Tag: Supreme Court

CJI first among equals, has power to allocate cases, says Supreme Court

KV Prasad Jun 13, 2022, 06:35 AM IST (Published)

Listen to the Article (6 Minutes)

The Chief Justice of India (CJI) is the “first among equals” and occupies a unique position having the “exclusive prerogative” to allocate cases and set up benches to hear cases, the Supreme Court ruled on Wednesday.

The verdict assumed significance as it came in the backdrop of the January 12 unprecedented press conference of senior-most judges including Justices J Chelameswar, Ranjan Gogoi, Madan B Lokur and Kurian Joseph raising the issue of improper allocation of cases.

Significantly, senior advocate and former law minister Shanti Bhushan has also recently filed a PIL seeking clarification on the administrative authority of the CJI as the ‘master of roster’ and laying down of principles in preparing the roster for allocation of cases to different benches.

“In his capacity as a Judge, the CJI is primus inter pares: the first among equals. In the discharge of his other functions, the Chief Justice of India occupies a position which is sui generis (unique)… Article 146 reaffirms the position of the Chief Justice of India as the head of the institution.

“From an institutional perspective the Chief Justice is placed at the helm of the Supreme Court. In the allocation of cases and the constitution of benches, the Chief Justice has an exclusive prerogative,” a bench comprising Chief Justice Dipak Misra and Justices A M Khanwilkar and D Y Chandrachud said.

Dismissing a PIL filed by Uttar Pradesh-based lawyer Ashok Pande seeking evolution of a “set procedure” to constitute benches and allot cases to different benches, the bench said that as a “repository of constitutional trust, the Chief Justice is an institution in himself”.

“The authority which is conferred upon the CJI, it must be remembered, is vested in a high constitutional functionary. The authority is entrusted to the Chief Justice because such an entrustment of functions is necessary for the efficient transaction of the administrative and judicial work of the Court.

“The ultimate purpose behind the entrustment of authority to the Chief Justice is to ensure that the Supreme Court is able to fulfil and discharge the constitutional obligations which govern and provide the rationale for its existence,” it said.

The entrustment of functions to the CJI as the head of the institution, is with the purpose of securing the position of the Supreme Court as an independent safeguard for the preservation of personal liberty, it said, adding “there cannot be a presumption of mistrust. The oath of office demands nothing less.”

Justice Chandrachud, writing the judgement for the bench, referred to the Supreme Court Rules, 2013 and said they were notified with the approval of the President.

“Rule 1 indicates that it is the Chief Justice who is to nominate the Judges who would constitute a Bench to hear a cause, appeal or matter. Where a reference has been made to a larger Bench, the Bench making the reference is required to refer the matter to the Chief Justice who will constitute a Bench,” the judgement said.

The bench also referred to a recent five-judge bench verdict that had set aside an order passed by a bench headed by Justice J Chelameswar ordering setting up of a larger bench, comprising five senior most judges, to hear a PIL of NGO Campaign for Judicial Accountability and Reforms relating to alleged medical admisson scam.

It was held that once the Chief Justice is stated to be the Master of the Roster, he alone had the prerogative to constitute benches and neither a two-Judge, nor a three-Judge bench can allocate the matter to themselves or direct the constitution of a bench.

Referring to the binding order of the larger bench, the court, in its 16-page judgement, said the relief sought was “manifestly misconceived”.

“It is a well settled principle that no mandamus can issue to direct a body or authority which is vested with a rule making power to make rules or to make them in a particular manner. The Supreme Court has been authorised under Article 145 to frame rules of procedure…,” it said, adding that such authority lies “exclusively in the domain” of the CJI.

Besides setting up norms for allocaiton of cases, the PIL had sought a direction to the apex court for making a rule to the effect that “a three judge Bench in the Court of the Chief Justice should consist of the Chief Justice and the two senior-most judges while a Constitution Bench should consist of five senior-most judges (or three senior-most’ judges and two juniormost’ judges).”

It had also sought “bifurcation of apex court into a ‘Supreme criminal court’, with similar divisions to hear PIL, tax, service, land disputes and miscellaneous matters”.

