Shyam Divan to commence for the Petitioners.
When we argued back in January, we had set out expert evidence and pleadings on surveillance, which were not at that time countered by the government.
Also, the CEO of UIDAI filed supporting documents.
SD: The Report says that the biometric database is accessible to third party vendors such as Morpho, L1, Accenture etc.
SD now goes to page 14 of the Report, which is about the verification log, and says that leakage of the verification log can lead to forged identities and revealing of location.
SD: I did not have the advantage of the report when I argued. But I will address it now. The Report admits the inconvenient truth, and the Union of India has very honourably placed it before the Court.
It is now for the Court to decide if this is constitutionally permitted.
SD: The presentation says that every registered biometric device will have traceability.
SD now comes to the issue of balancing rights.
SD: Like the Rubicon, there are certain rivers which, once you cross, you tip over into a very different situation.
Chandrachud J says that Maastricht Guidelines have said that the issue is not the quantity of food, but access to food.
CJI says that access to food is a human right.
SD: When you're reading the questions, just put a "Y" for "Yes" next to each question. Our questions were framed in that way, and effectively, every answer is a yes.
Q4 is to confirm that UIDAI takes no responsibility for correct identification of a person. He reads out the answer.
We asked them about the 49000 cancellations of operators. They've given a generic answer about quality control.
SD: We asked to confirm that there is no verification of the 180 day residence requirement.
Bench rises.
CJI says that Petitioners must finish by the end of Wednesday.