RD talks about the presumption of constitutionality, and how Courts should first make small repairs if they find that laws are defective, instead of striking it down.
He says that sharing and use of information is strictly confined and limited to the authentication process.
RD now reads S 29 (sharing). He says that under S 29, all that can be shared is non-biometric data.
RD denies it. He says that the requesting entity will not know the purpose of the authentication.
Chandrachud J says that section 8(3) read with 29(3) makes it clear that it will know.
RD says that core biometrics cannot be shared.
Sikri J says that the uses of the authentication can be shared.
RD says that the only use is a yes or no response to a authentication request.
Chandrachud J says that this argument may be valid qua the UIDAI, but not qua the requesting entity.
RD says that if the Court has that doubt, it can interpret the Act to exclude that possibility.
Chandrachud J says, suppose Apollo is a requesting entity, or submitting information to a requesting entity. There will be a record of the fact that an individual has gone to a hospital and authenticated, say 122 times in 6
RD says that you don't need Aadhaar for this. You can just go to ten hospitals and find out.
Chandrachud J says that until we have a data protection law, this is a problem.
Chandrachud J says this is an exaggeration. He says, look at the EUGDPR, coming into force next year.
RD says that we don't need to copy. We can just see the control and punitive +
RD says that, in life, you can never have a hundred percent assurance. A man in Kerala went to make a speech, and there he died. Even God can't give us hundred percent assurance.
RD says that none of the petitioners have pointed out what more we can do
RD says that can be done, but in his submissions, it doesn't need to be cut, only clarified.
Sikri J says that the information about medical treatment will already be with the hospital, and that they may not need Aadhaar to get more information.
Chandrachud J says that there is a real apprehension is even elections can be manipulated thanks to data. He says that the task is to introduce safeguards that ensure that the Act achieves its purpose and +
RD says, don't bring Cambridge Analytica into this. He says that we have no learning algorithms like Google. He says that petitioners have tried to confuse the Court by talking about algorithms.
RD says that the public/private divide is changing. Even Reliance is entering into defense. Private parties are entering into Telecom, aviation etc
Chandrachud J asks whether RD bought this book after his 50000 rupee investment on algorithm books.
RD says that the issue of linkage should be examined on a case to case basis.
To resume at 2 30.