The second day of hearing in the Aadhaar matter saw petitioners build their case further against the biometric data collected between 2009 and 2016, before the Aadhaar Act, 2016 came into effect.
Citizens were forced to share their biometrics in the absence of any legal framework and without any statutory backing, Senior Advocate Shyam Divan argued on behalf of petitioners. Registrars were able to collect personal data, and even seek additional data without any government oversight. And these included not just government agencies but also private agencies, state-owned banks and universities, Divan informed the five-judge bench which is currently hearing all Aadhaar-related matters.
There was no protection to citizens. There was no law. The notification which authorised the collection of biometric data did not even mention biometrics. Entire data of the people was collected with absolutely no legal sanction or protection.Shyam Divan, Senior Supreme Court Advocate
Divan also cited instances of the Aadhaar-issuing body UIDAI signing memorandums of understanding with certain bodies which, according to petitioners, did not qualify as a valid contract. The government had blacklisted 34,000 enrollment operators as of April last year and the number has since risen to 49,000, Divan said, quoting Parliament replies.
Also Read: Is Aadhaar Likely To Pass The Privacy Test?
The collection of biometrics without any statutory backing was a violation of fundamental rights which cannot be corrected by subsequently introducing the Act, he said.
The petitioners informed the apex court bench about instances when pirated software, fake iris scans and finger prints were used to enroll citizens under the Aadhaar scheme.
Citing the landmark ruling of the Supreme Court which made privacy a fundamental right, Divan said that physical interference is no longer required to violate someone's privacy. Just the details of their transactions are enough to profile a citizen, he said.
In a digitised world, the government has to be an ally of citizens, not its adversary.Shyam Divan, Senior Supreme Court Advocate
On the first day of the hearing, the petitioners had argued that both the Aadhaar programme and the Aadhaar Act, 2016 which gives the programme statutory backing was unconstitutional. If the programme is allowed to continue, it will transform People’s Constitution into a State Constitution, the petitioners had said.
The top court is hearing a batch of petitions which challenge both the Aadhaar programme as well as the Aadhaar Act, 2016. The bench is also slated to all pleas against the mandatory linkage of Aadhaar to several services and social welfare schemes.
The petitioners will now continue their arguments on Jan. 23.
Read all the arguments made by petitioners so far here.
RECOMMENDED FOR YOU
POPULAR