Updates on Aadhaar Hearing from Supreme Court – Day 5.Arghya Sengupta is arguing for the Centre today. After he concludes, Senior Advocates Shyam Divan and Arvind Datar will be given the opportunity to respond..Here is a summary of today’s action, as it happened. (Best to read from bottom up)..Yesterday, Attorney General Mukul Rohatgi dismissed the petitions challenging Section 139AA of the Finance Act as “much ado about nothing“. He argued that Shyam Divan’s submissions were largely based on the Right to Privacy. A separate challenge to Aadhaar on those lines is pending before the Supreme Court..Rohatgi also waved off the recent leakages of Aadhaar details as “unsubstantial”, saying that only the Aadhaar numbers, and not the biometrics were leaked. He went on to assure the Bench that it is a secure mechanism and that the rationale for introducing it was that the PAN system was suspect..He also submitted that right to the body was not an absolute right, citing the example of organ trade. He said that legislative competence could not be argued as Income Tax lies within the domain of the Parliament..On a previous hearing, Shyam Divan had made submissions for the petitioners. Among his arguments was the fact that the Doctrine of Eminent Domain could not be extended to the human body.
Updates on Aadhaar Hearing from Supreme Court – Day 5.Arghya Sengupta is arguing for the Centre today. After he concludes, Senior Advocates Shyam Divan and Arvind Datar will be given the opportunity to respond..Here is a summary of today’s action, as it happened. (Best to read from bottom up)..Yesterday, Attorney General Mukul Rohatgi dismissed the petitions challenging Section 139AA of the Finance Act as “much ado about nothing“. He argued that Shyam Divan’s submissions were largely based on the Right to Privacy. A separate challenge to Aadhaar on those lines is pending before the Supreme Court..Rohatgi also waved off the recent leakages of Aadhaar details as “unsubstantial”, saying that only the Aadhaar numbers, and not the biometrics were leaked. He went on to assure the Bench that it is a secure mechanism and that the rationale for introducing it was that the PAN system was suspect..He also submitted that right to the body was not an absolute right, citing the example of organ trade. He said that legislative competence could not be argued as Income Tax lies within the domain of the Parliament..On a previous hearing, Shyam Divan had made submissions for the petitioners. Among his arguments was the fact that the Doctrine of Eminent Domain could not be extended to the human body.
