Centre: Allow Aadhaar boss to dispel misgivings

NEW DELHI:As the Supreme Court questioned the need to centralise and aggregate citizens’ biometric data under the Aadhaar, the Centre on Wednesday sought to field Unique Identification Authority of India (UIDAI) CEO Ajay Bhushan Pandey to explain the safeguards under the scheme.

Satya Prakash

Tribune News Service

New Delhi, March 21

As the Supreme Court questioned the need to centralise and aggregate citizens’ biometric data under the Aadhaar, the Centre on Wednesday sought to field Unique Identification Authority of India (UIDAI) CEO Ajay Bhushan Pandey to explain the safeguards under the scheme.

Commencing arguments on behalf of the Centre, Attorney General KK Venugopal requested a five-judge Constitution Bench headed by Chief Justice of India Dipak Misra to allow Pandey to respond to its questions on surveillance, data protection and exclusion on Thursday.

He wanted the Bench to allow the UIDAI CEO to make a power-point presentation to dispel misgivings and allay apprehensions about Aadhaar. Asking the Attorney general submit the presentation in “word format”, the Bench said it would take a decision on allowing Pandey on Thursday.

The Centre decided to field the UIDAI CEO after the Bench — which included justices AK Sikri, A M Khanwilkar, DY Chandrachud and Ashok Bhushan — asked, “If your only goal is identification, then there are less invasive means to ensure identification (of citizens). Where is the necessity to aggregate and centralise the data?”

In Singapore every person has to get a chip-based ID card and the personal information remains with the person concerned and not with the government, the Bench pointed out. CEO’s presentation would clear all doubts, the AG said.

The Bench is seized of a batch of petitions challenging the Aadhaar Act, 2016, and various notifications issued by the government on the ground that these violated right to privacy, anonymity and dignity and allowed the government to conduct surveillance, aggregation, presume criminality against individuals.

Venugopal sought to defend the law by pitting Right to Food and Right to Education aspects of Article 21 (right to life) against Right to Privacy, which was declared a fundamental right under the same constitutional provision by the top court last year.

He said fundamental rights like the Right to Life should prevail over Right to Conscience and Privacy. Right to Dignity of the downtrodden was more vital than Right to Privacy being espoused by NGOs and individuals, he said.