The bench rejected these prayers also by terming them as “misconceived”.

Elon Musk forms several ‘X Holdings’ companies to fund potential Twitter buyout

3 Mins Read

Thursday’s filing dispelled some doubts, though Musk still has work to do. He and his advisers will spend the coming days vetting potential investors for the equity portion of his offer, according to people familiar with the matter

KV Prasad Journo follow politics, process in Parliament and US Congress. Former Congressional APSA-Fulbright Fellow

Aadhaar Act validating collection of biometric ‘badly drafted’, says Supreme Court

KV Prasad Jun 13, 2022, 06:35 AM IST (Published)

Listen to the Article (6 Minutes)

The Supreme Court said that the provision of Aadhaar Act that seeks to validate the data collected from 2009 to 2016 when the statute was enacted was “badly drafted” and it could not be read to mean waiving of fundamental rights of the people.

The five judge constitution bench headed by Chief Justice Dipak Misra told Attorney General K.K. Venugopal that the supposed deemed consent for parting with biometric data can’t be stretched to mean waiving of fundamental rights to privacy of the people.

Other judges on the constitution bench are Justice A.K. Sikri, Justice A.M. Khanwilkar, Justice D.Y. Chandrachud and Justice Ashok Bhushan.

The Aadhaar (Targeted Delivery of Financial and Other Subsidies, Benefits and Services) Act, that was enacted in 2016 seeks to validate the collection of biometric and demographic Adata of the people from 2009 till law came into existence in 2016 on the strength of administrative instructions.

Section 59 says: “Anything done or any action taken by the Central Government under the Resolution of the Government of India, Planning Commission bearing notification number A-43011/02/2009-Admin. I, dated the 28th January, 2009, or by the Department of Electronics and Information Technology under the Cabinet Secretariat Notification bearing notification number S.O. 2492(E), dated the 12th September, 2015, as the case may be, shall be deemed to have been validly done or taken under this Act.”

Unimpressed by the argument advanced by the Attorney General, Chief Justice Misra said: “You have said that it was voluntary and with minimal invasion. We can’t hold that the fundamental rights can be waived or compromised” by stretching the deemed consent to that extent.

The court’s observation as Venugopal sought to defend the data collected from 2009 to 2016 on the strength of administrative orders and without obtaining the consent of the people on the collection and storage of their biometric and demographic data.

The Attorney General said that people gave their biometric data voluntarily and at that point of time, it did not violate the privacy as right to privacy was not a fundamental right.

Defending the insertion of Section 139AA of the Income Tax Act that mandates the linking of PAN number with Aadhaar, Additional Solicitor General Tushar Mehta said that the said provision advanced the “legitimate interest of the State, it did not suffer from any lack of proportionality and was not arbitrary”.

He said that the provision was introduced to eliminate the duplicate PANs from the system, which he said were being used for illegal transactions.

Mehta asserted that by linking Aadhaar with PAN helped in curbing the tax evasion, prevention, accumulation and circulation of black money and money laundering including preventing terror financing – which he described as legitimate state interest.

The top court’s nine judge constitution bench had on August 24, 2017 while holding that right to privacy was fundamental, which is a intrinsic and core feature of life and personal liberty, had said that yet state can for legitimate reasons such as protecting national security, preventing and investigating crime could collect and store data about people.

“Apart from national security, the state may have justifiable reasons for the collection and storage of data”, the majority judgment by Justice Chandrachud had said: “In a social welfare state, the government embarks upon programmes which provide benefits to impoverished and marginalised sections of society.”

He had however calling for a robust data protection regime, which “requires a careful and sensitive balance between individual interests and legitimate concerns of the state”.

The constitution bench is hearing a batch of petitions by former Karnataka High Court Judge K.S. Puttuswamy, Magsaysay awardee Shanta Sinha, feminist researcher Kalyani Sen Menon, social activist Aruna Roy, Nikhil De, Nachiket Udupa and others challenging the constitutional validity of the Aadhaar scheme on the touchstone of the fundamental right to privacy.

