No indignity in furnishing proof of identity, UIDAI tells Supreme Court

Source – indianexpress.com

The Unique Identity Authority of India (UIDAI) — the nodal agency in charge of implementing Aadhaar — on Wednesday contended that there was no indignity associated with furnishing proof of identity to any institution or person, as it was only a “regulatory procedure.” Appearing for UIDAI, senior advocate Rakesh Dwivedi, said: “In a relational world, if one wants to relate with an individual or institution, he or she can’t choose how they will identify themselves.”

He was responding to the Supreme Court’s query if it was not necessary to give people a choice of identity. “The insistence of any form of identity must be relatable to its purpose,” said Justice D Y Chandrachud, who was part of a five-judge Constitution bench hearing a batch of petitions challenging the Constitutional validity of the Aadhaar (Targeted Delivery of Financial and Other Subsidies, Benefits and Services) Act, 2016.

Responding to the query, Dwivedi referred to instances of offices having fingerprint-based attendance. He said that the Aadhaar card was also one of the optional documents sought from those who wanted to file a writ petition in the apex court. “There is no indignity…these are regulatory procedures,” he said.

Agreeing that dignity was at the core of all fundamental rights, he said, “Dignity, however, cannot be truncated — dignity for one class, who can afford, and another, who cannot.”

The counsel said notifications issued by the central and state governments, under section 7 of the Act, requiring furnishing of Aadhaar for providing subsidies etc, was part of efforts to improve the lot of the poor and underprivileged and hence was part of the Right to Life under Article 21 of the Constitution. Hence what was needed was a “fair balance” between the right to privacy and right to life, he added.

Referring to the proximity card issued to lawyers for entry to the apex court, he said, “I don’t think my fundamental rights are breached if I’m asked for proximity card…Nobody can say I will not identify, but I want to relate…If I’m asked to keep to the left on a road, it’s only a regulation,” he said.

“(If) you want to associate with an institution, you want some benefits, then you cannot say I will only give my choice of identity,” he said, while agreeing with the court’s suggestion that an identity must be relatable to its purpose. “There has to be a nexus and it cannot be excessive,” the counsel said.

Dwivedi said one of the advantages of Aadhaar was that it was “universal and portable.” All other cards are sectoral, he said, adding a ration card in Uttar Pradesh may be in one language and may not be helpful in Tamil Nadu and vice versa.

The counsel submitted that it is the use of biometrics that made Aadhaar a unique identity and the biometric data of users were safe with UIDAI, he said.