The constitutional validity of Aadhaar card is up for debate in the Supreme Court of India. Currently, the counsel for West Bengal along with veteran Congress party leader and lawyer Kapil Sibal are fighting against Aadhaar card – one nation one identity.
A five-judge Constitutional bench is hearing the arguments on petitions that question the Aadhaar card’s validity on the ground and that it is violates the rights of Indian citizens.
Let’s find out who said what?
Kapil Sibal: Apex court must decide constitutional validity of this idea, the driving force behind mandatory Aadhaar.
Justice Ashok Bhushan: What is wrong with the one nation, one identity idea? After all, we are all Indians and proud of that identity.
Kapil Sibal: Everything is wrong with the idea of one nation, one identity. Let us not get into a debate on that issue in court. I had said that yesterday as a legal argument and not as a political statement. To be Indian and being proud of it is fine, but Aadhaar should not be the determining device for that. We are all fiercely Indian even if we do not have Aadhaar.
Justice A.K. Sikri: What you (Sibal) meant was that one nation, one identity does not mean that if one does not have Aadhaar, he does not cease to be an Indian.
Kapil Sibal: What I meant was that I am not Aadhaar and Aadhaar is not me. The government cannot deny it. No one can guarantee data safety in a digital world. No one knows how to keep data 100% secure.
Justice Chandrachud:The power of misuse is no ground to declare a law unconstitutional. Striking down a legislation is a problem for us. For the court to strike down a law, you must say (establish) that it is a colourable (arbitrary) legislation.
Kapil Sibal: Once the data is available in the public domain, it can be misused by private players. The data is available with banks and telecom service providers. Once you make the data public, it can’t be retrieved.
Justice Chandrachud: In the absence of technologically assured safe environment what level of risk is acceptable and what level of risk not acceptable. How can this court determine?
That’s all fun for now. Will update it as more info is available. 🙂