SC verdict on constitutional validity of Aadhaar likely on Wednesday
New Delhi, Sep 25: The Supreme Court will likely pronounce on Wednesday its verdict on the batch of petitions challenging the constitutional validity of Aadhaar on grounds of it being violative of the fundamental right to privacy.
Besides the validity of Aadhaar, the verdict on challenge to the tabling of Aadhaar as a money bill will also be important as it would have a bearing on the powers of the Lok Sabha Speaker.
The five-judge constitution bench comprising Chief Justice Dipak Misra, Justice A.K. Sikri, Justice A.M. Khanwilkar, Justice D.Y. Chandrachud and Justice Ashok Bhushan had reserved the verdict after hearing the petitions for over 38 days starting January 17 this year.
Besides the constitutional validity of Aadhaar on the touchstone of right to privacy, the other issue, if Aadhaar is to stay, what would be the scope and width of its applicability.
As of now Centre has issued 139 notifications, practically touching every aspect of a citizen's day-to-day life, making Aadhaar linking mandatory.
An offshoot of challenge to Aadhaar scheme on the grounds of it being violative of right to privacy was that a nine-judge constitution bench examined the issue and in August 2017 had held that the right to privacy was a fundamentals right.
The August 2017 verdict holding privacy a fundamental right is likely to impact the Aadhaar verdict.
While holding that the right to privacy was a fundamental right, Justice Chandrachud in his August 2017 judgment had said, "Apart from national security, the state may have justifiable reasons for the collection and storage of data. In a social welfare state, the government embarks upon programmes which provide benefits to impoverished and marginalised sections of society."
He had said: "There is a vital state interest in ensuring that scarce public resources are not dissipated by the diversion of resources to persons who do not qualify as recipients."
However, Justice Chandrachud had qualified the collection of data with legitimate State interest saying, "But, the data which the state has collected has to be utilised for legitimate purposes of the state and ought not to be utilised unauthorizedly for extraneous purposes. This will ensure that the legitimate concerns of the state are duly safeguarded while, at the same time, protecting privacy concerns."
These were the grounds that were argued by the Centre in defence of Aadhaar before the constitution bench.
Speaking on data protection in August 2017 judgment Justice Chandrachud had said, "Informational privacy is a facet of the right to privacy. The dangers to privacy in an age of information can originate not only from the state but from non-state actors as well."
In the course of the Aadhaar hearing, the constitution bench had described data as a "goldmine of commercial information."
In the right to privacy judgment, the court had "commended" the Union Government the "need to examine and put into place a robust regime for data protection."
"The creation of such a regime requires a careful and sensitive balance between individual interests and legitimate concerns of the state", the court had said in 2017.
While holding the individual data is a goldmine of commercial information, the court had in the course of the Aadhaar hearing had said that Aadhaar was not a panacea for all ailments of governance and frauds.
The petition challenging the Aadhaar scheme -- when it had no statutory backing which eventually came by 2016 AadhaarAAct -- was first moved by the retired judge of Karnataka High Court Justice K.S. Puttaswamy.
The legal battle against Aadhaar from the day one was led by senior counsel Shyam Divan who appeared for Justice Puttaswamy and later represented other petitioners as well.
Divan had earned the ire of Attorney General K.K. Venugopal for describing Aadhaar an electronic leash and comparing the collection of Aadhaar data akin to "concentration camp" and "totalitarian regime."
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.
BCI urges CJI to take action against Andhra HC judge for sending young lawyer to 24-hour custody
New Delhi (PTI): The Bar Council of India on Wednesday sought the urgent intervention of Chief Justice of India Surya Kant following a "deeply disturbing" incident where a judge of the Andhra Pradesh High Court reportedly sent a young advocate to
24-hour judicial custody over a procedural lapse.
The Bar Council of India (BCI) Chairperson and senior advocate Manan Kumar Mishra, in a formal representation, termed the conduct of Justice Tarlada Rajasekhar Rao "grossly inappropriate" and "damaging to the confidence of the Bar".
“I most respectfully request your Lordship to kindly take immediate institutional cognizance of the matter and call for the video recording of the proceedings, the order passed, and the surrounding circumstances.
“I further request that appropriate administrative action may kindly be considered, including withdrawal of judicial work from the learned Judge pending review, his immediate transfer to some far off High Court, and his nomination for appropriate judicial training/orientation on court management, judicial temperament, Bar-Bench relations, and proportional exercise of contempt/judicial authority,” Mishra wrote.
This representation is made to preserve the “dignity, moral authority and public confidence of the judiciary”, he said, adding, “Judges command the highest respect not by fear, but by fairness, patience, restraint and constitutional humility”.
The communication urged the CJI to intervene at the earliest to ensure that the faith of Bar, particularly young advocates, in the protective and corrective role of the judiciary is restored.
The controversy stems from proceedings on May 5.
According to the BCI, a video circulating online shows Justice Rao rebuking a young advocate who was unable to produce a specific order copy during a hearing.
The letter said that despite the advocate "repeatedly seeking pardon and mercy" and claiming he was in physical pain, the judge remained "unmoved".
The judge allegedly told the lawyer, "now you will learn," and mocked his experience before directing the Registrar and police personnel to take him into custody for 24 hours.
The BCI chairperson said that the judge’s actions lacked proportionality and fairness.
"The dignity of the court is not enhanced when a lawyer is made to beg for grace in open court and is still sent to custody for a procedural lapse," the letter said.
"A young lawyer... is an officer of the Court, still learning, still growing, and entitled to correction without humiliation," it added.
The bar body said that such actions create a "chilling effect" on the legal fraternity, particularly among junior members, and undermine the mutual respect required between the Bench and the Bar.
