The Unique Identification Authority of India (UIDAI) recently submitted to the Calcutta High Court that issuing Aadhaar cards is not contingent on citizenship status. This statement came during a hearing on a plea by the 'Joint Forum Against NRC,' which challenged the sudden deactivation and reactivation of numerous Aadhaar cards in West Bengal.
.jpeg)
The Case Background
The plea, titled Forum Against NRC v Union Of India (WPA(P) 112/2024), was heard by a division bench comprising Chief Justice TS Sivagnanam and Justice Hiranmay Bhattacharya. The petitioners, represented by counsel Jhuma Sen, argued that Aadhaar has become an indispensable part of life in India. They contended that the UIDAI's actions in deactivating Aadhaar cards without proper justification violated the rights of individuals.
Aadhaar's Legal Framework
The Aadhaar system, governed by the Aadhaar (Targeted Delivery of Financial and Other Subsidies, Benefits and Services) Act, 2016, aims to provide a unique identity to residents of India. Key provisions relevant to this case include:
- Section 3: Defines the eligibility for Aadhaar, stating that any resident who has resided in India for 182 days or more in the 12 months preceding the date of application is eligible.
- Section 54: Empowers the UIDAI to make regulations for carrying out the provisions of the Act.
- Regulations 28A and 29: Provide UIDAI with the authority to deactivate Aadhaar numbers in cases where the holder is identified as a non-citizen or ineligible.
Arguments by Petitioners
The petitioners challenged the constitutional validity of Regulations 28A and 29, arguing that these regulations grant the UIDAI unchecked power to decide who qualifies as a foreigner and to deactivate their Aadhaar cards arbitrarily. The counsel highlighted that Aadhaar is essential for various life events, from birth registration to death certification, making its deactivation a and,grave concern.
Jhuma Sen pointed to a specific instance where a Bangladeshi national and his family's Aadhaar cards were deactivated, but this action was later overturned by a coordinate bench of the High Court. The counsel argued that such deactivations, particularly without due process, disrupt the lives of affected individuals and infringe upon their rights.
UIDAI's Defense
Senior Counsel for the UIDAI, Laxmi Gupta, contested the locus standi of the petitioners, describing the 'Joint Forum Against NRC' as an unregistered organization, and therefore, not competent to file such a plea. Gupta emphasized that Aadhaar cards are not tied to citizenship but are meant for residents who meet the criteria of lawful entry and stay in India. Non-citizens can be granted Aadhaar cards for limited periods to avail of government subsidies and services.
Gupta further argued that the plea is not maintainable as it supports non-citizens, specifically Bangladeshi nationals, challenging the sovereign authority of India. Additional Solicitor General Ashok Kumar Chakrabarti supported this view, stating that the plea did not challenge Section 54 of the Aadhaar Act, from which the contested regulations derive their authority.
Previous Legal Precedents
The case references several key legal precedents related to Aadhaar and identity:
- Justice K.S. Puttaswamy (Retd.) and Anr. v Union of India and Ors. (2018): The Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of the Aadhaar scheme, emphasizing its role in delivering subsidies and benefits but also underscoring the need for privacy and data protection.
- K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India (2017): Recognized the right to privacy as a fundamental right under Article 21 of the Constitution, impacting how Aadhaar data can be used and protected.
Critical Analysis of Aadhaar's Role
The petitioners' arguments reflect broader concerns about Aadhaar's pervasive role in daily life. The system's integration into essential services like banking, telecommunications, and social welfare has made Aadhaar indispensable. However, this also raises significant issues:
- Privacy Concerns: The extensive collection and use of biometric data have raised alarms about potential misuse and data breaches.
- Exclusion Risks: Aadhaar deactivation or failure have led to the denial of services and benefits, particularly affecting vulnerable populations.
- Citizenship vs. Residency: The distinction between citizenship and residency in the context of Aadhaar issuance highlights legal and ethical dilemmas, especially concerning migrants and asylum seekers.
Government's Position on Aadhaar and Non-Citizens
The government maintains that Aadhaar is primarily a tool for residents to access subsidies and services. However, including non-citizens under certain conditions reflects a pragmatic approach to governance. This stance is evident in the UIDAI's argument that Aadhaar cards can be issued to those who lawfully enter and reside in India, allowing them to temporarily avail of necessary services.
Court's Interim Response
Acknowledging the complexity of the issues raised, the Calcutta High Court has listed the matter for further hearing. The court's decision will have significant implications for the administration of Aadhaar and residents' rights, both citizens and non-citizens.
Conclusion
The ongoing legal battle over the deactivation and reactivation of Aadhaar cards in West Bengal underscores the profound impact of Aadhaar on individual rights and state sovereignty. As the Calcutta High Court continues to hear arguments, the case will likely address fundamental questions about the balance between security, governance, and personal freedoms. The outcome will not only affect the petitioners and those similarly situated but will also shape the future trajectory of India's identification and surveillance frameworks.
Post a Comment