Aadhaar compulsory: Judgement that left more questions
Supreme Court of India put a discussion to interim rest that was raging since the last nine years. This was regarding constitutional validity to the 12-digited biometric identity-based Aadhaar.
The judgment says Aadhaar is not mandatory for everything that the Aadhaar is being ‘insisted’ upon. Hence the supporters and detractors of Aadhaar, both have found a reason to rejoice. While some say this is an insult to the central government, the others say this is the victory of Modi Sarkar.
All the judges in the five-member committee have opined Aadhaar does not violate the fundamental right of privacy, but needs additional changes to make it constitutionally valid. But one of the judges, justice D.Y. Chandrachud has expressed a totally different view, terming Aadhaar totally unconstitutional.
Soon as this judgment was out, people have begun to wonder if one can live in India without getting an Aadhaar for themselves. The majority may never support their claim, but one cannot dismiss the concern of a judge of the Supreme Court. This also means Aadhaar is in such a quagmire that even a Supreme Court judge has expressed his concern about this.
The court says Aadhaar can be turned constitutionally valid with a few ‘mandatory’ conditions that have been laid down. The court has also dismissed a few ‘compulsory’ submissions in the context of Aadhaar, where it was demanded for things that were not necessary. On that basis, people are interpreting that people are free from the Aadhaar issues.
As per justice A.K Sikri, the services that have been omitted from submitting or linking Aadhaar to them, said privacy would be compromised if Aadhaar is linked to bank accounts since this violates the money laundering bill. Hence he says, this is not needed and the government should not insist on this, and nor is the linking necessary.
Linking Aadhaar to SIM card is another unnecessary aspect. If someone misused his/her sim card, it does not make every person a possible culprit. Hence, linking sim to Aadhaar is unconstitutional and unnecessary as per the bench.
Educational services or exams such as CBSE, NEET, UGC and other agencies are kept out of section 7, inter alia hence they cannot make Aadhaar mandatory for their exams and courses.
Section 7 allows the provision of obtaining Aadhaar to avail government subsidy in education. Also, according to SC, Aadhaar is not compulsory to claim the benefits of Sarva Shiksha Abhiyan. But when children become the beneficiaries of government provided welfare schemes, and apply for registration of such services and subsidies, Aadhaar number is compulsory, with the permission of parents and guardians.
Also, children have the choice of disallowing use of their Aadhaar number registration once they become adults and choose not to use the benefits, even if their parents had consented to it during their early days.
Along with this, the obtaining of Aadhaar number by corporate companies has been disallowed since the section 57 has turned unconstitutional. To make Aadhaar a legal aspect, proper law framework is needed which would pass through all filters of privacy protection.
Hence, as of now, Aadhaar need not be submitted to corporate companies. This is the most prominent aspect of the judgment. But the citizens of the country cannot assume Aadhaar is totally unnecessary now. The ones who did not get their Aadhaar, cannot hope to stay that way forever now.
Aadhaar has been made mandatory for some of the services now. The SC said mentioning Aadhaar number to avail welfare benefits and subsidies is mandatory and this does not violate the fundamental right of privacy of an individual. The five member bench has said Pan and Aadhaar have to be linked and this would be needed to file IT returns.
In a nutshell, the court makes it compulsory to get an Aadhaar number if one has to live in India, legally. Some of the incidents Aadhaar being misused in terms of denying of ration, food supplies and basic subsidies provided by the government were reported in the media.
Ration card and Aadhaar card were tied into compulsion and as a result some people had died without food in the past.
Aadhaar as it stands now, is still mandatory to avail subsidies and benefits. While it is not necessary to submit Aadhaar number to the bank, it is made mandatory to link Aadhaar with Pan card.
Since both are interconnected, does it not mean one needs to have Aadhaar number while opening a bank account or operating it since PAN card is much needed for all financial transactions? Hence, even an individual who does not come under taxable income bracket will have to have Aadhaar for sure. Hence, the gist of the judgment is Aadhaar, indeed is, compulsory to live in the country as a law-abiding citizen.
Let the Truth be known. If you read VB and like VB, please be a VB Supporter and Help us deliver the Truth to one and all.
Trump says EU has until July 4 to approve last year's trade deal or it will face higher tariffs
Washington (AP): President Donald Trump has said in a social media post that goods from the European Union would face higher tariff rates if the 27-member bloc fails to approve last year's trade framework by July 4.
The announcement on Thursday appeared to be a deadline extension after the president said last Friday that EU autos would face a higher 25 per cent tariff starting this week. Trump made the updated announcement after what he described as a "great call" with European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen.
Still, the US president was displeased that the European Parliament had yet to finalize the trade arrangement reached last year, which was further complicated in February by the US Supreme Court ruling that Trump lacked the legal authority to declare an economic emergency to impose the initial tariffs used to pressure the EU into talks.
"A promise was made that the EU would deliver their side of the Deal and, as per Agreement, cut their Tariffs to ZERO!" Trump posted. "I agreed to give her until our Country's 250th Birthday or, unfortunately, their Tariffs would immediately jump to much higher levels."
It was unclear from the post whether Trump was implying that the tariff rates would jump on all EU goods or the increase would only apply to autos.
His latest statement indicates he might be backing away from his earlier threat on EU autos by giving the European Parliament several more weeks to approve the agreement.
Under the original terms of the framework, the US would charge a 15 per cent tax on most goods imported from the EU.
But since the Supreme Court ruling, the administration has levied a 10 per cent tariff while investigating trade imbalances and national security issues, aiming to put in new tariffs to make up for lost revenues.
