By PTI | 11 Aug, 2015, 12.15PM IST
NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court today referred to a Constitution Bench a batch of petitions challenging the Centre's ambitious scheme to provide Aadhar card to all citizens and decide whether right to privacy is a fundamental right.
NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court today referred to a Constitution Bench a batch of petitions challenging the Centre's ambitious scheme to provide Aadhar card to all citizens and decide whether right to privacy is a fundamental right.
Allowing the Centre's plea, a three-judge bench
comprising Justices J Chelameswar, S A Bobde and C Nagappan, framed various
questions, including as to whether right to privacy is a fundamental right, to
be decided by the larger Constitution Bench.
"If yes, then what would be contours of the
right to privacy," the apex court said while referring the matter to Chief
Justice H L Dattu for setting up the larger bench.
Attorney General Mukul Rohatgi,
appearing for the Centre, had earlier said that the matters requires elaborate
debate and an authoritative pronouncement in view of the fact that there have
been inconsistent decisions as to whether right to privacy is a fundamental
right.
He had cited two judgements, pronounced by six and
eight- judge benches, which had held that right to privacy is not a fundamental
right.
Subsequently, smaller benches had held contrary
view and, hence this matter needed to be decided by a larger bench, AG had
said.
"Whether right to privacy is a fundamental
right guaranteed under Part III of the Constitution of India, in the light of
express ratio to the contrary by an eight-judge bench in M P Sharma case and
also by a six-judge bench of this court in Kharak Singh's case" has to be
decided, he had said.
Earlier, the Centre had sought transfer of pleas
against Aadhar to a larger bench, saying that a two-judge or a three- judge
bench cannot decide it.
Referring to pronouncements made in historic cases
like A K Gopalan, Maneka Gandhi and
bank nationalisation, the top law officer had said that inconsistencies with
regard to interpretation of certain fundamental rights can only be
"squared up" by a larger bench.
Earlier, the government had opposed a plea seeking
initiation of contempt proceedings against it, Reserve Bank of India (RBI) and
others for allegedly insisting on Aadhar cards to grant benefits of various
schemes to citizens, saying it was not mandatory.
In pursuance of earlier orders, the Centre has
conveyed to states and authorities concerned not to make Aadhar cards, issued
by Unique Identification Authority of India (UIDAI),
mandatory for availing various schemes, Additional Solicitor General Pinky
Anand had told the court.
The bench is hearing a batch of pleas against
decisions of some states to make Aadhar cards compulsory for a range of
activities including salary, provident fund disbursal, marriage and property
registration.
The government had also said that persons, having
Aadhar cards, were being asked to provide it to authorities but this was
optional.
Senior advocate Gopal Subramanium, appearing for
Mathew Thomas, one of the PIL petitioners, had filed an application seeking
initiation of contempt proceedings against the Centre and others, including
RBI, and the Election Commission.
He had alleged that the government and others were
in violation of earlier orders that had said that no person should be denied
any benefit or suffer for not having Aadhar cards.
Source : http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/
No comments:
Post a Comment