Source – indianexpress.com<\/p>\n
The Unique Identity Authority of India (UIDAI) \u2014 the nodal agency in charge of implementing\u00a0Aadhaar\u00a0\u2014 on Wednesday contended that there was no indignity associated with furnishing proof of identity to any institution or person, as it was only a \u201cregulatory procedure.\u201d Appearing for UIDAI, senior advocate Rakesh Dwivedi, said: \u201cIn a relational world, if one wants to relate with an individual or institution, he or she can\u2019t choose how they will identify themselves.\u201d<\/p>\n
He was responding to the Supreme Court\u2019s query if it was not necessary to give people a choice of identity. \u201cThe insistence of any form of identity must be relatable to its purpose,\u201d 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.<\/p>\n
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. \u201cThere is no indignity\u2026these are regulatory procedures,\u201d he said.<\/p>\n
Agreeing that dignity was at the core of all fundamental rights, he said, \u201cDignity, however, cannot be truncated \u2014 dignity for one class, who can afford, and another, who cannot.\u201d<\/p>\n
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 \u201cfair balance\u201d between the right to privacy and right to life, he added.<\/p>\n
Referring to the proximity card issued to lawyers for entry to the apex court, he said, \u201cI don\u2019t think my fundamental rights are breached if I\u2019m asked for proximity card\u2026Nobody can say I will not identify, but I want to relate\u2026If I\u2019m asked to keep to the left on a road, it\u2019s only a regulation,\u201d he said.<\/p>\n
\u201c(If) you want to associate with an institution, you want some benefits, then you cannot say I will only give my choice of identity,\u201d he said, while agreeing with the court\u2019s suggestion that an identity must be relatable to its purpose. \u201cThere has to be a nexus and it cannot be excessive,\u201d the counsel said.<\/p>\n
Dwivedi said one of the advantages of Aadhaar was that it was \u201cuniversal and portable.\u201d 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.<\/p>\n
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.<\/p>\n