Banks, telcos could be allowed to use Aadhaar, says Jaitley
New Delhi, Oct 6 : Finance Minister Arun Jaitley Saturday said a Parliament approved legislation can restore mandatory linking of biometric ID Aadhaar with mobile phones and bank accounts, but did not say if the government will bring a new law for the same.
The Supreme Court had last month upheld the Constitutional validity of Aadhaar, the 12-digit biometric based unique identity number, but restricted its use by private entities like telecom operators for verifying identity of mobile phone user.
Jaitley said the verdict was a "very sound judgment" as the court accepted that there is legitimate state aim in Aadhaar.
"Aadhaar is not a citizenship card," he said at the HT Leadership Summit here. "Because after all you have a system where you give a lot of government money in form of various support and subsidies to all kinds of people. That was the principle objective of Aadhaar."
The Supreme Court, he said, upheld most of what Aadhaar does.
"What had not been upheld falls in two categories. One is the principle of proportionality that Aadhaar will help in these cases and then do it by an appropriate law.
"So the whole argument which was given that private companies can't use it, there is Section 57 which says you can authorise others either by law or contract. So what has been struck down is by contract," he said.
Finance Minister said a legal provision through a legislation can restore linking of Aadhaar with mobile phones and bank accounts.
"By law it can still be done, provided you do it under the adequate provision of law and do it on the basis of that in this field it is necessary," he said.
He, however, did not say if the government plans to bring a law in Parliament for the purpose.
Jaitley said the Supreme Court has permitted Aadhaar linkage in several areas like income tax, based on "the principle of proportionality".
"If you are able to show the kind of data that in mobile telephony it (Aadhaar linkage) will help, it can happen. So mobile and bank accounts are two critical areas," he said.
The Supreme Court declared constitutional the government's extraordinary attempt to give every resident a biometric ID. It, however, drew a clear line between two kinds of use for biometric authentication -- its use for state-provided services like payment of subsidies and taxation records was declared acceptable but restricted its use as authentication tool by the private sector like telecom companies and banks.
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.
Court dismisses corruption complaint against CM Siddaramaiah, minister over ad revenue losses
Bengaluru, May 6 (PTI): A Special Court in Bengaluru has dismissed a complaint alleging a conspiracy involving Karnataka Chief Minister Siddaramaiah, Minister K J George, and three senior officials to cause significant advertisement revenue losses to the Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike (BBMP) between 2015 and 2017.
The court ruled that the accusations lacked substance and were based on conjecture rather than concrete evidence.
The complaint, filed by N R Ramesh, a former corporator and BJP leader, claimed that the BBMP suffered losses of Rs 68.14 crore during Siddaramaiah’s earlier tenure as Chief Minister (2013–2018).
Ramesh alleged that the state government used BBMP-owned bus shelters to advertise its achievements without paying the mandatory advertisement fee.
He further claimed that Congress leaders may have bribed BBMP and Information Department officials to avoid raising dues.
However, in its April 28 order, the Special Court, presided over by Judge Santhosh Gajanan Bhat, found the allegations insufficient to warrant even a preliminary inquiry.
The judge remarked that the complaint was rooted in "assumptions and presumptions" rather than material evidence, and emphasised that criminal proceedings cannot be initiated based on speculative claims.
The court acknowledged that while the use of bus shelters for government publicity without formal payments may indicate procedural lapses, such irregularities do not necessarily constitute corruption under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
The Karnataka Lokayukta had earlier closed the complaint, stating that the BBMP, being the potentially aggrieved party, had not filed any grievance against the state government. It also noted that the complaint failed to establish the direct involvement of Siddaramaiah or George and appeared to challenge an administrative decision rather than allege a specific act of corruption.
Although Ramesh contended that the Lokayukta issued a “one-sided report” and failed to investigate thoroughly, the Special Court upheld the Lokayukta’s findings.
It also pointed out that since the BBMP receives financial aid from the state government, claiming misuse of public funds based solely on the absence of invoices was speculative.
Concluding its verdict, the court stated that reopening the case would not serve the cause of justice. "The complaint is devoid of merit and deserves to be rejected," it ruled, affirming that no prima facie case had been made under the Prevention of Corruption Act.
