Is Aadhar and mobile linking mandatory

Section 57 of Aadhaar Act struck down, Private companies can’t ask for Aadhaar, rules Supreme Court


Rule 9 of PMLA- set aside this provision as unconstitutional. Does not meet the test of proportionality and cannot be brought into suspicion. Linking of mobile and aadhaar- unconstitutional. On the ground that it is not backed by any law.

Supreme Court says, "Aadhaar not mandatory for opening of bank account" https://t.co/zCTwJiyNgm
 
Some contradictions:

  • aadhaar not mandatory for bank accounts. however it is mandatory for PAN. PAN is pretty much mandatory for bank accounts. (can't really get away with form 60 any more.) therefore aadhaar is indirectly mandatory for bank accounts.
  • aadhaar not mandatory for school admissions. however it is for UGC, NEET & CBSE examinations. So without aadhaar one can be a 9th pass? conflicting info on this point
[DOUBLEPOST=1537943352][/DOUBLEPOST]"Aadhar collects minimum demographic and biometric data, says Supreme Court"

They're taking all our fingers and iris scans. Also pretty much all our identifying info. If this is minimal, what else is remaining? Genital molds?[DOUBLEPOST=1537943570][/DOUBLEPOST]Only one judge spoke out about this major fact:

Justice Chandrachud says passing Aadhaar Act as Money Bill qualifies as 'subterfuge'

"Ruling party many not have majority in Rajya Sabha, but it shouldn’t have introduced Aadhaar bill as Money Bill...That would qualify as subterfuge...The debasement of democratic institutions cannot be allowed," Justice Chandrachud says.[DOUBLEPOST=1537943606][/DOUBLEPOST]Justice Chandrachud says that Aadhaar Act needn't have been a money bill

One of the clauses of contention was the fact that Parliament passed the Act without the Rajya Sabha debating it. This is because it was classified as a money bill. However, Justice Chandrachud has said he differs with Justice Sikri on whether the bill should be a money bill. Justice Chandrachud says that it shouldn't have been a money bill.[DOUBLEPOST=1537943661][/DOUBLEPOST]Aadhaar scheme does not provide robust mechanism to get consent of citizens before collecting their demographic and biometric data, says Justice D Y Chandrachud .[DOUBLEPOST=1537943698][/DOUBLEPOST]Justice Chandrachud says Aadhaar has serious problems about exclusion and right to benefits cannot be made to depend on authentication of Aadhaar.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Mp5Xhhb.png
 
Last edited:
Judge ordered the telecos to delete the Aadhaar data they have.. So what would they do now..

Delete Aadhaar records? Jio mostly has only E-Kyc through Aadhaar only!!

It has said that no private company in India can use Aadhaar data or e-KYC. It has called the Section 57 of Aadhaar, which allowed private organisations to use Aadhaar infrastructure, illegal. -- Killing the likes of PayTM E-Kyc

 
Last edited:
Julian said:
Some contradictions:

  • aadhaar not mandatory for bank accounts. however it is mandatory for PAN. PAN is pretty much mandatory for bank accounts. (can't really get away with form 60 any more.) therefore aadhaar is indirectly mandatory for bank accounts.
  • aadhaar not mandatory for school admissions. however it is for UGC, NEET & CBSE examinations. So without aadhaar one can be a 9th pass? conflicting info on this point
[DOUBLEPOST=1537943352][/DOUBLEPOST]"Aadhar collects minimum demographic and biometric data, says Supreme Court"

They're taking all our fingers and iris scans. Also pretty much all our identifying info. If this is minimal, what else is remaining? Genital molds?[DOUBLEPOST=1537943570][/DOUBLEPOST]Only one judge spoke out about this major fact:

Justice Chandrachud says passing Aadhaar Act as Money Bill qualifies as 'subterfuge'

"Ruling party many not have majority in Rajya Sabha, but it shouldn’t have introduced Aadhaar bill as Money Bill...That would qualify as subterfuge...The debasement of democratic institutions cannot be allowed," Justice Chandrachud says.[DOUBLEPOST=1537943606][/DOUBLEPOST]Justice Chandrachud says that Aadhaar Act needn't have been a money bill

One of the clauses of contention was the fact that Parliament passed the Act without the Rajya Sabha debating it. This is because it was classified as a money bill. However, Justice Chandrachud has said he differs with Justice Sikri on whether the bill should be a money bill. Justice Chandrachud says that it shouldn't have been a money bill.[DOUBLEPOST=1537943661][/DOUBLEPOST]Aadhaar scheme does not provide robust mechanism to get consent of citizens before collecting their demographic and biometric data, says Justice D Y Chandrachud .[DOUBLEPOST=1537943698][/DOUBLEPOST]Justice Chandrachud says Aadhaar has serious problems about exclusion and right to benefits cannot be made to depend on authentication of Aadhaar.
Click to expand...

