Supreme Court says Aadhaar not necessary for essential services

Supreme Court says Aadhaar not necessary for essential services
 23/09/2013 01:00 PM |

The centre and state governments must not insist on Aadhaar from citizens before providing essential services, the apex court ruled

In a significant development, the Supreme Court on Monday has ruled that Aadhaar or the unique identification (UID) number scheme, the United Progressive Alliance (UPA) government's ambitious project, is not mandatory to avail essential services from the government.
Various state governments have been insisting on making Aadhaar compulsory for a range of formalities, including marriage registration, disbursal of salaries and provident fund among other public services.

While hearing a public interest litigation (PIL) filed by retired Karnataka High Court judge Justice KS Puttaswamy and advocate Parvesh Khanna questioning the legal sanctity of Aadhaar, the apex court said, "The centre and state governments must not insist on Aadhaar from citizens before providing them essential services."

A Bench of Justices BS Chauhan and SA Bobde also directed central and the state governments not to issue the Aadhaar to illegal immigrants.
While trashing the Centre's claim of Rs50,000 crore expenses on the Unique Identification Authority of India (UIDAI) project, the Bench said that Aadhaar number is not necessary for important services.
In the petition, Justice Puttaswamy had sought an immediate stay on the implementation of the UID scheme. He said, "The scheme is complete infraction of Fundamental Rights under Articles 14 (right to equality) and 21 (right to life and liberty). The government claims that the scheme is voluntary but it is not so. Aadhaar is being made mandatory for purposes like registration of marriages and others. Maharashtra government has recently said no marriage will be registered if parties don't have Aadhaar cards."
The petitioner asserted that the issue required a meticulous judicial examination by the Bench since it raised questions not only over the government's authority to implement the scheme, but also highlighted the perils of the manner of its implementation.

The Bench accepted his arguments and agreed to hear his contentions on the interim stay as well on while asking the centre and state governments to file their replies.
In its reply, the Centre had earlier claimed that for an Aadhaar card, consent of an individual was indispensable and hence it was a voluntary project, with an objective to promote inclusion and benefits of the marginalised sections of the society that has no formal identity proof.
In July, replying to an un-starred question in the Lok Sabha on 8 May 2013, Rajiv Shukla, minister of state for parliamentary affairs and planning said, "Aadhaar card is not mandatory to avail subsidized facilities being offered by the Government like LPG cylinders, admission in private aided schools, opening a savings account etc."

Earlier in February, Employees' Provident Fund Organisation (EPFO) had said that looking at the difficulties in enrolment, it has decided not to make the UID or Aadhaar number mandatory for its over five crore members.