Aadhaar Hearing: Everything About The Programme Is Unconstitutional, Says Shyam Divan

The second day of the crucial Aadhaar hearing concluded with Shyam Divan, representing the petitioners, continuing his arguments about how Aadhaar is unconstitutional.

Divan took note of the enrollment process for Aadhaar cards which was in place before the Aadhaar Act, 2016 came into effect. He said that Registrars were able to collect personal data, and even seek additional data without any government oversight. He pointed that the government had blacklisted 34,000 enrollment operators and the number has now risen to 49,000. He said these registrars were not just government agencies but included private agencies, state-owned banks and universities as well.

There was no statutory backing or valid contracts in place when data was collected in the pre-Aadhaar Act system , Divan said.

Divan also said that there were instances when fake iris scans and fingerprints were used to enroll.

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 everything they do, he said.

Divan emphasised that in the privacy judgement the apex court had noted that public welfare can only be sustained when individual liberties and freedoms are respected.

Shyam Divan, the lawyer arguing for the petitioners, made the following arguments.

• Aadhaar is completely invasive and nothing about the process is voluntary
• There is no contractual relation between the UIDAI and the agency collecting private information of citizens
• We are being forced to part with private information with someone who we dont know and have no contractual relation with
• The machines used at the time of authentication process is are of poor quality which makes it difficult for senior citizens and manual labourers to enroll
• Everything about this programme is unconstitutional

Arguments regarding the validity of Aadhaar resume on the second day of the hearing.

The day’s hearing on the Aadhaar case are now concluded. The Bench rises.

Senior advocates, P. Chidambaram and Arvind Datar, who were representing two of the petitioners separately, explained how the Aadhaar Act 2016 didn't fulfill the criteria for a money bill. CJI Dipak Misra had asked them to explain.

They cited two landmark Supreme Court cases (Kihoto Hollohan and Rajam Ram Pal) and said that the apex court has the power to review laws passed by the Parliament on the basis of an irregularity.