Public
Statement
No
penal consequence, UID/Aadhaar remains voluntary
under law
Court
says “not to insist upon Aadhaar card or proof of application for issue of
Aadhaar card for the purpose of disbursing military pension”
After the CBDT
press statement, the question emerged as to whether the income tax return
filed without quoting UID/Aadhaar number would be deemed and rejected. The
reading of 9th
June 2017 order reveals that the answer to this question is ‘no’.
Section 139(9) of the Act defines Defective returns which a limited definition.
It does not refer to deficiency emerging from absence of UID/Aadhaar. This
definition has not been expand by the Income Tax Department. From this
situation it can be inferred that while it may be mandatory under 139AA (1) to
enroll for UID/Aadhaar and quote it while filing the return, there are no
consequences for non-compliance with that mandate. The para 90 of the 9th June order was read out by the Justices A M Khanwalikar and Navin Sinha bench.
It
must be noted that you don't
need to link your mobile number with UID/Aadhaar. You don't need to have
UID/Aadhaar Number. Both as per Aadhaar Act 2016 and the orders of the Supreme
Court UID/Aadhaar cannot be made mandatory.The most significant aspect with regard to the legal status of UID/Aadhaar is ara 90-91 of Court’s order of June 9, 2017 in the Binoy Viswam V Union of India case. The verdict is attached. The observation of 2-two Judge Bench of Justice A K Sikri and Justice Ashok Bhushan Court’s reads: “it is clear that there is no provision in Aadhaar Act which makes enrolment compulsory….Fact remains that as per the Government and UIDAI itself, the requirement of obtaining Aadhaar number is voluntary. It has been so claimed by UIDAI on its website and clarification to this effect has also been issued by UIDAI….Thus, enrolment under Aadhaar is voluntary”.
The order
is available at: http://sci.gov.in/supremecourt/2017/11151/11151_2017_Order_09-Jun-2017.pdf
It is apparent that citizens will have to contest each instance wherein it is being made mandatory by the centre, the states and other agencies the way it has been fought in US, UK, Australia, Germany, France and China where UID/Aadhaar like projects have been abandoned. UID/Aadhaar is creating a permanent emergency architecture at the behest of IFIs, foreign govts and firms. Opposition parties have failed to raise it the way it was raised in US and UK.
As per
Supreme Court's order aadhaar is voluntary for telephone connection. The February
6, 2017 order of the Court on mobile/telephone is attached.
Meanwhile,
Major General (retired) Sudhir Vombatkere contested linking of his military
pension with UID/Aadhaar, the Court gave him relief (but the relief is confined
to him only). It seems that each one of us will have to contest it to get
relief. He is also a petitioner in the case in the Court.
Government
of India Ministry of Defence (MoD) Department of Ex-Servicemen's Welfare (DESW) issued an Extraordinary Gazette
Notification No.S.O-747(E) dated March
3, 2017, published in the Gazette of India dated March 6, 2017, concerning military pensions, in which it
stated that, “An individual eligible to
receive the pension benefits is hereby required to furnish proof of possession of Aadhaar number or undergo
Aadhaar authentication”. It
notified the last date for doing so as 30 June
2017.
Major
General S.G.Vombatkere, a military pensioner, challenged the Notification by filing Writ Petition
No.18444/2017 in the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka, making the Union of India
(Secretary, MoD); Union of India (Jt Secretary, DESW); Principal Controller of
Defence Accounts (Pensions), Allahabad;
and Canara Bank (Manager, Jayalakshmipuram Branch, Mysuru) as Respondents. The Petitioner, Maj Gen
S.G.Vombatkere, was represented by Advocate Sri Clifton D'Rozario.
This
Petitioner's argument before the Hon'ble Court was that the order of the Hon’ble Supreme Court dated 11.08.2015 as
modified by the Order of the Constitution Bench dated 15.10.2015,
emphatically mandates that the Aadhaar number will not be used by the Respondents for
any purpose other than the PDS Scheme,
LPG Distribution Scheme, MGNREGS, National Social Assistance Programme (Old Age Pensions, Widow Pensions,
Disability Pensions), Prime Minister's
Jan Dhan Yojana (PMJDY) and Employees' Provident Fund Organisation (EPFO), and that it would be
voluntary. It was further argued that even the Aadhaar (Targeted Delivery of
Financial and Other Subsidies, Benefits and Services) Act, 2016, does not make
Aadhaar compulsory, and mandates that persons without Aadhaar shall be offered
alternate and viable means of identification for delivery of the subsidy,
benefit or service.
The Petitioner prayed the Hon'ble Court to
quash Gazette of India Notification S.O
747(E) dated March 3, 2017, and direct the Respondents to issue military pension to him without
insisting on his possessing an Aadhaar number or showing proof of having applied for
Aadhaar number. In the interim, the
Petitioner prayed the Hon'ble Court to stay the operation of the impugned Notification S.O 747(E).
Hon'ble
Mr. Justice A.S.Bopanna who heard the case, while issuing notice to the Respondents, was pleased to pass an
Interim Order on April 27, 2017, directing the Respondents “not to insist upon
Aadhaar card or proof of application for
issue of Aadhaar card for the purpose of disbursing military pension to the
Petitioner if he is otherwise entitled to receive such pension, pending consideration of this
Petition”.
The next date of hearing in the Supreme Court in matter related to UID/Aadhaar
linked welfare schemes filed by Shanta Sinha & Kalyani Menon Sen is on 7th
July, 2017.
For
Details: Dr Gopal
Krishna, Citizens Forum for Civil Liberties (CFCL), Mb: 08227816731,
09818089660, E-mail-1715krishna@gmail.com, Web: www.toxicswatch.org
P.S: The
Constitution Bench required to be set up to hear the constitutionality of the
UID/Aadhaar number project is yet to be set up despite urgent request made in
the order dated October 15, 2015 by 42nd Chief Justice of India (CJI) headed Constitution
Bench. The request has been repeated in the 9th June 2017 order. It seems
unless Attorney General (AG) requests for it, it will not be set up. 44th CJI
does not see urgency if it is pointed out by petitioner's lawyers, it sees
urgency only when AG says its urgent! It seems it will have to wait for the
arrival of 45th CJI in July.
Post a Comment