The Supreme Court on Tuesday refused to pass an interim order against the Centre’s notification making Aadhaar mandatory for availing of benefits under social welfare schemes, with the government assuring the court that no citizen would be deprived of such benefits for want of the unique identity number. The earlier deadline of June 30 has been extended till September 30 for those who want to apply for Aadhaar. The SC observed that no interim order could be passed merely on the “apprehension” raised by the petitioners that somebody might be deprived of benefits.
The Supreme Court on Tuesday refused to pass an interim order against the Centre’s notification making Aadhaar mandatory for availing benefits under social welfare schemes, with the government assuring the court that no citizen would be deprived of such benefits for want of the unique identity number.The earlier deadline of June 30 has been extended till September 30 for those who want to apply for Aadhaar.
The apex court observed that no interim order could be passed merely on the “apprehension” raised by the petitioners that somebody might be deprived of benefits under the various social welfare schemes due to lack of the Aadhaar card. “No interim order can be passed in mandamus (restraining order) on mere apprehensions. You have to wait for one week,” a vacation bench of Justice A M Khanwilkar and Justice Navin Sinha told the petitioners.
Additional Solicitor General Tushar Mehta told the Bench that if anyone was deprived of any benefits, the matter should be brought before the authorities or the court. The government, he said, would follow the words of the notification in “letter and spirit”.
The court was hearing an application against the recent notification on Aadhaar, alleging that it had violated the earlier orders which confined the use of card only for socially beneficial schemes like the distribution of food grain or cooking gas. Shyam Divan, counsel for petitioner Shanta Singh, argued that the notification would deprive even schoolchildren of mid-day meals. Other sections of society, like those rescued from trafficking and bonded labour, also would be affected, the counsel said.
The judges, while adjourning the hearing till July 7, stated that no clarification was necessary in view of the government’s clarification and the recent detailed order on Aadhaar delivered on June 6.
They observed that the situation would not change within one week and there was the question whether the vacation bench can change the earlier orders when the issues were before other benches, including the Constitution bench.
The court allowed the government to file its written reply this weekend, before the Wednesday hearing by a regular bench. The question of validity of the Aadhaar card scheme, which was made statutory last year, is before the court in various petitions.
The first petition, filed in 2014, has been referred to a Constitution bench as the government has denied that citizens have a right to privacy as claimed by the petitioner, a former Karnataka high court judge. Others have also joined the issue in other petitions, like the validity of Section 139AA of the Income Tax Act in the Budget.Meanwhile, the government has been extending the scheme to several more fields through notifications, all of which have been challenged in the Supreme Court.
Business Standard New Delhi, 28th June 2017
The Supreme Court on Tuesday refused to pass an interim order against the Centre’s notification making Aadhaar mandatory for availing benefits under social welfare schemes, with the government assuring the court that no citizen would be deprived of such benefits for want of the unique identity number.The earlier deadline of June 30 has been extended till September 30 for those who want to apply for Aadhaar.
The apex court observed that no interim order could be passed merely on the “apprehension” raised by the petitioners that somebody might be deprived of benefits under the various social welfare schemes due to lack of the Aadhaar card. “No interim order can be passed in mandamus (restraining order) on mere apprehensions. You have to wait for one week,” a vacation bench of Justice A M Khanwilkar and Justice Navin Sinha told the petitioners.
Additional Solicitor General Tushar Mehta told the Bench that if anyone was deprived of any benefits, the matter should be brought before the authorities or the court. The government, he said, would follow the words of the notification in “letter and spirit”.
The court was hearing an application against the recent notification on Aadhaar, alleging that it had violated the earlier orders which confined the use of card only for socially beneficial schemes like the distribution of food grain or cooking gas. Shyam Divan, counsel for petitioner Shanta Singh, argued that the notification would deprive even schoolchildren of mid-day meals. Other sections of society, like those rescued from trafficking and bonded labour, also would be affected, the counsel said.
The judges, while adjourning the hearing till July 7, stated that no clarification was necessary in view of the government’s clarification and the recent detailed order on Aadhaar delivered on June 6.
They observed that the situation would not change within one week and there was the question whether the vacation bench can change the earlier orders when the issues were before other benches, including the Constitution bench.
The court allowed the government to file its written reply this weekend, before the Wednesday hearing by a regular bench. The question of validity of the Aadhaar card scheme, which was made statutory last year, is before the court in various petitions.
The first petition, filed in 2014, has been referred to a Constitution bench as the government has denied that citizens have a right to privacy as claimed by the petitioner, a former Karnataka high court judge. Others have also joined the issue in other petitions, like the validity of Section 139AA of the Income Tax Act in the Budget.Meanwhile, the government has been extending the scheme to several more fields through notifications, all of which have been challenged in the Supreme Court.
Business Standard New Delhi, 28th June 2017
Comments
Post a Comment