WRIT PETITION

INDEX

Sl. No Particulars Page No

1. Listing Proforma

2. Synopsis and List of Dates

3. Writ Petition with Affidavit

4. Annexure P-1-

5. Annexure P-2 (Colly)-

6. Annexure P-3-

7. Annexure P-4 (Colly)-

8. Annexure P-5

9. Annexure P-6

10. Annexure P-7 (Colly)

11. Annexure P-8

 SYNOPSIS

The Petitioner, having its registered office in Sector 15, Faridabad, Haryana and is an

individual involved voluntarily in issues relating to the Aadhaar mandate, has

approached this Hon'ble Court by way of the present Writ Petition under Article 32 of

the Constitution seeking a writ of declaration that the provisions of the Aadhaar Act are

in violation of Right to Privacy under Article 21 of the Constitution of India to the extent

to which it permits the government to have an access to all the confidential information

of the people, thereby infringing their privacy in entirety. The petitioner is aggrieved of

the basic provisions of this act, framed by the Parliament without having regard to

those people who do not have any involvement in the wrongful activities or without

considering the fact that not every individual is involved in illegal practices like money

laundering or corruption, so there is no point in keeping each and every person of this

country under a constant surveillance.

The petitioner therefore, hereby, intends to state that there should be separate laws for

the people who are involved under such wrongful as well as illegal activities and that

just for the sake of keeping them and their activities under a constant surveillance, the

rest of the people should not be harassed by showing this weapon of Aadhaar.
 LISTOFDATES
2006:March 3rd: Department of Information Technology, Ministry of Communications

and Information Technology gave an administrative approval for a scheme to issue

unique ID for Below Poverty Line (BPL) families.

2006:December 4th: Constitution of an Empowered Group of Ministers (EGoM) to collate

two schemes -the National Population Register under the Citizenship Act, 1955 and the

UID scheme.

2007: First meeting of the EgoM took place where the need for creating an identity

related resident database was recognized, thereby leading to the creation of Aadhaar.

2009: The Unique Identification Authority of India (UIDAI) was constituted for the

purpose of issuing unique identification numbers by the Central Government. It was

decided that the UIDAI will be executive in nature and function under the Planning

Commission. Nandan M. Nilekani was appointed as the first chairman of this

Authority.

2010: December 3rd: The National Identification Authority of India Bill, 2010 (NIAI Bill)

was introduced in RajyaSabha by the UPA government.

2010: December 10th:The NIAI Bill, 2010 was referred by the LokSabha Speaker to a

Standing Committee for examination and a report thereafter

2011:December: The Standing committee on Finance under YashwantSinha issued a

report on the NIAI Bill and rejected the bill in its initial form. It gave recommendations,

including the requirement for an overarching privacy legislation and data protection

law before the continuance of the scheme, and expressed concern about private agencies

being contracted for the collection of sensitive information.

2012:Justice K.S. Puttaswamy, former Karnataka High Court Judge, filed a

petition (W.P.(C) 494/2012)before the Supreme Court contending that Aadhaar does not

have any statutory basis, and moreover violates fundamental rights of equality &

privacy granted to every individual under the Constitution.

2013:Supreme Court in an interim order stated that no person should suffer for not

having an Aadhaar card, even if it has been made mandatory by certain authorities to

avail benefits (Order dated 23rdSeptember, 2013).

2014:An order is issued by the Supreme Court in the case of UIDAI v. Central Bureau

of Investigation (CBI) (SLP (Crl) 2524/2014), (subsequently tagged with Justice

Puttaswamy’s petition) asking agencies to revoke any orders made by them making

Aadhaar mandatory for availing benefits. Moreover, it also forbid the UIDAI from

sharing any information in the Aadhaar database with any agency without the data

subject’s consent. (Order dated 24thMarch, 2014)

2015: August: Three-judge bench of Supreme Court in an order restricted the use of

