Mandatory linking of Aadhaar with PAN cannot be considered discriminatory merely because there are “conscientious objectors” who refuse to take the Aadhaar in the name of freedom of choice, privacy and fundamental rights enshrined in the Constitution, the government told the Supreme Court on Wednesday.
National anthem
Arguing before a Bench of Justices A.K. Sikri and Ashok Bhushan, the government compared the Aadhaar law to the Supreme Court’s recent order making it mandatory for the public to stand up when the national anthem was played in cinema halls.
Counsel Arghya Sengupta, arguing for the government, said the court order might also have triggered conscientious objections. “But the order is a law nevertheless. You may not want to stand up for the national anthem, but that does not mean you sit down,” Mr. Sengupta argued.
He said there could be all sorts of conscientious objections to different kind of laws.
But that could not be the basis for declaring a law discriminatory.
‘No discrimination’
To a query from the court whether there should be discrimination between people who want to pay their taxes — one who want to enrol for Aadhaar and the other who does not, Mr. Sengupta said the object of Section 139AA was not discrimination but to stop duplication of PAN.
The government further argued against the absolute right to “informational self-determination”. The state seeks information at various points, including at the time of births, deaths and marriages.
Later on, senior advocate Shyam Divan showed the court a news report of how hospital authorities accompanied by Aadhaar officials came to enrol a new-born in Gurgaon.
Mr. Divan said even the Census Act, which took all kinds of personal data, did not allow disclosure of data collected even to a court of law.
But Mr. Sengupta said privacy could not be imported to the Indian cultural milieu. “This is a country where if you get on a train, within five minutes people tell you their stories,” he submitted.
