Supreme Court hits right notes in landmark Aadhaar verdict; Critics’ concerns met, but govt won’t be unhappy
FirstpostIn as much as these provisions were held to be symptomatic of a “surveillance state”, the Supreme Court judgment seems to have corroborated the views of Aadhaar critics who held such linking of services with biometric data an assault on privacy of citizens. Circular dated 23.03.2017, thus, cannot be held to be a law and direction to re-verification of all existing mobile subscribers through Aadhaar based e-KYC cannot be held to be backed by law, hence cannot be upheld.” During a press conference held shortly after the verdict, Finance Minister Arun Jaitley said: “One of the purposes behind a judicial review is to figure out the dos and don’ts… the Supreme Court has upheld the core and principle areas of the legislation but has also made some observations. Insofar as authentication is concerned, the respondents rightly pointed out that there are sufficient safeguard mechanisms.” On right to privacy, which has been deemed in 2017 by the Supreme Court as a fundamental right, the majority judgment observed that existence of the Aadhaar Act and delivery of welfare benefits fulfil the requirements of law and legitimacy of aim, and the scheme also achieves the third necessary condition of “proportionality” by ensuring that targeted beneficiaries and correctly identified and a balance is achieved between two competing fundamental rights: right to privacy on the one hand, and right to food, shelter and employment on the other. The Aadhaar Act ensures human dignity and the right to life and liberty, hence there would be no reasonable expectation of privacy and autonomy.” To the contention from critics that Aadhaar may conversely lead to exclusion of benefits for those who do not possess the document, the Supreme Court observed that “insofar as the argument based on probabilistic system of Aadhaar, leading to ‘exclusion’ is concerned, the authority has claimed that biometric accuracy is 99.76 percent and the petitioners have also proceeded on that basis. Would it not lead to their exclusion?” To this enlightened observation, the court also added: “We also clarify that no child shall be denied benefit of any of these schemes if, for some reasons, she is not able to produce the Aadhaar number and the benefit shall be given by verifying the identity on the basis of any other documents.” The judgment therefore has also been interpreted by the BJP as a “victory for India and the pro-poor Modi government”, and the party highlighted the part where the court observes that “insofar as Section 2 is concerned, which defines ‘resident’, the apprehension expressed by the petitioners was that it should not lead to giving Aadhaar card to illegal immigrants.