sikri: this is the case of balancing the rights of two person. In the case of Aadhaar, you're giving a person food...

in exchange of their privacy.

AG says that the bare minimal requirements for identification for an individual is alone taken and to the extent that the technology permitted.
Should people have basic right to life under article 21?Can it ever be challenged on the ground that we have a right to privacy, asks AG

J. Bhushan: Minimal invasion is subjective. What maybe minimal for you might not be minimal for you.
AG asks the bench to look at the information that is taken and look at it from objective standards. We have to look at the larger interest of the country.

J. Chandrachud: we have to look at three things: informed consent, purpose limitation, and enough security.
AG: The CIDR is completely safe.
J. Chandrachud: we have to look at what proportionality means. Proportionality hasn't been defined in the Puttaswamy judgement.

AG says that without the minimal information that is collected, the entire architecture of Aadhaar couldn't have been framed. Says sections 29 a and b contain purpose limitation.

AG is citing a few cases on balancing of fundamental rights.

AG says that Aadhaar was voluntary when it was rolled out, therefore there's no question of violation of any right. Says informed consent was implied.
J. Sikri: Is it permissible to say that I'll give you food, shelter, etc but you'll be my slave?
AG: slavery is not permissible

J. Chandrachud: Your argument to save the validity of the act does not take into account what happened before the act was passed. There was no protection for the citizens that time.

J. Chandrachud: there's no retrospective effect also. What about collection of data by state governments?
AG says that state governments act as the agent of the central government.

Senior counsel Rakesh Dwivedi says that proof of concept study was conducted in rural areas before Aadhaar was decided upon.
Says IT act after 2009 empowered the use of Aadhaar for the purpose of e commerce.

J. Khanwilkar asks whether biometrics locking option is available for people who don't want to use Aadhaar.
Mr. Divan interjects and says that there's no way to opt out of the Aadhaar system.

Bench has risen for the day.