Further, if the ‘law’ meant primary legislation, the section would not stand owing to violation of Article 14 and 21. He further stressed that it was impossible for a person to survive without an Aadhaar in the present times and that it had intruded the life of individuals from birth to death.ĭiscussing Section 56 of the Aadhaar Act with focus on words ‘any law’, he stated that if ‘law’ here meant delegated legislation, this section would yield for delegating essential functions, i.e., excessive delegation. He further stated that as per the Puttaswamy judgment, it is the decisional autonomy of an individual to part or not to part with her personal information. He stated that had it been passed as an ordinary bill, the recommendations of the Upper House would be considered, Section 57 would be struck down and an opt out clause be included.ĭefining consent and free consent in the light of the Contract Act, 1972, he submitted that consent in this case is vitiated as it is not free.

He pointed out that the Upper House has recommended the deletion of Section 57 of the Act which was rejected by the Lok Sabha. He further submitted that the Act was passed as a money bill without any regards to the amendments proposed by the Upper House of the Parliament. Justice Chandrachud pointed out that the moment Aadhaar was extend for use by private entities, its nexus with money bill is lost, to which Mr. Datar said that Aadhaar was meant only for the purposes mentioned in the objects of the Act and that using it for any other purpose would be invalid. Further, he said, there was no option to opt out. He stated that the Act mandated the production of consent, failing which the bank accounts would be rendered inoperable, effectively negating any consent involved. The arguments for day 15 of the final hearing began with Senior Advocate Arvind Datar pointing out the nature of consent in the PML Act.

Get videolan