Supreme Court: Aadhaar card not mandatory for banks, private companies 

The Supreme Court of India pronounced a much-awaited verdict on Aadhaar card and called it constitutionally valid. The court also said that the Aadhaar card would not be mandatory in private companies anymore. The Court directed private companies, including banks and mobile companies to not to ask for Aadhaar details.

Announcing the verdict, the apex court ruled that no children should be denied any benefit of not having Aadhaar card and said it is not mandatory for admission in school too.  Justice Sikri added,  “For children enrolment, consent of parent or guardian needed. On attaining majority, if the child wants to exit, should be given permission to do so. Aadhaar not compulsory for school admissions.”

The court said,  “Aadhaar card empowers marginalised sections of the society and gives them an identity.” Justice AK Sikri said, “Education took us from thumb impression to signature. Technology has taken us from signature to thumb impression.”

While responding petitioner’s claim, it could be used as a tool for mass surveillance for the state,  Justice Sikri said,  “Attack on Aadhaar by petitioners is based on a violation of rights under Part III of the Constitution, will lead us to become a Surveillance State.”

Justice Sikri added,  “For children enrolment, consent of parent or guardian needed. On attaining majority, if the child wants to exit, should be given permission to do so. Aadhaar not compulsory for school admissions.”

“It is better to be unique than to be best. Aadhaar is based on being unique…” Justice Sikri said, reading out the majority verdict on Aadhaar. “Aadhaar has become the most talked about expression in the recent years,” Justice Sikri adds.

The Court had earlier reserved its verdict on May 10 and the hearing lasted almost 38-days. Apart from Dipak Misra, the bench comprised of Justices A K Sikri, A M Khanwilkar, D Y Chandrachud and Ashok Bhushan. These five bench judges were supposed to decide whether the Aadhaar Act, 2016 is valid or not.

The petitioner argued that Aadhaar card could be a tool for mass surveillance by the state. While the government has taken it in a positive way saying, ‘This will weed out ghost beneficiaries of government welfare scheme.”

Prime Minister Narendra Modi has also defended Aadhaar card on several occasion saying, “Aadhaar represented the march of technology and those opposing it ‘have lagged behind in technology — either they cannot understand or are purposely spreading lies’.”

Senior lawyers fighting the case include — Shyam Divan, Gopal Subramaniam, Kapil Sibal and P Chidambaram. They were fighting the case on behest of petitioner challenging the constitutional validity of Aadhaar card and opposing it on various grounds.

Apart from former HC Judge Puttaswamy, many top lawyers have argued on behest of petitioners. They include — Magsaysay awardee Shanta Sinha, feminist researcher Kalyani Sen Menon, social activists Aruna Roy, Nikhil De, Nachiket Udupa and CPI leader Binoy Visman.

Earlier Aadhaar card, 12-digit identification number, was declared mandatory for services including bank accounts, PAN cards, cellphone services, passport and even driving licenses. But, there ware some security concern about citizen’s privacy, database, fingerprint and iris scans.

Also read: TRAI Chief R. S. Sharma defiant even after hackers deposit Rs 1 in account