Updates on Aadhaar Hearing from Supreme Court – Day 4.Attorney General Mukul Rohatgi is arguing today. Here are Bar & Bench’s tweets (Best to read from bottom up)..Last week, Senior Advocate Shyam Divan concluded his arguments. He had submitted that the Doctrine of Eminent Domain could not be extended to the human body. On a previous hearing, he had compared the number tagging that Aadhaar proposes to the practice followed in Nazi concentration camps..His other arguments were:.Divan is discussing right to self determination of individual, citing German example.“State at best is a trustee, it cannot compel me to part with my property”, Shyam Divan.“Do not allow government to canvass a humpty dumpty interpretation” Shyam Divan relying on Lord Atkin’s dissent in Liversidge v AndersonShyam Divan: “you cannot ask individuals yet to reach the age of consent to get yoked to the system”.You can read his submissions here..Two petitions were filed challenging the Constitutional validity of Section 139AA of the Income Tax Act (IT Act). The said Section makes Aadhaar mandatory for filing Income Tax Returns..The two petitions filed by three petitioners are bieng argued before a Bench of Justices AK Sikri and Ashok Bhushan..The first petition has been filed by CPI leader Binoy Viswam. The petition was drawn and filed by advocate Sriram P. Senior Advocate Arvind Datar appeared for Viswam..The second petition has been filed by SG Vombatkere, a retired Indian Army Officer and Bezwada Wilson, founder and convenor of Safai Karmachari Andolan. The petition was drawn by advocate Udayaditya Banerjee and filed by M/s. KJ John & Co with Senior Advocate Shyam Divan appearing for the two petitioners.
Updates on Aadhaar Hearing from Supreme Court – Day 4.Attorney General Mukul Rohatgi is arguing today. Here are Bar & Bench’s tweets (Best to read from bottom up)..Last week, Senior Advocate Shyam Divan concluded his arguments. He had submitted that the Doctrine of Eminent Domain could not be extended to the human body. On a previous hearing, he had compared the number tagging that Aadhaar proposes to the practice followed in Nazi concentration camps..His other arguments were:.Divan is discussing right to self determination of individual, citing German example.“State at best is a trustee, it cannot compel me to part with my property”, Shyam Divan.“Do not allow government to canvass a humpty dumpty interpretation” Shyam Divan relying on Lord Atkin’s dissent in Liversidge v AndersonShyam Divan: “you cannot ask individuals yet to reach the age of consent to get yoked to the system”.You can read his submissions here..Two petitions were filed challenging the Constitutional validity of Section 139AA of the Income Tax Act (IT Act). The said Section makes Aadhaar mandatory for filing Income Tax Returns..The two petitions filed by three petitioners are bieng argued before a Bench of Justices AK Sikri and Ashok Bhushan..The first petition has been filed by CPI leader Binoy Viswam. The petition was drawn and filed by advocate Sriram P. Senior Advocate Arvind Datar appeared for Viswam..The second petition has been filed by SG Vombatkere, a retired Indian Army Officer and Bezwada Wilson, founder and convenor of Safai Karmachari Andolan. The petition was drawn by advocate Udayaditya Banerjee and filed by M/s. KJ John & Co with Senior Advocate Shyam Divan appearing for the two petitioners.
