Biometric identification for adhaar card is not unconstitutional

Right of Privacy:

the   right   to   privacy   may   be justifiable   in   the   following   circumstances subject to the principle of proportionality:

(a)  Other   fundamental   rights:   The right to  privacy  must be  considered  in relation to its function in society and be   balanced   against   other   fundamental rights.

(b)   Legitimate   national   security interest.

(c)   Public   interest   including scientific   or   historical   research purposes or statistical purposes.

(d)  Criminal   offences:   The   need   of the   competent   authorities   for prevention   investigation,   prosecution of   criminal   offences   including safeguards   against   threat   to   public security;

(e)  The   unidentifiable   data:   The information   does   not   relate   to identified   or   identifiable   natural person   but   remains   anonymous.   The European   Union   Regulation   of   2016 refers   to   “pseudonymisation”   which means   the   processing   of   personal   data in such a manner that the personal data can   no   longer   be   attributed   to   a specific   data   subject   without   the   use of   additional   information,   provided that   such   additional   information   is kept   separately   and   is   subject   to technical   and   organisational   measures to   ensure   that   the   personal   data   are not   attributed   to   an   identified   or identifiable natural person;

(f)  The   tax,   etc.:   The   regulatory framework   of   tax   and   working   of financial   institutions,   markets   may require   disclosure   of   private information.   But   then   this   would   not entitle   the   disclosure   of   the information to all and sundry and there should   be   data   protection   rules according   to   the   objectives   of   the processing.   There   may   however,   be processing   which   is   compatible   for   the purposes   for   which   it   is   initially collected.

Adhaar Card if violates Privacy:

(1) The   requirement   under   Aadhaar   Act   to give one’s   demographic   and   biometric   information does     not   violate   fundamental   right   of privacy.

(2) The   provisions   of   Aadhaar   Act   requiring demographic   and   biometric   information   from   a resident   for   Aadhaar   Number   pass   three­fold test as laid down in Puttaswamy (supra) case, hence cannot be said to be unconstitutional.

(3) Collection   of   data,   its   storage   and   use   does not violate fundamental Right of Privacy.

(4)   Aadhaar Act does not create an architecture for pervasive surveillance.

(5) Aadhaar Act and Regulations provides protection and   safety   of   the   data   received   from individuals.

(6) Section 7 of the Aadhaar is constitutional. The provision does not deserve to be struck down on account   of   denial   in   some   cases   of   right   to claim on account of failure of authentication. (7) The State while enlivening right to food, right to   shelter   etc.   envisaged   under   Article   21 cannot   encroach   upon   the   right   of   privacy   of beneficiaries   nor   former   can   be   given precedence over the latter.

(8) Provisions of Section 29 is constitutional and does not deserves to be struck down.

(9) Section   33   cannot   be   said   to   be unconstitutional as it provides for the use of Aadhaar data base for police investigation nor it can be   said to violate protection granted under Article 20(3).

(10) Section 47 of the Aadhaar Act cannot be held to be  unconstitutional on the ground that it does not  allow an individual who finds that there is a   violation   of   Aadhaar   Act   to   initiate   any criminal process.

(11) Section 57, to the extent, which permits use of Aadhaar by the State or any body corporate or person,   in   pursuant   to   any   contract   to   this effect is unconstitutional and void.  Thus, the last   phrase   in   main   provision   of   Section   57, i.e. “or any contract to this effect” is struck down.

(12) Section   59   has   validated   all   actions   taken   by the Central Government under the notifications dated   28.01.2009     and   12.09.2009   and   all actions   shall   be   deemed   to   have   been   taken under the Aadhaar Act.

(13) Parental   consent   for   providing   biometric information   under   Regulation   3   &   demographic information   under   Regulation   4  has   to   be   read for enrolment of children between 5 to 18 years to uphold the constitutionality of Regulations 3   &   4   of   Aadhaar   (Enrolment   and   Update) Regulations, 2016.

(14) Rule   9   as   amended   by   PMLA   (Second   Amendment) Rules,   2017   is   not   unconstitutional   and   does not violate Articles 14, 19(1)(g), 21 & 300A of the Constitution and Sections 3, 7 & 51 of the Aadhaar Act.  Further Rule 9 as amended is not ultra vires to PMLA Act, 2002.

(15) Circular   dated   23.03.2017   being unconstitutional is set aside.

(16) Aadhaar   Act   has   been   rightly   passed   as   Money Bill.     The   decision   of   Speaker   certifying   the Aadhaar Bill, 2016 as Money Bill is not immuned from Judicial Review.

(17) Section   139­AA   does   not   breach   fundamental Right   of   Privacy   as   per   Privacy   Judgment   in Puttaswamy case.

(18) The   Aadhaar   Act   does   not   violate   the   interim orders passed in Writ Petition (C) No. 494 of 2012 and other Writ Petitions.

[Source: Justice K.S.Puttaswamy(Retd) vs Union Of India decided by SC on 26 September, 2018]

 

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s