The Supreme Court on Wednesday, 26 September, upheld the constitutional validity of Aadhaar, but with conditions.
Justice AK Sikri pronounced the majority judgment on behalf of himself, Chief Justice of India Dipak Misra and Justice AM Khanwilkar.
"It is better to be unique than being best. Unique means only one. Aadhaar is treated as unique and cannot be assigned to any other person," he said.
Meanwhile, Justice DY Chandrachud made a dissenting judgment declaring the Aadhaar scheme unconstitutional.
Experts Weigh In
‘What About Privacy?’
The former Attorney General of India Soli Sorabjee considered the judgment to be a good one, however, he said he also related with Justice DY Chandrachud's judgment on Aadhaar violating the right to privacy.
“Supreme Court has upheld the act by placing certain conditions. I think on the whole it is a good judgment. Though personally, I am happy with Justice Chandrachud’s judgment striking it down on the ground that it bothers right to privacy... Justice Chandrachud’s concerns about the intrusion of the right to privacy are very legitimate and personally, I prefer the judgment.”Soli Sorabjee to ANI
‘Disappointed But Not Defeated’
Calling the Aadhaar verdict “disappointing”, economist Reetika Khera said she, however, was not “dejected or defeated” by it, expressing hope that Justice Chandrachud’s verdict will become the majority and unanimous opinion one day.
“[I am] disappointed because apart from striking down Section 57 of the Aadhaar Act, the majority opinion provides little relief to the poor from Aadhaar (under Section 7), in terms of accessing essential entitlements. On this, it is disappointing that the judges who have signed the majority opinion have believed the government’s false assurances that nobody will be denied their entitlements due to Aadhaar. We know that the governments have been blatantly violating the Supreme Court’s orders since 2013, and in its present form, exclusion is built into the Aadhaar ecosystem.”Reetika Khera
Khera asserted that observations made by Justice Chandrachud emboldens them in their struggle against the Aadhaar project.
“Like him, we believe that the passage of the Aadhaar Act was as a Money Bill ‘a fraud in the Constitution’ but more importantly that the project is unconstitutional in its ‘entirety’.”Reetika Khera
Mishi Choudhary, a technology lawyer, made a case for privacy as well.
Advocate Apar Gupta, who worked with the team that had challenged Aadhaar on several grounds said that the judgment signals “massive changes” in the project and Act.
Law expert Usha Ramanathan broke down the majority and minority judgments, and said that the majority judges have made a decision which seeks to support the program of the state.
The minority judgment, on the other hand, sees the people's interest, and acknowledges the balance that needs to be maintained between state that has the power, and the people on whom power is exercised, she stated.
‘Balanced Judgment’
Attorney General KK Venugopal told ANI that he was very happy about the ‘remarkable’ judgment.
“I am very happy with the judgement. It is a landmark and remarkable judgement.”KK Venugopal
Prashant Bhushan welcomed the ‘historic’ Supreme Court’s order, saying that it will provide relief to people who were being forced to part with their data for services provided by private players.
Author Shankkar Aiyar appreciated the “nuanced” judgment.
Journalist and writer Minhaz Merchant also welcomed the ‘balanced’ judgment.
Supreme Court Lawyer Jaiveer Shergill had a positive response as well. However, he attacked mobile phone operators and banks for forcing Indian citizens to link their Aadhaar, which has now been declared unconstitutional.
(At The Quint, we question everything. Play an active role in shaping our journalism by becoming a member today.)