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.
Speaker rules out discussion on Guv''s conduct amid K''taka Assembly standoff
Bengaluru (PTI): In an effort to end the logjam over the Governor's address that has stalled proceedings for the past week, Karnataka Assembly Speaker U T Khader on Wednesday ruled that legislators should not discuss Thaawarchand Gehlot or his conduct in the house, saying such debates send the wrong message to the public.
The House has witnessed repeated disruptions and adjournments since the session began on January 22 over the issue of the governor's conduct.
During his address to the joint sitting of the Karnataka legislature on January 22, Gehlot read out only three sentences from the 122-paragraph speech prepared by the state government.
The speech included criticism of the Centre for replacing the Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Act (MGNREGA) with the Viksit Bharat–Guarantee for Rozgar and Ajivika Mission (Gramin) (VB-G RAM G), portions of which the governor declined to read.
Concluding his address in about two minutes, the governor left the house, triggering a commotion as Congress legislators attempted to gherao him and raised slogans.
While the opposition BJP accused the ruling Congress and its ministers of "insulting" the governor and demanded action, the treasury benches countered by claiming the governor had "insulted the National Anthem by leaving before it was played."
The house again witnessed heated arguments on the issue earlier in the day, leading to adjournment.
During the interruption, Khader held a meeting with ministers and opposition members to resolve the impasse.
When proceedings resumed, the speaker delivered his ruling.
Referring to the events of January 22 and the subsequent debate, Khader said the conduct and discussions had conveyed the wrong message to the public.
"Our conduct as members of this House and the opinions expressed must be in good taste and in accordance with constitutional provisions. They must uphold the dignity of the House and its members. We must introspect in this direction," he said.
He stressed the need for caution to ensure that such incidents are not repeated in the future.
"Let us end this matter here, continue the discussion on the motion of thanks to the governor, and refrain from discussing the governor or his conduct in this house," the speaker said.
Leader of the Opposition R Ashoka said the house should express regret over what he termed an "insult" to the governor.
Responding, Chief Minister Siddaramaiah said the situation would not have arisen had the governor read out the entire address.
"Asking the house to express regret is not appropriate. Why did the governor leave even before the National Anthem was played," Siddaramaiah asked.
BJP MLA S Suresh Kumar reminded Siddaramaiah that as Leader of the Opposition in 2011, he had asked then Governor Hansraj Bhardwaj to curtail his address.
Bhardwaj had subsequently placed the address on the table of the house, requesting members to treat it as read.
Siddaramaiah said the situation in January 2011 was different from the present one.
The debate grew intense, leading to another adjournment of the house.