Shortcomings aside, if this isn't a direct indictment of the Govt for blatant murder of democratic principles then I have no idea what is.

Aadhaar was and remains an unwarranted and intrusive and coercive instrument for the Govt and nothing less
 
mach9 said:
Shortcomings aside, if this isn't a direct indictment of the Govt for blatant murder of democratic principles then I have no idea what is.

Aadhaar was and remains an unwarranted and intrusive and coercive instrument for the Govt and nothing less
Click to expand...
And a nice money making project for private entities that is until now.


I've been following her articles & tv appearances since around 2009. I've repeated her arguments to many people who thought i was crazy
 
Last edited:
^ usha ramanathan is brilliant.[DOUBLEPOST=1538020224][/DOUBLEPOST]SC basically confirmed that govt can pass any bill as money bill if speaker is from your party, do illegal things and in few years when damage is done, SC will come and declare it illegal (after countless hearing and delays)
 
blr_p said:
exactly and the court's called that tactic out. Meaning cannot try this trick again. Money bill must be a money bill and nothing else.
Click to expand...
But passing adhaar, 4 out of 5 judges effectively okayed this tactic. I'll be surprised if we don't see this shit in the future.
 
adventureguy said:
But passing adhaar, 4 out of 5 judges effectively okayed this tactic. I'll be surprised if we don't see this shit in the future.
Click to expand...
Question is what weight does one dissenting vote carry ?

Chandrachud's views are recorded in the judgement. Doesn't that count for anything.

What happened is a lot of reources have been spent so they couldn't toss the whole project aside. This is known as a fait accompli. And it was by design. They went ahead full speed so that when this matter came up in the SC that substantial advances would be made to make it impossible to discard the entire project

The govt is saying 4 out of 5 upheld the validity of aadhar. This is because of the fait acompli.

What then comes of the minority dissenting view. Well, listen to what Usha says. Many judgements have come out later in favour of minority rulings like this. Take privacy. That was pointed out by justice Subba Rao years ago also in a minority ruling. Early this year we now have a ruling by the SC that that says we have a right to privacy. A minority view turns into a thumping majority view. Before they were saying we have no right to privacy.

I wouldn't cast aside that one minority vote here. It could attract support and snowball in the future :)
 
Last edited:
^ Yup. And that judge is on way to become chief justice in 2020~22 so Its definitely not a small matter.

But the fact remains, in future, political parties will continue to do the same unless plugged. And 4 judges didn't comment on the fact how unconstitutional this act by government was. Only Justice Chandrachud did. That's concerning
 
adventureguy said:
^ Yup. And that judge is on way to become chief justice in 2020~22 so Its definitely not a small matter.

But the fact remains, in future, political parties will continue to do the same unless plugged. And 4 judges didn't comment on the fact how unconstitutional this act by government was. Only Justice Chandrachud did. That's concerning
Click to expand...

Well the CJI isn't exactly the shining star and we know what happens when you have a bad boss
 
There is no partisan angle to exploit here. Both incumbent & opposition are lying blatantly and trying to score points off each other.

Any party in power will support the project. I've always wondered why the push to make it mandatory came about. Well Usha said the more they looked at this UID project, the more they realised this was not just some govt project. There was private interest. And that means funds for every party's election campaign should they promise to make it mandatory for everyone.

Well, the SC got in the way and gutted that plan. Still the private entities only spent on political campaigns not Aadhar. Aadhar was underwritten with tax payers money. And the real joke here is taxpayers don't get any benefits from aadhar but are still required to have aadhar to file taxes. They couldn't scrap it because then how to explain the waste of taxpayers money.

And here we are.....
 
mach9 said:
Well the CJI isn't exactly the shining star and we know what happens when you have a bad boss
Click to expand...

Isn't he set to retire on gandhi jayanti? Oh the irony :rolleyes:

I'm wondering why this ruling couldn't have waited about a week when ranjan gogoi would be CJI... :rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:
 
Back
Top