The Supreme Court today asked the attorney general to explain how can the Centre deny hard-earned pension to a retired person just because he/she has no Aadhaar.
The apex court bench, headed by Chief Justice Dipak Misra, asked Attorney General K.K. Venugopal appearing for the centre, on what basis can it deny pension to an individual who earns it after rendering services, for want of Aadhaar.
On the government's argument that Aadhaar acts as a proactive measure to prevent fake beneficiaries, the SC asked how can there be bogus or fake pension accounts when only the individual who earns can operate it. Accounts usually open in a nationalised bank, it added.
Recently, The Times of India had reported that people living in various old age homes across Uttar Pradesh have been denied pension benefits in the absence of Aadhaar cards.
“At an old age home in Meerut, none of the 49 inmates have got pension, while 40 people in Bareilly are awaiting pension. Their reasons for not getting Aadhaar is genuine: Many have not been able to get it as their fingers prints have worn out with age and labour, and due to this are unable to record their biometric data.”
The court is hearing a number of pleas challenging the constitutional validity of Aadhaar and its enabling Act. The twelve digit biometric is mandatory to avail a number of government services, including subsidies, Pensions, and for applying Income Tax and bank accounts. Petitioners argue that making Aadhaar mandatory amounts to a violation of Right to Privacy, which the Supreme Court last year, had held to be a fundamental right.
The court had earlier extended the March 31 deadline for mandatory linking of Aadhaar to avail various services and welfare schemes run by the government till it delivered its verdict on the validity of the 12-digit biometric number and its enabling law.
On Day 20th of the Aadhaar hearing today, Attorney General maintained that data of citizens in possession of the UIDAI is safe and secure as it's kept in a building that has 10 feet thick walls, amid reports of apparent leakage of biometric information of citizens in possession of the UIDAI.
Earlier, the apex court was told that the collection of biometric details of citizens by UIDAI from 2010 onwards till 2016, when the enabling Aadhaar law came into force, was "illegal" and "invalid" and the collected data deserved to be destroyed.
While centre argued that people voluntarily gave their biometric details before 2016, Justice D.Y Chandrachud retorted saying it still was taken without their 'informed consent.'
The Centre today sought the Supreme Court's permission to allow the CEO of the Unique Identification Authority of India (UIDAI) for a PowerPoint presentation on Aadhaar scheme in the court to allay concerns.
The bench said there are several technical aspects related to the Aadhaar scheme such as the surveillance, data security and exclusion of certain people from receiving benefits for the want of either authentication or the lack of Aadhaar number.
Attorney General K K Venugopal, who argued for the Centre, said the UIDAI chief executive may deal with technical aspects with more clarity.
He said the Fundamental Rights enshrined in the Indian Constitution have two aspects. One deals with rights like Right to Food and Right to Education and the other pertains to Freedom of Conscience and Right to Privacy, Venugopal said.
The question is which aspect will prevail, he said, adding that the fundamental rights like the Right to Life should prevail over Right to Conscience and Privacy.
(Inputs from agencies)
