Updates on Aadhaar Hearing from Supreme Court – Day 6.Senior Advocates Arvind Datar and Salman Khurshid will respond to the submissions of the Centre today. The proceedings will come to an end today, with the Court expected to reserve its judgment in the matter..After hearing the arguments, the Bench of Justices AK Sikri and Ashok Bhushan reserved its judgment..Here is a summary of today’s action, as it happened. (Best to read from bottom up)..For a more detailed summary, here are tweets by Gautam Bhatia (@gautambhatia88).Yesterday, Arghya Sengupta concluded his arguments for the Centre. He argued that the Doctrine of Proportionality was a UK test and could not be applied in India. He also made note of the Supreme Court’s judgment in the Rajbala case, in which it was held that arbitrariness was not a ground for challenging a legislation..Further, he argued that informational self-determination was not an absolute right and that the introduction of Aadhaar was not violative of Article 14 of the Constitution..In his reply, Senior Advocate Shyam Divan noted that the Aadhaar Act provides that the scheme was meant to be voluntary, contrary to the Centre’s insistence that it is mandatory. He also argued that Section 139AA of the Finance Act was not a fiscal provision. He concluded his arguments by stating that Aadhaar could have a major impact on civil liberties in the future.
Updates on Aadhaar Hearing from Supreme Court – Day 6.Senior Advocates Arvind Datar and Salman Khurshid will respond to the submissions of the Centre today. The proceedings will come to an end today, with the Court expected to reserve its judgment in the matter..After hearing the arguments, the Bench of Justices AK Sikri and Ashok Bhushan reserved its judgment..Here is a summary of today’s action, as it happened. (Best to read from bottom up)..For a more detailed summary, here are tweets by Gautam Bhatia (@gautambhatia88).Yesterday, Arghya Sengupta concluded his arguments for the Centre. He argued that the Doctrine of Proportionality was a UK test and could not be applied in India. He also made note of the Supreme Court’s judgment in the Rajbala case, in which it was held that arbitrariness was not a ground for challenging a legislation..Further, he argued that informational self-determination was not an absolute right and that the introduction of Aadhaar was not violative of Article 14 of the Constitution..In his reply, Senior Advocate Shyam Divan noted that the Aadhaar Act provides that the scheme was meant to be voluntary, contrary to the Centre’s insistence that it is mandatory. He also argued that Section 139AA of the Finance Act was not a fiscal provision. He concluded his arguments by stating that Aadhaar could have a major impact on civil liberties in the future.