Elon Musk forms several ‘X Holdings’ companies to fund potential Twitter buyout

3 Mins Read

Thursday’s filing dispelled some doubts, though Musk still has work to do. He and his advisers will spend the coming days vetting potential investors for the equity portion of his offer, according to people familiar with the matter

KV Prasad Journo follow politics, process in Parliament and US Congress. Former Congressional APSA-Fulbright Fellow

SC slams centre over unutilised 1 lakh crore CAMPA funds

KV Prasad Jun 13, 2022, 06:35 AM IST (Published)

Listen to the Article (6 Minutes)

In a stinging rebuke to the centre, the Supreme Court on Tuesday observed that it had lost trust in the Executive over deployment and use of Compensatory Afforestation Fund Management and Planning Authority (CAMPA) Funds.

Through back of the envelope calculations, the Supreme Court observed that the quantum of funds would have swelled up to Rs. 1 lakh crore, as of Tuesday.

The afforestation fund is collected, mostly from private entities, as a compensation charge for deforestation of an area for industrial purposes. A charge, computed as per the density of the forest, is levied on the entity. CAMPA was envisioned as a nodal agency for management and for overseeing the deployment of the funds.

The Supreme Court has now directed the Ministry of Environment & Forests (MOEF) to submit a detailed accounts of funds available under CAMPA. The bench of the apex court, headed by Justice M B Lokur also directed the MOEF to clarify on how the funds would be deployed.

The Supreme court, in the course of the hearing, said that it had trusted the executive with the use of these funds. The bench observed that the trust was, now, gone.

The Apex court expressed dismay over large quantum of funds, collected under various heads that have been left untouched in bank accounts. The apex court had taunted that Centre, observing that intent of the funds was not to collect interest from banks.

The Apex court also held that the government had no excuse for non performance as funds were readily available.

However, the court also cautioned that the govt should be wary of trying to use the afforestation funds for sponsoring government schemes. The apex court warned that the funds were meant solely for afforestation. The court clarified that building of schools, roads and other developmental works were functions that the state needed to perform using funds from its own kitty and not the afforestation fund.

Elon Musk forms several ‘X Holdings’ companies to fund potential Twitter buyout

3 Mins Read

Thursday’s filing dispelled some doubts, though Musk still has work to do. He and his advisers will spend the coming days vetting potential investors for the equity portion of his offer, according to people familiar with the matter

KV Prasad Journo follow politics, process in Parliament and US Congress. Former Congressional APSA-Fulbright Fellow

Centre obliged to implement Cauvery award, says Supreme Court

KV Prasad Jun 13, 2022, 06:35 AM IST (Published)

Listen to the Article (6 Minutes)

The Supreme Court on Monday pulled up the Central government for not framing a scheme to implement its verdict on the sharing of Cauvery river water as it declined its plea for deferring the issue by three months.

Asking the government to draft the scheme by May 3, a bench of Chief Justice Dipak Misra, Justice A.M. Khanwilkar and Justice D.Y. Chandrachud said: “You must show your bonafide that you will frame a scheme to respect the top court order for the distribution of water.”

“You must file it… they are bound to do it and obliged to it,” Chief Justice Misra told Attorney General (AG) K.K. Venugopal.

As Venugopal said there was some difficulty and they were examining whether the scheme should be headed by an administrative or a technical member, the court said it was not concerned with all that.

After senior counsel for Karnataka said that both Karnataka and Tamil Nadu have accepted the top court verdict, the bench said “then tell the people of both the states to maintain calm and peace and co-operate”.

Citing the upcoming election to the Karnataka Assembly and seeking clarifications, the Central government had sought three months’ time to frame the scheme.

Appearing for Tamil Nadu, senior counsel Shekhar Naphade said: “Your order was so clear that even a person having even elementary knowledge of English could understand it. But for reasons better known to the Union of India, they can’t understand it.”

Tamil Nadu moved the top court seeking contempt proceedings against the Central government for its “wilful disobedience” in carrying out its direction to set up a Cauvery Management Board (CMB) and Cauvery Water Regulation Committee (CWRC) as directed by the top court.

The Supreme Court by its February 16 verdict had slightly modified the 2007 Cauvery award and directed the Central government to frame a scheme for its implementation by March 29.