Aadhaar to schemes of LPG, and PDS, and held that no one would be denied the
benefits rightfully entitled to them for the lack of an Aadhaar card. It also refers the

question of right to privacy as a fundamental right to citizens of India to a

Constitutional Bench. (Order dated 11thAugust,2015)

2015: October: A five judge bench constituted for seeking clarifications on the August

order, reiterates that Aadhaar is not mandatory for availing any benefits, but in the

interim, expands the scope of the scheme to PDS, LPG, MNREGA, National Social

Assistance Program, PM’s Jan DhanYojna, and Employees’ Providend Fund

Organization. It further asks the CJI to expeditiously constitute a Bench for final hearing

of the matter. (Order dated 15thOctober,2015)

2016: March 3rd: Aadhaar (Targeted Delivery of Financial & Other Subsidies, Benefits &

Services)Bill introduced as a money bill in LokSabha.

2016: March 11th: Aadhaar Bill, 2016 discussed and passed by the LokSabha with no

amendments, and forwarded to the RajyaSabha for their consideration

2016: March 16th: RajyaSabha sends the Bill back to LokSabha with its recommendations.

LokSabha does not consider the recommendations and passes the bill in its original

form.

2016: March 25th:President gives assent to the Aadhaar Bill, 2016, according it the status

of a law, but the Act will take a few months to come into force.

2016: March 26th:TheAadhaar (Targeted Delivery of Financial & Other Subsidies,

Benefits & Services) Act, 2016 is notified in the Gazette of India.

2016: April 7th:Jairam Ramesh, member of RajyaSabha, moves a petition (W.P. (C)

231/2016)in the Supreme Court challenging the introduction and passing of Aadhaar

Act as a money bill.

2016: April 25th:The Supreme Court wishes to hear the Attorney General on 10 thMay,

2016 before issuing notice in the matter moved by Jairam Ramesh.

2016: May 10th: With respect to Jairam Ramesh’s petition, the Attorney General argues

in the Supreme Court that decision of the LokSabha Speaker to treat a Bill as money bill

is not open for judicial review. However, the Supreme Court asks Jairam Ramesh to

submit a note of their submissions & case laws and adjourns the hearing till July.

2016: July 12th: Certain portions of the Aadhaar Act, 2016 (Sections 11-20, 22-23, 48-59)

and the UIDAI (Terms & Conditions of Chairperson and Members) Rules, 2016 notified

by the Central Government.

2016: September 12th: A set of notifications and regulations for the Aadhaar Act, 2016

released in the officialGazette.These are as follows:

 Sections 1 to 10, and 24 to 47 of the Aadhaar Act, 2016 notified in the Gazette by the

Central Government. With this, the entire Aadhaar Act, except Section 21 have now

been notified.

 An order by the Central Government under Section 58 of the Aadhaar Act, 2016,

called the Aadhaar (Removal of Difficulties) Order, 2016.

 A set of five Regulationsfor various processes under the Aadhaar Act, namely:
  Unique Identification Authority of India (Transaction of businesses at meetings

of the Authority) Regulations, 2016

 Aadhaar (Enrolment and Update) Regulations, 2016

 Aadhaar (Authentication) Regulations, 2016

 Aadhaar (Data Security) Regulations, 2016

 Aadhaar (Sharing of information) Regulations, 2016

2016: October 21st: A fresh petition, S.G. Vombatkere&Anr. v. Union of India &Ors.

(W. P.(C) 797/2016),challenging Aadhaar Act and the Regulations notified therein listed

in the Supreme Court. However, as the Bench included Justice L.N. Rao, who had

previously represented the Union of India as ASG in previous petitions challenging

Aadhaar, it was ordered that the matter be listed before a different Bench to eliminate

any conflict of interest.

2017: January 3rd:The Ministry of Rural Development released a notification making it

mandatory for persons registered under MNREGA to furnish proof of possession of

Aadhaar, or undergo Aadhaar authentication, or enroll in the process latest by March

31st, 2017.

