Aadhaar will give an identity to a large population in the country that is either disenfranchised or migrant workers moving between cities, observed the Supreme Court on Tuesday as the hearing on the unique identification scheme entered Day 10.
Senior advocate Kapil Sibal, who concluded arguments challenging Aadhaar, submitted that this scheme had the potential to become the "Right to Information (RTI) of the State" to be used for getting information about citizens without their consent. "This fundamentally alters relationship between citizens and State and will have a deep impact on not just the present generation but the future citizenry as well."
Sibal painted a grim picture of the possibility of Aadhaar to be approved by the Court calling it more draconian than the ADM Jabalpur case judgment when the judiciary by a majority ruling held fundamental rights to remain suspended during Emergency.
Thinking to the contrary, the Constitution bench of Chief Justice Dipak Misra, Justices AK Sikri, AM Khanwilkar, DY Chandrachud, and Ashok Bhushan said, "Aadhaar would give a source of identity for people who have no identity. There will be a large population who are disenfranchised. In our cities, there is a large community of migrant workers who come from other parts of the country. In such cases, will the Aadhaar policy not be an enabler by giving them an identity."
Sibal argued that what Aadhaar seeks to replace is the fundamental basis by which every citizen has to prove that he is an Indian. "Aadhaar cannot fix my status as citizens as long as I can sufficiently prove that I am a citizen of this country. I am a citizen not because I have an Aadhaar, but because I am a citizen born in this country or one who votes in the elections, or possesses a passport. The right to prove my identity is my choice. State cannot choose nor can it deny me that choice."
Sibal, who focused on the power of information, has in this age of digital revolution emphasized that protection of personal data of citizens is so vital that the fundamental right of citizens to protect this data including biometrics has to be balanced with the interest of the state of public welfare.
He reiterated that the petitioners have not challenged the thought behind Aadhaar as it is a valuable tool to ensure national security, prevent crime, conserve revenue, and make beneficiaries of public welfare schemes accountable. However, the challenge is to the "architecture" of the scheme which seeks to know personal bank transactions of each citizen, where I travel by rail or flight, etc, which has no link with the larger state interest.