Tamil Nadu had moved the top court on March 31. At the same time, the Central government too had moved the top court by filing the clarification petition.

The top court had reduced Tamil Nadu’s share of Cauvery water from 177.25 thousand million cubic feet (TMC), which was less than 192 TMC allocated by a tribunal in 2007. Karnataka’s share of water was increased by 14.75 TMC.

Elon Musk forms several ‘X Holdings’ companies to fund potential Twitter buyout

3 Mins Read

Thursday’s filing dispelled some doubts, though Musk still has work to do. He and his advisers will spend the coming days vetting potential investors for the equity portion of his offer, according to people familiar with the matter

KV Prasad Journo follow politics, process in Parliament and US Congress. Former Congressional APSA-Fulbright Fellow

Blow for Binani, Supreme Court refuses out-of-court settlement

KV Prasad Jun 13, 2022, 06:35 AM IST (Published)

Listen to the Article (6 Minutes)

In a major blow to Binani Industries, the Supreme Court has refused to allow the company’s plea seeking out-of-court settlement.

Binani said the the apex court called the plea “premature” and said the matter will be decided by NCLT on April 16.

The National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) Kolkata earlier postponed the hearing to April 16 while awaiting some clarity from the Supreme Court.

The Supreme Court observed that what could not have been achieved directly, was being sought indirectly and said that Binani was looking to reintroduce UltraTech which lost out in the bidding process.

UltraTech despite ousted from the bid, is now entering the race through Binani industries, the apex court observed. “Binani Industries is a mere front for UltraTech and the firm is putting up a bidder in the form of Binani,” it observed.

Dalmia Bharat’s lawyer said that if such a mechanism is allowed, the insolvency proceedings “will collapse” and no serious bidders will come forth for the resolution process. “Binani Industries and Ultratech are in an unholy alliance,” he said and reiterated that promoters participating in the bidding process is clearly barred by the law.

Rajendra Chitale, advisor at Chitale Legal, said that order means the integrity of the resolution process matters most.

Shardul Shroff, executive chairman at Shardul Amarchand Mangaldas and company,  said “The Supreme Court has confirmed that the matter has to be resolved under the IBC (Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code.”

Shroff said, ” The Supreme Court order has made it clear that the promoters can’t indulge in behind the scene tactics. Dalmia Bharat stands vindicated.”

Supreme Court had agreed on Monday to hear Binani Industries’ special leave petition (SLP) for an out-of-court settlement to which it refused today.

The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT), New Delhi had ordered for an out-of-court settlement to be vetted by an “appropriate court.”

Developments so far:

Binani Industries sought Supreme Court’s nod for termination of insolvency.

Credit exposure with various lending banks will be massive and multiple non-performing assets (NPAs) will be created, Binani Industries said in a statement.

“The total amount due to operational creditor has been wrongly verified by the Resolution Professionals (RP) as Rs. 503.37 crore of which Dalmia’s offer to pay 151 crore is unfair and arbitrary and not in line with the basic values of IBC Code,” Hitesh Bindal, aggrieved operational creditor of Binani operational creditors’ forum (BOCF) said in a statement.

The creditors should be paid in full without any haircuts, he said.

“Suppliers to members of BOCF too will not be paid leading to multiple MSME’s (Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises) landing up in NCLT,” Bindal said.

Earlier, the company in a petition to the court said that it is challenging the order by NCLAT which would cause  grave prejudice to public interest, interest of nationalised banks and operational creditors.

Lenders of Binani Industries, which include SBI, IDBI Bank, Canara Bank and BoB, met on April 7 to finalise the decision before the hearing. All lenders except Canara Bank accepted the settlement offer, said sources.

However, the lenders had raised some questions regarding the decision saying that Rs 7,266 crore offered by the company was inadequate.  “It must settle dues worth Rs 8,100 crore”, the banking sources said.