2017: January 4th:The Ministry of Labour and Employment released a notification

making it mandatory to furnish proof of possession ofAadhaar, or undergo Aadhaar

authentication to avail benefits under the Employees’ Pension Scheme, or enroll for

Aadhaarlatestby January31st, 2017

2017: January 5th:The case of S.G. Vombatkere&Anr. v. Union of India &Ors.,

mentioned before CJI Khehar, and Justices N V Ramana, and D Y Chandrachud, and

requested to be heard on an urgent basis due to concerns regarding citizen’s privacy,

and the collection of biometric data by private entities as well. The Supreme Court

refused to expedite the process and reportedlysaid, “We are not inclined to give

immediate hearing as there are limited resources but biometric data collection by

private agencies is not a great idea.”

2017: February: Around 30 notifications were issued by various departments of Union

Ministries making Aadhaar mandatory for availing benefits of certain welfare schemes

and subsidies. A list of these notifications maintained by SFLC.in can be accessed here.

2017: March: Until March 27th, 2017, SFLC.in recorded a list of 20 more notifications by

the Central Government that made Aadhaar mandatory for receiving benefits of

various welfare schemes. A list of these notifications can be accessed here.

2017: March 22nd: As a part of the Finance Bill, 2017 an amendment to the Income Tax

Act, 1961 was passed in the LokSabha. This amendment introduced Section 139AA that

made Aadhaar mandatory for filing of income tax returns, and for applying for a PAN

caed starting 1st July, 2017.

2017: April 26th: The Supreme Court heard the challenge of mandatory linking of

Aadhaat to PAN in the cases of BinoyViswam v. Union of India

(W.P.(C)247/2017), S.G. Vombatkere&Anr. v. Union of India (W.P.(C) 277/2017). The

hearing for this case continued on April 27th and 28th, and May 2nd, 3rd, and 4th.
 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

ORIGINAL JURISDICTION

CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO._____OF 2017

[UNDER ARTICLE 32 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA]

IN THE MATTER OF:

Jaswant Singh S/O Bhagwant Singh R/O Sector ,Faridabad,

Haryana……………………………………………... Petitioners

v.

Union of India and Ors. .……………………………………………………………. Respondents

Constitutional validity of Right to Privacy under Article 21 of the Constitution of India

AND

Constitutional validity of Aadhaar card scheme by Government, order dated 14thAugust, 2015.

TO,

THE HON‟BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE AND HIS COMPANION JUSTICES OF THIS
HON‟BLE COURT THE HUMBLE PETITION OF THE PETITIONER

ABOVENAMED
MOST RESPECTFULLY SHOWETH THAT:

(1) – That the present petition is filed in the Public Interest for considering the constitutional
validity to the Aadhaar card scheme of the union government and whether this scheme
violate the Right to Privacy of individual.

(2) – That in the present petition the petitioner will be assisted by Mr. GopalSubramanium,
Mr. KapilSibal, Mr. ArvindDatar, Mr. Shyam Divan, Mr. Anand Grover, Ms. Meenakshi
Arora, Mr. SajanPoovayya and Mr. JayantBhushan, learned senior counsel.

(3) That on order dated 11 August, 2015 the government of India had introduced the Aadhaar
card scheme as per which the Government of India will collect and compiles both
demographic and biometric data of the residence of this country, i.e. India to be used for
various purposes.

(4) That earlier this petition was before the three judge bench of this court but now a nine
judge bench of this court assembled to determine this question.

Question of Law –

(5) – That this petition raises several substantial questions of law of constitutional and public
importance as the concern the protection of fundamental rights, encompassing human
dignity, privacy andpersonhood, which may be summarized as follows:

A – Whether the Scheme of Government introducing the Aadhaar Card is constitutionality

valid as it contain collection and compilation of both demographic and biometric data.

B – Whether our Constitution Protects Privacy as an elemental principal and whether the
privacy is include under part III of the constitution as a Fundamental Right.

Content of Right to Privacy

(6) - That it might be broadly necessary to determine the nature and content of privacy in
order to consider the extent of its constitutional protection. As in the case of ‘life’ under
Article 21, a precise definition of the term ‘privacy’ may not be possible.

