In an “extremely networked” modern society, what difference does the insertion of an Aadhaar number make, the Supreme Court asked petitioners challenging the Aadhaar scheme on Tuesday.
“All our data is anyway with private entities. So does the interpolation of Aadhaar number make any difference?” Justice D.Y. Chandrachud, one of the five judges who are part of the Constitution Bench led by Chief Justice of India Dipak Misra, asked the petitioners.
To this, senior advocate Kapil Sibal responded that the apex court has to decide the extent to which the state can seek personal information.
“Yes, we are in a networked world. We have to share information. But to what extent in the networked world should the state seek information, that too, not under many umbrellas but under one. To what extent should private entities be given personal data and to what extent do we protect ourselves?” Mr. Sibal countered the question from the Bench.
To this, Justice Chandrachud asked whether the “danger” of personal data leak apprehended by the petitioners would be averted if there is an express declaration that “personal information collected would only be used for the purpose for which they are collected.”
Senior advocate Shyam Divan and advocate Vipin Nair argued that the state has the duty to protect the citizens from both non-state and state actors. Mr. Divan painted a picture of a “scary dystopia” where the state aggregates different sets of personal information to profile a citizen and track his movements.
“Let us say Aadhaar is per se constitutionally valid. Then we have to decide how far Aadhaar can be used. Should Aadhaar be used only to access subsidies? Is there a constitutional line that should not be infringed. A line when crossed would become violation of privacy,”Justice A.K. Sikri, on the Bench, observed.
The court marked the questions from the Bench as the “central issues” on which it wanted the petitioners to address in their arguments.
Mr. Divan submitted that the current legislative framework does not give the citizen any locus to file a complaint. He hypothesised a situation when there is some emergency and data stored is wiped out, leaving citizens in no position to complain.
He described the aspect of “spreading of information”, where, for example, the Aadhaar number is divulged to various service providers. The information gained from these service providers could be collated to “build up confidence” and eventually used to commit a crime, like a financial fraud, on the Aadhaar holder.
“But you are giving your PAN everywhere,” Justice Chandrachud responded to the argument.
In an earlier hearing, the Bench had asked whether the state can compel citizens, including children, to part with their biometrics in public interest. The petitioners had described the Aadhaar “project” as a “giant electronic leash” which reduces individuals to mere numbers.
The submissions are to continue on Wednesday.