Elon Musk forms several ‘X Holdings’ companies to fund potential Twitter buyout

3 Mins Read

Thursday’s filing dispelled some doubts, though Musk still has work to do. He and his advisers will spend the coming days vetting potential investors for the equity portion of his offer, according to people familiar with the matter

KV Prasad Journo follow politics, process in Parliament and US Congress. Former Congressional APSA-Fulbright Fellow

Allocation of cases should be transparent, not arbitrarily, says Justice Chelameswar

KV Prasad Jun 13, 2022, 06:35 AM IST (Published)

Listen to the Article (6 Minutes)

Justice J Chelameswar, the senior-most Supreme Court judge after the Chief Justice of India, on Saturday said allocation of important and sensitive cases to different benches should be done transparently and not in an arbitrary manner.

“We are not questioning his (Chief Justice of India Dipak Misra) authority as master of roster but it should not be exercised in an arbitrary manner but in a transparent manner,” Chelameswar said.

Buttressing his point that not everything was right in the allocation of cases, Justice Chelameswar said, ” You come and walk in the corridor of the Supreme Court and you will hear that the allocation of cases is not transparent.”

He was talking to Journalist Karan Thapar at an event, “Role of Judiciary in Democracy”, organised by Harvard Club of India.

Speaking about the opposition chorus seeking an impeachment of the chief justice, Justice Chelameswar said it was “not an answer for every problem”.

“Some system is required to be set-up so that these problems don’t arise.”

Responding to a question whether he apprehended government blocking the elevation of Justice Ranjan Gogoi as the next Chief Justice of India after Justice Dipak Misra retires, he said: ” I am not an astrologer. I hope it will not happen. If it happens then it will prove what we had said in the press conference (on January 12, 2018).”

He was one of the judges who held an unprecedented press conference in January, mounting a virtual revolt against the chief justice and listing a litany of problems that they said were plaguing the country’s highest court.

They warned that these problems, including allocation of cases by the Chief Justice, could damage Indian democracy.

Elon Musk forms several ‘X Holdings’ companies to fund potential Twitter buyout

3 Mins Read

Thursday’s filing dispelled some doubts, though Musk still has work to do. He and his advisers will spend the coming days vetting potential investors for the equity portion of his offer, according to people familiar with the matter

KV Prasad Journo follow politics, process in Parliament and US Congress. Former Congressional APSA-Fulbright Fellow

Supreme Court refuses to order CBI probe into fuel adulteration

KV Prasad Jun 13, 2022, 06:35 AM IST (Published)

Listen to the Article (6 Minutes)

The Supreme Court on Thursday refused to order a CBI investigation into large-scale adulteration of petrol and diesel by mafia in the Hathras region of Uttar Pradesh.

A bench of Chief Justice Dipak Misra, Justice A M Khanwilkar, and Justice D Y Chandrachud said the law was already in place to enable the authorities to take action against such malpractices.

The bench took note of the contentions of the Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas that public sector oil companies had taken steps to conduct regular checks on the quality and quantity of petrol and diesel being supplied by retail outlets to the public at large.

The apex court in its order stated: “It has been stated that the Motor Spirit and High Speed Diesel (Regulation of Supply, Distribution and Prevention of Malpractices) Order, 2005 and the Kerosene (Restriction on Use and Fixation of Ceiling Price) Order, 1993 have provisions to enable the states and union territories to take action against malpractices.”

“Moreover, it has been stated that the ministry intends to implement the direct transfer scheme in kerosene in identified districts of different states on a pilot basis. These are essentially matters of policy. The Union Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas is seized of the issue. Steps have been taken from time to time, as elaborated in the affidavit filed in this court,” it added.

The court’s verdict came on a PIL filed by a former Bahujan Samaj Party MP Seema Upadhyay levelling allegations against Devender Agrawal, the Samajwadi Party legislator from Hathras, that he had been indulging in adulteration of petrol and diesel at outlets owned or operated by him through “benami” names.

Upadhyay had claimed that there was a need for thorough probe by the CBI into the business activities of Agarwal.

The court refused to go into the allegation of Agarwal owning multiple outlets, saying the issue had to be determined by the oil companies.

Agrawal, she claimed, had “in 1999 began his life as a driver of fuel tanker and is currently a man of many crores besides being a member of the legislative assembly”.

