Tuesday 16 July 2019

Highlights of Supreme Court Judgment on Aadhaar


1173. In view of above discussions, we arrive at following conclusions:

(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 three-fold 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 139-AA 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.

1174. Now, we revert back to the batch of cases, which have come up for consideration before us.

1175. We having considered and answered the issues arising in this batch of cases, all the Writ Petitions filed Under Article 32 deserves to be disposed of in accordance with our conclusions as noted above. All Transfer Cases/Transfer Petitions are also deserves to be decided accordingly.

1176. Now, we come to the Criminal Appeal arising out of S.L.P. (Crl.) No. 2524 of 2014. The above S.L.P. (Crl.) arose out of an order passed by Judicial Magistrate First Class dated 22.10.2013 by which Judicial Magistrate First Class directed DG, UIDAI and Dy. Dg. UIDAI Technology Centre, Bangalore to provide the necessary data to the Respondent C.B.I. The said order was challenged in the High Court by means of Criminal Writ Petition, in which the order was passed by the High Court on 26.02.2014 giving rise to S.L.P. (Crl.) No. 2524 of 2014.

1177. We have noticed above that according to Aadhaar Act Section 33 disclosure of information can be made as per Sub-section (1) pursuant to an order of Court, not inferior to that of District Judge. The order directing for disclosure of information having been passed by Judicial Magistrate First Class, in the present case, the order is not in consonance with Sub-section (1) of Section 33, hence the order passed by Judicial Magistrate, First Class dated 22.10.2013 and order of the High Court passed in reference to the said order deserves to be set aside. Criminal Appeal is allowed accordingly.


Writ Petition (Civil) No. 494 of 2012 

Decided On: 26.09.2018

 Justice K.S. Puttaswamy  Vs.  Union of India (UOI) and Ors.

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:
Dipak Misra, C.J.I., A.M. Khanwilkar, A.K. Sikri, Ashok Bhushan and Dr. D.Y. Chandrachud, JJ.
Read full judgment here:Click here

Print Page

No comments:

Post a Comment