(7) That the existence of zones of privacy is felt instinctively by all civilized people, without
exception. The best evidence for this proposition lies in the panoply of activities through
which we all express claims to privacy in our daily lives. We lock our doors, clothe our
bodies and set passwords to our computers and phones to signal that we intend for our
places, persons and virtual lives to be private. An early case in the Supreme Court of
Georgia in the United States describes the natural and instinctive recognition of the need
for privacy in the following terms:

“The right of privacy has its foundation in the instincts of nature. It is recognized
intuitively, consciousness being the witness that can be called to establish its existence. Any
person whose intellect is in a normal condition recognizes at once that as to each individual
member of society there are matters private and there are matters public so far as the
individual is concerned. Each individual as instinctively resents any encroachment by the
public upon his rights which are of a private nature as he does the withdrawal of those of his
rights which are of a public nature”.

(8) That ‘Privacy’ is “the condition or state of being free from public attention to intrusion
into or interference with one's acts or decisions”. The right to be in this condition has
been described as ‘the right to be let alone’. What seems to be essential to privacy is the
power to seclude oneself and keep others from intruding it in any way. These intrusions
may be physical or visual, and may take any of several forms including peeping over
one's shoulder to eavesdropping directly or through instruments, devices or technological
aids.

(9) That every individual is entitled to perform his actions in private. In other words, one is
entitled to be in a state of repose and to work without being disturbed, or otherwise
observed or spied upon. The entitlement to such a condition is not confined only to
 intimate spaces such as the bedroom or the washroom but goes with a person wherever he
is, even in a public place.

(10) That privacy, that is to say, the condition arrived at after excluding other persons, is a
basic pre-requisite for exercising the liberty and the freedom to perform that activity. The
inability to create a condition of selective seclusion virtually denies an individual the
freedom to exercise that particular liberty or freedom necessary to do that activity.

(11) That a Bench of three judges of this Court, while considering the constitutional challenge
to the Aadhaar card scheme of the Union government noted in its order, dated 11 August
2015, that the norms for and compilation of demographic biometric data by government was
questioned on the ground that it violates the right to privacy. That during the argument of
that case the Attorney General for India urged that the existence of a fundamental right of
privacy is in doubt in view of two decisions: the first - M P Sharma v. Satish Chandra,
District Magistrate, Delhi,

(12) That while addressing these challenges, the Bench of three judges of this Court took note
of several decisions of this Court in which the right to privacy has been held to be a
constitutionally protected fundamental right. Those decisions include Gobind v. State of
Madhya Pradesh, R Rajagopal v. State of Tamil Nadu, and People's Union for Civil
Liberties v. Union of India.

(13) That the question of whether Article 21 encompasses a fundamental right to privacy did
not fall for consideration before the 8 Judges in the M.P. Sharma Court. Rather, the question
was whether an improper search and seizure operation undertaken against a company and its
directors would violate the constitutional bar against testimonial compulsion contained in Article
20(3) of the Constitution. This Court held that such a search did not violate Article 20(3). Its
reasoning proceeded on the footing that the absence of a fundamental right to privacy analogous
to the Fourth Amendment to the United States’ constitution in our own constitution suggested
that the Constituent Assembly chose not to subject laws providing for search and seizure to
constitutional limitations.
(14) That M.P. Sharma is unconvincing not only because it arrived at its conclusion without
enquiry into whether a privacy right could exist in our Constitution on an independent footing or
not, but because it wrongly took the United States Fourth Amendment - which in itself is no
more than a limited protection against unlawful surveillance - to be a comprehensive
constitutional guarantee of privacy in that jurisdiction.

(15) That, nothing in M.P. Sharma and Kharak Singh supports the conclusion that there is no
fundamental right to privacy in our Constitution. These two decisions and their inconclusiveness
on the question before the Court today have been discussed in great detail in the opinions of
Chelameswar J., Nariman J., and Chandrachud J., and they agree with their conclusion in this
regard. To the extent that stray observations taken out of their context may suggest otherwise, the
shift in our understanding of the nature and location of various fundamental rights in Part III
brought about by R.C. Cooper and Maneka Gandhi has removed the foundations of M.P.
Sharmaand Kharak Singh.