Seeking a Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) probe, she alleged that the subsidised kerosene oil meant for the persons residing in the rural areas or those living below poverty line was being illegally diverted to oil mafia which uses it for adulterating the fuel used in different vehicles, tractors and other equipment like generators and pump engines.

Pointing to the huge profits that the adulteration of petrol and diesel generates, she said this “enables the fuel adulterators/ black marketeers/ fuel mafia to tame the police, officials of the Food and Supply Department and other officers of public distribution system”.

Owing to the illegal activities of the oil mafias, not only were the deserving sections of population not getting their due but it was also causing huge damage to vehicles besides contributing to pollution, she added.

Elon Musk forms several ‘X Holdings’ companies to fund potential Twitter buyout

3 Mins Read

Thursday’s filing dispelled some doubts, though Musk still has work to do. He and his advisers will spend the coming days vetting potential investors for the equity portion of his offer, according to people familiar with the matter

KV Prasad Journo follow politics, process in Parliament and US Congress. Former Congressional APSA-Fulbright Fellow

Aadhaar not panacea for all ills, Supreme Court tells Centre

KV Prasad Jun 13, 2022, 06:35 AM IST (Published)

Listen to the Article (6 Minutes)

The Supreme Court on Thursday told the Centre that Aadhaar is not a panacea for all ills in the system such as corruption, tax evasion, money laundering, leakage of subsidies and terrorism, and wondered how far it can cast the net of Aadhaar.

Saying that “Aadhaar is not a catch for all frauds”, the five-judge constitution bench comprising Chief Justice Dipak Misra and Justices A K Sikri, A M Khanwilkar, D Y Chandrachud and Ashok Bhushan, asked: “How far the State can cast the net of Aadhaar that goes beyond Section 7 of Aadhaar Act and the money laundering?”

“Frauds are not happening because of multiple identities” a person possesses, the court said as Attorney General (AG) K K Venugopal tried to impress upon the constitution bench the virtues of having one identity — Aadhaar.

Summing up the broad submissions of the AG, Justice Chandrachud said: “The core of Centre’s case is that there are legitimate State interests which are to be protected. Lakhs of crores of rupees are spent which should reach the poor. You want to prevent money laundering. You want to protect collection of taxes.

“The question is how far you pass the test of proportionality. Many of the problems are unrelated to Aadhaar, which may not satisfy the rigours of Section 7 of the Aadhaar Act, 2016. How far you pass the net?”

Section 7 of the Aadhaar (Targeted Delivery of Financial and Other Subsidies, Benefits and Services) Act, 2016, says that the proof of Aadhaar number is necessary for availing certain subsidies, benefits and services.

“There are wide economic disparities, 67% of the country’s wealth is concentrated in the hands of less than 1% people. The disparity has further widened after the country became independent,” Justice Sikri said as the AG tried to defend and justify Aadhaar by pointing to the large section of vulnerable population.

Finding the AG’s submission that “Aadhaar will prevent bank frauds” unpalatable, Justice Sikri said: “When loans are given you know the person. You give loans after due diligence. NPAs (non-performing assets) don’t happen unless banks are hand in glove with those who secure loans.”

Blaming the banks for the lack of due diligence in granting loans, AG Venugopal said: “That (due diligence) ought to have been taken at the level of banks. If it had been done, Nirav Modi would not have happened.”

“Aadhaar will not prevent a person from starting different commercial entities. Starting different companies or entities by one person is not per say illegal. The problem is that for every layer of transaction, separate credit is given by the banks. There is multi-layer transactions and you get credit for every transaction… Aadhaar is not a catch for all frauds,” observed Justice Chandrachud.

Defending the decision of linking all bank accounts with Aadhaar, the AG said: “Our point is that every banking transaction will be discovered through Aadhaar. To that extent, Aadhaar is useful.

“For the larger interest, the question is whether we have one identity for all.”

As Venugopal tried to focus on the over-arching benefits of linking Aadhaar with various services and activities, Justice Sikri said: “You want Aadhaar authentication for each and every activity of mine. This is the concern expressed by them (petitioners).

“You have issued 144 notifications. You want cell phones to be linked with Aadhaar. You consider every individual of population as a terrorist or a violator… Here comes the question of proportionality.”

