Allow Cookies!
By using our website, you agree to the use of cookies
The Delhi High Court via a bench comprising Justice Ravindra Bhat and Justice Anu Malhotra issues a notice based on the petition filed by IP academic Prof. Shamnad Basheer. The petition recorded an allegation against the violation of the fundamental right to privacy under Article 21 as affirmed in Justice KS Puttaswamy v Union of India for Aadhar data breach. The notice directed the respondents that comprised, Unique Identification Authority of India (UIDIA), National Informatics Centre and Ministry of Communications and Information Technology to file response within six weeks.
The petition had previously come up before the bench of Justice Sanjeev Khanna and Justice Chandrashekhar. The court said it would wait for the outcome of the pending petition on Aadhar before taking the new matter up. While the hearing was on, UIDIA and it’s counsel wanted to have the deletion of respondent no. 2 that is the Union of India . The Court decided to take this request up for the next hearing. The petition was filed to promote IDIA initiative on promoting public interest lawyering, an initiative to increase awareness, train IDIA scholars through legal education.
Mr. Basheer traced the journey how Aadhar was a voluntary scheme and later got transformed as a compulsory mandate especially in services that incorporated linkages to it, including banking services tax returns etc. The petitioner claims that the purpose of the petition has never been to challenge the Constitutional validity of Aadhar but to establish the security of Aadhar data , for the negligent act of the respondents could violate the fundamental right of privacy. Prof Basheer mentioned how the confidentiality of his Aadhar data was compromised. He submits that he was particularly distressed to note that most of these breaches pertained to personal identity data maintained with the Central Indentities Data Repository, a centralised database containing all information collected from Aadhar applicants by Respondent No. 1
The petition reflect ta gross negligence on the part of UIDIA. The petitioner further blames it for lack of systematically track data breaches and institute a fraud detecting system. The petition argues that UIDIA further has an obligation to compensate the fellow Aadharis. The petitioner requests the Court to ensure compliance of the UIDIA with the Information Technology Act and advocates for the appointment of independent investigative and audit committee to investigate the matters of breach. There has also been the recommendations of employing a neutral ombudsman for addressing all confrontation.
86540
103860
630
114
59824