January 18, 2018
Senior Advocate Shyam Diwan continued with his arguments against Aadhaar Act and mandatory enrollment promulgated under the Act. Some noteworthy arguments and question raised by the Bench today during the hearing are enumerated below:
- Mr. Diwan submitted that the enrollment agency or the operator is only a private person whose eligibility criteria is only attainment of majority and 10+2 educational qualification. Senior advocate questioned the Bench that why should I be compelled to part with my name, address and gender to the enrolment agency that is a private person?
- He further averred that the Aadhaar Enrollment Form requires disclosure of mobile number and bank account details of citizens. The collection of such information is purely a Sovereign function that cannot be delegated to private agencies.
- In context of documents required to be submitted for Aadhaar enrollment for address proof and name proof, the Senir Counsel remarked that I am being forced to submit photocopies of my bank statement and passport to third private parties.
- During the hearing Justice Chandrachud questioned the Senior advocate that even when you apply for insurance policy or a mobile connection, the private insurance agent or the mobile service provider requires proof of address. So why is there an issue with parting with the same proof to the Government?
To this intriguing concern, Senior advocate replied that here the private enrollment agency is not your banker or insurance agent or mobile service provider. We are being compelled by the State to part with such sensitive data to private bodies.
- In the course of hearing, the Senior advocate also made reference to 2017 right to privacy judgment (Justice K.S. Puttaswamy and anr. v. Union of India & Ors.), wherein the nine-Judge Bench of Supreme Court declared right to privacy as a fundamental right.
The case will be next taken up by the Bench on January 23.
Also read Update on Aadhaar case- Day 1