The UIDAI also told the apex court that it was impossible to use the Aadhaar number to track citizens
A Unique Identification Authority of India (UIDAI) representative on Tuesday told the Supreme Court that it was virtually impossible to use the Aadhaar number to track Indian citizens.
The UIDAI said that there were safeguards built into the law and its systems to ensure that the government could not use Aadhaar for surveillance even if a court were to permit them. Tushar Mehta, representing UIDAI argued, “Adhaar is already protecting the privacy and meets all the challenges in the Adhaar act.” While speaking to the Supreme Court, the UIDAI official said too much was being made of the privacy issue being a fundamental right, as nothing was private in the online era.
"The state needs to strike a balance to protect an individual's right to freedom. And the state does protect the data," Mehta added. Justice DY Chandrachudh, one of the judges in the nine-bench committee then questioned how the parliament protects data. Is data protection is not a fundamental right. “Unlike U.S in this country there is no over arching concern about privacy,” Mehta said.
The UIDAI was first set up to issue Aadhaar numbers in 2009. But because parliament could not pass the law to give legal cover to the unique identification number, the agency had to collect personal information about residents under executive instructions. Earlier, the Maharashtra government told the Supreme Court that only parliaments could introduce right to privacy as a fundamental right.
"This is not the case of interpretation of the Constitution or the law. This is the case of introduction of a right as a fundamental right. This can be done only by Parliament," senior advocate C A Sundaram, appearing for the Maharashtra government, told the judges.
“We have to look at how times have changed and we have to look carefully. When our forefathers had rejected it then the intent is clear. It's about democracy and a balance of power and that is the structure is our democracy. Right to privacy has to be governed by a statute and by a common law. It is already existent and we don't need to give it a separate status. Right to privacy will vary whether it is public or about a private person, how will we define that?” Sundaram questioned.
While responding to the apex court’s query on the state and the right to privacy, Sundaram also added that the question of freedom of press and that it was not included in freedom of expression and therefore needed to be given a separate right because they are statutory and are protected under the constitution. “Personal liberty is different from right to liberty and civil liberty. It is restricted to the liberty of the physical being, The mind doesn't come at all. So I don't understand why the petitioners are taking about inalienable right," He said.
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
 "UIDAI"){kind=logo}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
)
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
)
)
)
)
)
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}