(16) That the judgments contained in M.P. Sharma and Kharak Singh v. State of U.P.
which was by a Bench of 6 learned Judges, should be overruled as they do not reflect the
correct position in law. In any case, both judgments have been overtaken by R.C.
Cooper v. Union of India, (1970) 1 SCC 248, and Maneka Gandhi v. Union of
India, (1978) 1 SCC 248, and therefore require a revisit at our end.

(17) That the right to privacy is very much a fundamental right which is co-terminus
with the liberty and dignity of the individual. This right is found in Articles 14, 19, 20, 21
and 25 when read with the Preamble of the Constitution. Further, several international
covenants have stated that the right to privacy is fundamental to the development of the
human personality and that these international covenants need to be read into the
fundamental rights chapter of the Constitution. Also, the right to privacy should be
evolved on a case to case basis, and being a fundamental human right should only yield
to State action if such State action is compelling, necessary and in public interest. That
 this Court also pronounce upon the fact that the right to privacy is an inalienable natural
right which is not conferred by the Constitution but only recognized as such.

(18) That the 8-Judge Bench and the 6-Judge Bench decisions have ceased to be
relevant in the context of the vastly changed circumstances of today. Further, State action
that violates the fundamental right to privacy must contain at least four elements, namely:

• “The action must be sanctioned by law;

• The proposed action must be necessary in a democratic society for a legitimate aim;

• The extent of such interference must be proportionate to the need for such interference;

• There must be procedural guarantees against abuse of such interference.”

(19) That Right to Privacy is also associated with Right to Dignity under Article 21 of
the Constitution.

PRAYER

IN LIGHT OF THE ABOVE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES IT IS HUMBLY

PRAYED BEFORE THIS HON‟BLE COURT:

(1) – TO DECLARE THE RIGHT TO PRIVACY AS A SEPARATE FUNDAMENTAL

RIGHT UNDER ARTICLE 21 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA.

(2) – TO DECLARE THE GOVERNMENT AADHAAR CARD SCHEME AS

UNCONSTITUTIONAL, AS BEING VIOLATIVE OF RIGHT TO PRIVACY OF
RESIDENT OF INDIA.

ANY OTHER RELIEF THAT THIS HON’BLE COURT MAY BE PLEASED TO GRANT IN
THE INTERESTS OF JUSTICE, EQUITY AND GOOD CONSCIENCE.
ALL OF WHICH IS RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED.

FOR THIS ACT OF KINDNESS, THE PETITIONER SHALL BE DUTY BOUND FOREVER

Sd/-

(Counsel For The Petitioner)

The Writ Petition should be accompanied by:

(i) Affidavit of the petitioner duly sworn.

(ii) Annexures as referred to in the Writ Petitioner, Rs.2/- per annexure.

(iii) 1+5 copies of the Writ Petition are required

(iv) Court fee of Rs.50/- per petitioner (In Crl. Matter no court fee is payable)

(v) Index (As per Specimen enclosed)

(vi) Cover page (as per Specimen enclosed)

(vii) Any application to be filed, Rs. 12/- per application

(viii) Memo of appearance, Rs. 5/- Court fee.

Petitioner-in-person may see a copy of WP (kept with AR-IB) to have practical knowledge
about drafting of petition.

********
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

ORIGINAL JURISDICTION

CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. OF 2017

Jaswant Singh S/O Bhagwant Singh R/O Sector 15, Faridabad , Haryana

……………Petitioner

Versus

Union Of India &Anr.......Respondent

PAPER - BOOK

FOR INDEX KINDLY SEE INSIDE

FILED BY

(ADVOCATE FOR THE PETITIONER/

PETITIONER-IN-PERSON)

Filed on: