September 23, Supreme Court, New Delhi.
Supreme Court Order / Judgement on Aadhar (Adhaar)
There was a lot of media buzz over an order of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India on "Aadhar - UID". Various section of media & political parties even raised feasibility of the whole "Aadhar" program with reference to the order. But have they actually gone through the judgement?
Headnote from the order:
Supreme Court Order / Judgement on Aadhar (Adhaar)
There was a lot of media buzz over an order of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India on "Aadhar - UID". Various section of media & political parties even raised feasibility of the whole "Aadhar" program with reference to the order. But have they actually gone through the judgement?
Headnote from the order:
"no person should suffer for not getting the Adhaar card inspite of the fact that some authority had issued a circular making it mandatory and when any person applies to get the Adhaar Card voluntarily, it may be checked whether that person is entitled for it under the law and it should not be given to any illegal immigrant."
Personal interpretation to the best of understanding:
1. Aadhar / Adhaar Card should be considered voluntary & not mandatory
2. None should suffer or be denied of a service for not getting Aadhar / Adhaar card.
3. Aadhar / Adhaar Card should be given only to those who are legally entitled & not to any illegal immigrant.
4. The order does not make any direct / indirect reference to DBT (Direct Benefit Transfer) Scheme.
PS: Above are personal interpretations. Please see the original text of judgement, reproduced below for reference & for your independent interpretation.
___________________________________________________________________
ITEM NO.5+56 Court No.5 SECTION PIL
S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO(s). 494 OF 2012
JUSTICE K.S.PUTTASWAMY(RETD)& ANR Petitioner(s)
VERSUS
UNION OF INDIA & ORS. Respondent(s)
(With appln(s) for stay)
WITH T.P.(C) NO. 47-48 of 2013
(With appln(s) for stay and office report)
(Appln. for deletion of the name of petitioner no. 1)
T.P.(C) NO. 476 of 2013
(With appln(s) for stay and office report)
W.P.(C) No. 829 of 2013
(With appln(s) for interim relief and office report)
Date: 23/09/2013 These Petitions were called on for hearing today.
CORAM :
HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE B.S. CHAUHAN
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.A. BOBDE
For Petitioner(s) Mr. Anil B. Divan, Sr. Adv.
Mr. Ankit Goel, Adv.
Mr. Ranvir Singh, Adv.
Mr. Sanjay Yadav, Adv.
Mr. Anish Kumar Gupta,Adv.
Ms. Deepshikha Bharati, Adv.
Mr. S.S. Shamshery, Adv.
Mr. Rajeev Kr. Singh, Adv.
Mr. Nachiketa Joshi, Adv.
Mr. P.R. Kovilan Poongkuntran, Adv.
Mrs. Geetha Kovilan, Adv.
Mr. Shyam Divan, Sr. Adv.
Mr. Pratap Venugopal, Adv.
Ms. Meenakshi Chauhan, Adv.
Mr. Varun Singh, Adv.
Mr. Gaurav Nair, Adv.
for M/s. K.J. John & Co.
For Respondent(s) Mr. Mohan Parasaran, SG
Mr. L. Nageshwar Rao, ASG
Mr. Farrukh Rasheed, Adv.
Mr. Alok Mishra, Adv.
Mr. D.S. Mahra ,Adv
-2-
UPON hearing counsel the Court made the following
O R D E R
Issue notice in W.P.(C) No. 829/2013.
Application for deletion of the name of petitioner no. 1 in T.P.(C) Nos. 47 of 2013 is allowed.
T.P.(C)nos. 47-48 of 2013 and T.P.(C) No. 476 of 2013 are allowed in terms of the signed order.
All the matters require to be heard finally. List all matters for final hearing after the Constitution Bench is over.
In the meanwhile, no person should suffer for not getting the Adhaar card inspite of the fact that some authority had issued a circular making it mandatory and when any person applies to get the Adhaar Card voluntarily, it may be checked whether that person is entitled for it under the law and it should not be given to any illegal immigrant.
| (DEEPAK MANSUKHANI) |(M.S. NEGI) |
| Court Master | Court Master |
(Signed order is placed on the file)
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
TRANSFER PETITION (CIVIL) NO(s). 47-48 OF 2013
THE GOVT. OF INDIA & ORS. ETC. ....Petitioner(s)
VERSUS
S. RAJU & ANR. ETC. ....Respondent(s)
WITH
TRANSFER PETITION(CIVIL) NO(s). 476 OF 2013
O R D E R
Heard learned counsel for the parties.
Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case,we are satisfied that this is a fit case where the prayer for transfer is to be allowed.
On the facts of the case, we allow these Transfer Petitions and direct that W.P(C) No. 439 of 2012 titled S. Raju Vs. Govt. of India and Others pending before the D.B. of the High Court of Judicature at Madras and PIL No. 10 of 2012 titled Vickram Crishna and Others Vs. UIDAI and Others pending before the High Court of Judicature at Bombay be transferred to this Court. The Registry of the High Court of Madras and Registry of the High Court of Bombay are requested to transmit the original records to this Court expeditiously.
These Transfer Petitions are accordingly allowed.
....................J.
(Dr. B.S. CHAUHAN)
....................J.
(S.A. BOBDE)
NEW DELHI;
SEPTEMBER 23, 2013.
Sir, kindly tell me the citation of the case
ReplyDeletei.e. JUSTICE K.S.PUTTASWAMY(RETD)& ANR Petitioner(s)
DeleteVERSUS
UNION OF INDIA & ORS. Respondent(s)
September, 2013
The above is not a final judgement but more of an interim so it might not be reported in Journals. The case number etc. is mentioned in the blog itself, pls try to download order from Supreme Court website i.e. supremecourtofindia.nic.in
DeleteThank you admin for sharing this useful stuff, I would like to introduce Mr. Kislay Pandey as Supreme Court Advocate
ReplyDeleteThanks for sharing the info.
ReplyDeleteJoint Venture Lawyer Delhi
Dear Mr Jeetender,
ReplyDeleteWe are not able to download or find above mentioned judgement,
Please tell us the way to download it from supreme court website??
Or Send us the link if on my e-mail i.e gurpreetsingh2050@gmail.com
Thankss
The case is still pending before the Hon'ble Supreme Court. As per the last order dated 16.03.2015, Hon'ble SC had directed the Union of India, States and all their functionaries to adhere to the Order passed by it on 23rd September, 2013.
ReplyDeleteHi,
ReplyDeleteThanks for sharing this post with us. It's really an amazing post. Keep posting the good work in future too.
Supreme Court Advocate