When the Aadhaar case – officially, the Justice K S Puttaswamy (Retd) and Anr. vs. Union of India and Ors – came up for hearing before the Supreme Court constitution bench of Chief Justice Dipak Misra and Justices A K Sikri, A M Khanwilkar, D Y Chandrachud and Ashok Bhushan on Thursday (December 14), the main thrust of arguments of the counsels against the Union of India was the forcible use of Aadhaar in various services, despite it being heard by the top court.

Arguments ranged from queries on why an AIDS patient would be denied treatment because he/she does not have Aadhaar, or why ration would be denied a starving child because this document was not there. Counsels arguments were based upon real life experiences and happenings in the recent past, as widely reported in the media.

The senior counsels made it clear that such coercive acts by the government were patently illegal. These hearings are to some to a conclusion on a slew of subjects. These are about linkages with several services and whether Aadhaar’s collection of biometric data interferes with the right to privacy, which the Supreme Court has decided is a fundamental right.

The arguments in the first half went as follows:

Senior counsel Shyam Diwan, arguing on behalf of the petitioner, put on record that Aadhaar was launched on January 28, 2009, while the Aadhaar Act came into operation on July 12, 2016. He also pointed out to the first order by the court which stated that no person shall suffer because of Aadhaar card. He said that Aadhaar was made mandatory for getting an LPG connection (the subsidy on that), but “the government is not satisfied with this. They want more, so they forward an application before you.”

The counsel read out all the schemes with which the government of India attached the Aadhaar number. He also pointed out that this court mentioned that Aadhaar was not mandatory as the final order has not come out.

The counsel said: “My first submission will be that court is hearing this matter and the last order will prevail. That means they cannot make Aadhaar mandatory till the matter is finally decided by one way or another.”

He said in respect of children, “they are going to make it mandatory for scholarships. They are clearly violating the order of this court and as per Section 3 of the Aadhaar Act.” He read out the UGC notification in this regard.

When Diwan read out from newspaper articles saying how Aadhaar was asked for in nursery admissions. At this Attorney General K K Venugopal observed that he don’t know when the government issued these notifications. So he cannot defend.

Diwan then pointed out other incidents where an HIV positive patient could not get treatment and asked how can serious injuries and diseases not be treated in the absence of a card?

Another counsel pointed out that the Directive Principles of State Policies explicitly bestow utmost responsibility on the state to carry out welfare functions. “How can a starving child be compelled to avail services through Aadhaar channels?” he asked.

The arguments continued into the second half.

(To be updated)

—India Legal Bureau