Thread by @SFLCin

#Aadhaar (day 35) hearing will begin shortly.

Advocate Zoheb Hossain will continue his submissions for State of Maharashtra and UIDAI.

ZH hands over a bunch of international charters and covenants to the bench on harmonization of socio-economic and civil political rights.

J. Chandrachud says that directive principles of state policy are essential for good governance and are a guarantee of reasonableness of a law. Directive principles even though not justiciable are read into Article 21.

ZH: Data protection law is a positive obligation of the State.
All rights give rise to a variety of duties. Aadhaar is a project to ensure socio economic rights of the people.
Reads out Justice Wadhwa Committee report on public distribution system and food security

ZH: In the case of DK trivedi it was held that when a statute confers discretionary powers to the exec, the validity of the statute cannot be judged by assuming that the executive will act in an arbitrary manner and abuse it's power.

ZH: In the same case, it was held that there is a constitutional obligation on the state to ensure socio economic welfare of the citizens which includes prevention of leakages in public distribution systems.

ZH: In the case of Unnikrishnan, the court relied on UDHR and ICCPR and read education as a social right.
ZH is reading out parts of the ICCPR.

ZH: All human rights are equally important, indivisible and are interconnected. Socio economic rights are as important as civil and political rights.

ZH reads out a UN General assembly resolution which says that ideal of freedom can only be achieved if conditions are created so that everyone can enjoy socio economic and civil political rights.

ZH: To judge proportionality, reasonableness of the measure/restrictions have to be shown from the point of view of the general public and not from the PoV of one affected party.

ZH:Right to privacy is an individual right which can be highly subjective or objective and the state cant be held to be vicariously liable for it. No petitioner has claimed infringement of right to privacy.questions the fact that right to Privacy violation is being heard as a PIL

ZH: a person may use her aadhaar for obtaining SIM, opening bank account and getting PDS.
Her telecom company will not have details of the bank/PDS. Similarly, her bank will not have info on her telecom and PDS. UIDAI won't have any of the
three details.

ZH: there's no possibility of surveillance even at the level of RE.

ZH explains development of social security number in the US. Cites a congressional report.
Says SSN is a quasi universal personal identification number and is used for a variety of purposes such as identifying convicted criminals, obtaining a loan or insurance, etc.

ZH says individuals in the US can be denied benefits if they do not produce SSN.

ZH: Firing of an employee for refusal to produce her SSN was not seen as a violation of privacy by a US court.

ZH: Aadhaar act provides adequate safety to identity and authentication records. Cites section 33 (disclosure of information in certain cases) and says that the decision made under this section is reviewed by an oversight committee as provided in the proviso.

ZH says there is more oversight than what is provided in the telegraph act. Aadhaar Act exceeds safeguards laid down in the PUCL case.

Bench rises for lunch. Mr. Hossain says that he will take another 20-25 minutes to wrap up his arguments.

Advocate Zoheb Hossain resumes his submissions. His next contention is on national security.
Says a party cannot expect strict adherance to the principles of natural justice during times of emergency.

ZH: Section 47 has been of challenge for not providing a right to complain. Purpose is discernible under the scheme of the act. A complaint can be filed to UIDAI therefore a person is not left remedy-less.

ZH says that Aadhaar is technical and it's best if UIDAI is given the power to complain as they best understand the matters. Says similar provision in industrial disputes act was upheld.
ZH: UIDAI may authorize a person to make a complaint if they feel it's genuine.

ZH : There are provisions under the IT act for offences such as Identity theft, violation of privacy etc.

ZH: The purpose of Aadhaar including section 139aa is to promote redistributive justice and ensure substantial equality along with furthering the dignity of the individual.

ZH on compelled speech: every element need not be a speech element.

ZH cites Puttaswamy judgement and says that rights can be curbed in the interest of prevention of tax evasion, curbing black money and prevention of money laundering.

ZH: Aadhaar act and Income tax act are standalone acts and it cannot be said that parliament in it's wisdom cannot make Aadhaar mandatory by way of an amendment.

ZH: This argument has already been examined and decided in binoy viswam. If the objects of the two statutes are different then they are said to run parallelly and not intersect. There's no conflict.

On why only individual tax payers are supposed to link Aadhaar with PAN, ZH says that the rule of equality doesn't mean that the state has to strike at all evils at the same time.

ZH: Having Aadhaar for individuals also cures the evil vis-a-vis companies.
Companies and individuals are treated differently in the income tax Act. That cannot be called unreasonable classification.

ZH: Section 165 of companies Act allows a person to be the director of twenty companies. If Aadhaar is linked with PAN, it can be checked whether a genuine person is the director of more than one company. The genuineness of the company can also be verified.

ZH: Problem of dummy directors and fake companies will be solved by linking Aadhaar with PAN.

ZH concludes. Attorney General will argue on the issue of money bill now.

AG: The term "targeted delivery of subsidies" contemplates expenditure of funds. The expenditure has to go into thousands of crores from the consolidated fund of India. This itself brings it into the ambit of money bill under Article 110 of the Constitution.

AG: Even though the law has ancillary provisions, the main objective of the Act is delivery of services and benefits.

AG: Sections 7, 24 and 25 along with the preamble of the Act brings it totally within the ambit of Article 110.

AG: Not a single provision in the act is unnecessary or unrelated to the main purpose/pith and substance of the act which is giving subsidies.

J. Chandrachud: Section 57 snaps the link with consolidated fund of India.

AG: When the contract is placed before your Lordships, then it has to be examined. We may not know today what color or aspect the contract under Section 57 would take.

J. Sikri: there's no distribution of benefits and subsidies under section 57.

AG reads out Article 110 of the Constitution. Says Section 57 will be saved by Article 110(1)(g)

J. Chandrachud says that the AG may be rewriting the Constitution!

Bench rises for the day.