The court also took exception to the Aadhaar Act giving “excessive powers” to the Unique Identification Authority of India (UIDAI) on expanding the list of biometric data it can collect, saying that tomorrow it could start asking for samples of blood and saliva. “It has already added fascial impression in the list of biometric data.”

Asking, “does a terrorist apply for cell phone”, Justice Chandrachud said “but they can as well use wireless phone”.

The AG said a lot of terrorists and their supports have been nabbed by linking Aadhaar with SIM card.

The constitution bench is hearing a batch of petitions by former Karnataka High Court Judge K S Puttuswamy, Magsaysay awardee Shanta Sinha, feminist researcher Kalyani Sen Menon, social activist Aruna Roy, Nikhil De, Nachiket Udupa and others challenging the constitutional validity of the Aadhaar scheme on the touchstone of the fundamental right to privacy.

Attorney General Venugopal will continue his arguments on April 10.

Elon Musk forms several ‘X Holdings’ companies to fund potential Twitter buyout

3 Mins Read

Thursday’s filing dispelled some doubts, though Musk still has work to do. He and his advisers will spend the coming days vetting potential investors for the equity portion of his offer, according to people familiar with the matter

KV Prasad Journo follow politics, process in Parliament and US Congress. Former Congressional APSA-Fulbright Fellow

Judicial scrutiny of Aadhaar is limited, Centre tells Supreme Court

KV Prasad Jun 13, 2022, 06:35 AM IST (Published)

Listen to the Article (6 Minutes)

The Central government on Wednesday told the Supreme Court that Aadhaar unique identification number is a policy decision in the larger interest of the state, and was put in place after expert inputs, thus the scope of judicial scrutiny into it was limited.

Citing the enormous benefits of the scheme, Attorney General K.K.Venugopal told five judge constitution bench of Chief Justice Dipak Misra, Justice A.K. Sikri, Justice A.M. Khanwilkar, Justice D.Y. Chandrachud and Justice Ashok Bhushan that it has helped in curbing the leakages in the disbursal of benefits under welfare schemes.

Telling the bench that the legitimate interest of the state or the larger public interest runs through the entire Aadhaar Act, he said that it has helped in dissipation of subsides covered under Section 7, preventing black money and money laundering by linking unique identification number with bank accounts.

The court was told that linking of Aadhaar with PAN has helped in checking evasion of tax and making its mandatory linking with SIM card has aided in preventing terrorism and protecting national security.

To buttress his arguments that similar steps were taken in other countries and were upheld by their courts, the Attorney General took the constitution bench through the judgments of the American Supreme Court which have upheld the fingerprint imaging for social security cards.

He cited 19 judgments of US top court as well as United Nations report “Leaving no one behind: Imperative of inclusive development” to drive home his point that collection of biometric data of the Aadhaar holders was not invasion of privacy or or means to surveliance.

At this Justice Sikri observed that the position taken by the European courts including by the German court was diametrically different to the position taken by US courts, and cautioned that it would be better not to refer to foreign court judgments as they may cause confusion.

The Attorney General on Tuesday (April 3) had pointed to tremendous efforts were put in to ensure that Aadhaar invades or impinges the privacy to the “minimum possible manner”.

“We have structured the law so that it satisfies the three requirements of the validity of a law – that it is fair, just and reasonable,” he said in the course of the hearing of a batch of petitions by former Karnataka High Court Judge K.S. Puttuswamy, Magsaysay awardee Shanta Sinha, feminist researcher Kalyani Sen Menon, social activist Aruna Roy, Nikhil De, Nachiket Udupa and others challenging the constitutional validity of the Aadhaar scheme on the touchstone of the fundamental right to privacy.

Elon Musk forms several ‘X Holdings’ companies to fund potential Twitter buyout

3 Mins Read

Thursday’s filing dispelled some doubts, though Musk still has work to do. He and his advisers will spend the coming days vetting potential investors for the equity portion of his offer, according to people familiar with the matter

KV Prasad Journo follow politics, process in Parliament and US Congress. Former Congressional APSA-Fulbright Fellow