Allow Cookies!
By using our website, you agree to the use of cookies
Recently the upholding of the Constitutional validity of the Aadhar judgement was challenged in Justice K.S. Puttaswamy (Retd.) V. Union of India and others as a review petition was filed in the Supreme Court of India. The judgement was authored by Justice AK Sikri, along with the concurrence Chief Justice Dipak Misra and Justice AM Khanwilkar. It is significant to note that it had read down certain provisions of the Aadhaar (Targeted Delivery of Financial and Other Subsidies, Benefits and Services) Act 2016 and had struck down a few significant ones (mainly Section 33(2), 47 and 57), and had upheld the rest.
Imtiyaz Ali Palsaniya, has played a greater role by filing the Review Petition, which was drafted by Supreme Court Lawyer Nipun Saxena. Palsaniya has highlighted the following grounds for filing the Review Petition, he has mentioned about the the Section 2(k) of the 2016 Act where according to the provisions it is prohibited to part with information which is pertaining to one’s income and also Section 139 AA of the Income Tax Act, 1961 has been upheld even if the provisions make it compulsory to link PAN card with Aadhar.
In the case of Binoy Viswam v. Union of India the Supreme Court of India did not give primacy to this provision. It mentioned that “Both these judgments have failed to account that when there is an express prohibition in the plain language of the statute itself, then it must be given effect to, and on this ground alone, Section 139AA of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ought to have been struck down.”
UIDAI has played an important role as it had taken a recourse to Section 23(3) which has been given a retrospective validity “It is submitted that if these MoU’s are in sheer abrogation of the Right to Privacy, then none of the statutory protections as envisaged under the Aadhaar Act, 2016 could come to the rescue of UIDAI, since no statutory provision could cure a retrospective breach of a constitutional right.”
The petition caters to the fact out that the judgment has failed to direct corporate bodies and private entities to take the data in its possession which has been given the sanctitiy of‘sensitive personal data’.
The judgement has not considered the distinction between a citizen and a resident and thus has been strongly criticized and condemned as it caters to the dimension that all the subsidies or services that are supposed to be given to citizens are being given away to residents who are not citizens.
86540
103860
630
114
59824