Marriage does not eclipse right to privacy: Karnataka High Court
Bengaluru (PTI): Marriage does not do away with the procedural rights of a person to divulge his personal information, a Division Bench of the High Court has said.
Setting aside the order of a single judge, the Division Bench comprising Justice Sunil Dutt Yadav and Justice Vijaykumar A Patil, said the procedure under Section 33 of the Aadhaar Act has to be followed even if the person seeking information is the wife.
As per Section 33(1), the power of passing an order to divulge the information is conferred on a Court not inferior to that of a Judge of the High Court. But the HC noted that the single judge order had directed an authority lower than that to divulge the details.
The "learned Single Judge has grossly erred in directing the Assistant Director General, Central Public Information Officer (UIDAI) to issue notice to a person whose information sought to be divulged and to decide whether such information is to be divulged. It is a settled principle that, if the Act provides that a particular act is to be made in a particular manner, it should be done in such manner or not at all," the Division Bench said.
The woman, from Hubballi in north Karnataka, has sought information on the address of her husband mentioned in his Aadhaar card from the Public Information Officer (UIDAI). She was trying to enforce a family court order against the husband directing to pay maintenance to her.
But he was absconding. The officer replied that an HC order was necessary to divulge the details after which she approached the single bench. The single bench order was challenged by the Central Public Information Officer (UIDAI).
The HC accepted the arguments against the single judge order.
Citing the Apex Court in the K S Puttaswamy case, the Division Bench said, "The right to privacy of Aadhaar number holder preserves the autonomy of the individual's right to privacy which is conferred primacy and admits of no exception under the statutory scheme.
The relationship by marriage which is a union of two partners does not eclipse the right to privacy which is the right of an individual and the autonomy of such individual's right stands recognised and protected by the procedure of hearing contemplated under Section 33. The marriage by itself does not do away with the procedural right of hearing conferred under Section 33 of Aadhaar Act.".
The Division Bench also noted that the husband has not been made a party before the single bench. It remitted the matter back to the single bench and said, "The above discussion would clearly lead to a conclusion that a person whose information is to be divulged is to be arrayed as respondent to the proceedings before the learned Single Judge. Accordingly, we remit the matter to the learned Single Judge, wherein the husband of the petitioner is to be arrayed as respondent. An undertaking is made by the petitioner/wife that necessary amendment would be carried out to array the husband as respondent in a writ proceedings."
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.
Sanjay Raut demands re-election, alleges irregularities in EVMs during Maharashtra polls
Mumbai, Nov 25: Shiv Sena (UBT) MP Sanjay Raut on Monday demanded a re-election in Maharashtra using ballot papers, claiming there were irregularities with the electronic voting machines (EVMs).
Talking to reporters, Raut alleged several complaints about EVMs malfunctioning and questioned the integrity of the recently held elections.
The BJP-led Mahayuti won 230 out of 288 seats in the assembly elections, while the opposition Maha Vikas Aghadi managed 46 seats, with Shiv Sena (UBT) winning just 20 out of 95 seats it contested.
"We have received nearly 450 complaints regarding EVMs. Despite raising objections repeatedly, no action has been taken on these issues. How can we say these elections were conducted fairly? Hence, I demand that the results be set aside and elections be held again using ballot papers," Raut said.
Citing some instances, he said a candidate in Nashik reportedly received only four votes despite having 65 votes from his family, while in Dombivli, discrepancies were found in EVM tallies, and election officials refused to acknowledge the objections.
The Sena (UBT) leader also questioned the credibility of the landslide victories of some candidates, saying, "What revolutionary work have they done to receive more than 1.5 lakh votes? Even leaders who recently switched parties have become MLAs. This raises suspicions. For the first time, a senior leader like Sharad Pawar has expressed doubts about EVMs, which cannot be ignored."
Asked about the MVA's poor performance in the elections, Raut rejected the idea of blaming a single individual.
"We fought as a united MVA. Even a leader like Sharad Pawar, who commands immense respect in Maharashtra, faced defeat. This shows that we need to analyse the reasons behind the failure. One of the reasons is EVM irregularities and the misuse of the system, unconstitutional practices, and even judicial decisions left unresolved by Justice Chandrachud," he said.
Raut stressed that though internal differences might have existed within the MVA, the failure was collective.
He also accused the Mahayuti of conducting the elections in an unfair manner.
"I cannot call the elections fair given the numerous reports of discrepancies in EVMs, mismatched numbers, and vote irregularities across the state," Raut said.
