NEW DELHI: The Aadhar Card cannot be used to avail more services, like opening bank accounts and getting phone connections, for now, the Supreme Court ruled Yesterday, referring a plea by the Centre to a larger bench.Currently, the card can be used only for availing subsidies under the public distribution system and purchasing kerosene and cooking gas and that, too, voluntarily.
For now the ruling will remain, until a Constitution bench hears the case. The Centre is likely to move the court tomorrow to form the larger bench.
After a slew of blows to the unique identity or UID programme, the Centre, Reserve Bank of India, stock market watchdog SEBI, telecom regulator TRAI, and a number of states moved the Supreme Court for extending the voluntary use of Aadhar card to other services.
The government's ambitious UID scheme has been challenged in court over privacy concerns since it uses biometric data like fingerprint and iris scans.
The court had already referred a related debate over whether privacy is a fundamental right to a constitution bench.
In a two-hour-long hearing yesterday, high drama unfolded in court with heated exchanges between Attorney General Mukul Rohatgi, representing the Centre, and challenged by lawyer Shyam Diwan.
The Attorney General argued that when people are prepared to forgo the right to privacy for availing a "larger benefit" why should court "stand in the way?"
Representing petitioners Justice KS Puttaswamy and an NGO, Nagarik Chetna Manch, lawyer Shyam Diwan argued that Right to Privacy, whether it is for the poor or the illiterate, is "sacrosanct and can't be compromised".
The government's ambitious UID scheme has been challenged in court over privacy concerns since it uses biometric data like fingerprint and iris scans.
The court had already referred a related debate over whether privacy is a fundamental right to a constitution bench.
In a two-hour-long hearing yesterday, high drama unfolded in court with heated exchanges between Attorney General Mukul Rohatgi, representing the Centre, and challenged by lawyer Shyam Diwan.
The Attorney General argued that when people are prepared to forgo the right to privacy for availing a "larger benefit" why should court "stand in the way?"
Representing petitioners Justice KS Puttaswamy and an NGO, Nagarik Chetna Manch, lawyer Shyam Diwan argued that Right to Privacy, whether it is for the poor or the illiterate, is "sacrosanct and can't be compromised".
Source NDTV
0 Comments