UID/Aadhaar
SC questions govt over making Aadhaar as mandatory
Coming down heavily on the Narendra Modi government, the Supreme Court on Friday asked how they could make Aadhaar mandatory when the apex court has made it optional. The Court also asked the Centre to justify the need for making Aadhaar mandatory for filing income tax returns (ITRs).
 
The Court said it will examine next week the constitutional validity of central government's decision to link the Aadhaar with the permanent account number (PAN) card. 
 
Mukul Rohatgi, the Attorney General was quoted in the reports as saying that "We found a number of PAN cards being used to divert funds to shell companies. To prevent it, the only option is to make Aadhaar mandatory."
 
The Bench of Justice AK Sikri, and Justice Ashok Bhushan, asked the Attorney General that “Is this the remedy? Forcibly asking people to get Aadhaar cards?”
 
The court was hearing a petition filed by former Kerala Minister Binoy Viswam, represented by senior advocate Arvind Datar and advocate Sriram Prakkat, challenging the constitutionality of Section 139AA inserted in the Income Tax Act by the Finance Act, 2017.
 
The Attorney General argued that it was a mandatory requirement under Section 139A of the Income Tax Act to allot PAN and Aadhaar is only being linked to it. 
 
Mr Datar contended that the Aadhaar Act itself does not make obtaining Aadhaar mandatory. “Going by the Attorney General 's logic about fake PANs, I get a PAN card on the basis of showing my Aadhaar as proof. Aadhaar is a basic document along with driving licence. By making Aadhaar mandatory under Section 139AA, my PAN become invalid. This has serious consequences," he said.
 
In his petition, Mr Viswam, former minister from Kerala, had stated that “Section 139AA of the Income Tax Act, 1961, which makes enrolment for Aadhaar mandatory, without making appropriate amendments to the Aadhaar Act which till date does not prescribe that the enrolment is mandatory, in a Finance Bill was with the intention of avoiding the Rajya Sabha where the ruling party does not have a majority. It is submitted that the said amendment is completely contrary to Article 110 of the Constitution, which defines a Money Bill."
 
The Modi government had enacted the Aadhaar (Targeted Delivery of Financial and Other Subsidies, Benefits and Services) Act of 2016 as a Money Bill. However, Congress MP and former Union Minister Jairam Ramesh had challenged this enactment in the apex court.
 
Ever since Finance Minister Arun Jaitly announced to link Aadhaar number with PAN card and mandatory for filing ITR, several people are finding it difficult to link both due to mismatch in data fields. Over the years, PAN cards are known as linked with Income Tax and ITRs and are issued through a verification process. The same cannot be said to be true for Aadhaar as it is the private companies that collect the data, which is never verified or audited by any government agency or authority.
 
The Supreme Court had time and again restricted use of unique identification (UID) number or Aadhaar to public distribution system (PDS) Scheme, the liquefied petroleum gas (LPG) distribution scheme, the Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee 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).  The Supreme Court has repeatedly emphasised that the UID number where permitted “is purely voluntary and it cannot be made mandatory till the matter is finally decided by the Court one way or the other“.  
 
On 15 October 2015, the Constitution Bench of Supreme Court led by the then Chief Justice HL Dattu had ruled that no person shall be deprived of services such as MNREGA, Jan Dhan Yojana, pension and provident fund schemes for want of Aadhaar. The Bench even hinted that the government risked contempt of Court if it chooses to continue to make Aadhaar number a mandatory condition.
 
Earlier on 23 September 2013, a bench of Justice J Chelameswar, Justice SA Bobde and Justice C Nagappan, without going into concrete examples, had said: "In certain quarters, Aadhaar are being insisted on by various authorities."
 
"...no person should suffer for not getting the Aadhaar in spite of the fact that some authorities had issued a circular making it mandatory and when any person applies to get the Aadhaar 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," the apex court had said in its order. 
 
You may want to read...
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

User

COMMENTS

BR

2 months ago

Please give the copy & no.of the Supreme Court Order saying that Aadhaar may be used for LPG connection. & PDS. MY EMAIL Id is braman555@gmail.com

BR

2 months ago

Please give the copy & no.of the Supreme Court Order saying that Aadhaar may be used for LPG connection. & PDS. MY EMAIL Id is braman555@gmail.com

BR

2 months ago

Please give the copy & no.of the Supreme Court Order saying that Aadhaar may be used for LPG connection. & PDS. MY EMAIL Id is braman555@gmail.com

We can't order UK to return Kohinoor: SC
New Delhi, The Supreme Court on Friday said that it cannot pass an order to bring back the Kohinoor diamond which is in the possession of the United Kingdom or say that they should not auction it.
 
Dismissing off the petition by the All India Human Rights and Social Justice seeking direction for bringing back the diamond, a bench headed by Chief Justice Jagdish Singh Khehar observed this.
 
Khehar said: "We are quite surprised how can an Indian court pass an order to bring something which is in the UK."
 
The bench further said: "Can we say England should not auction some property."
 
The court said this as the petitioner NGO sought direction that the UK should not auction the diamond. 
 
Disposing off the petition, the bench also said that it was satisfied with the government's response that it was making efforts to get the diamond back. 
 
Disclaimer: Information, facts or opinions expressed in this news article are presented as sourced from IANS and do not reflect views of Moneylife and hence Moneylife is not responsible or liable for the same. As a source and news provider, IANS is responsible for accuracy, completeness, suitability and validity of any information in this article.
 

User

COMMENTS

SRINIVAS SHENOY

2 months ago

The British always pride that they are just and reasonable, though the events prove the contrary. If they put into practice what they preach, they should not hesitate in returning the Kohinoor diamond to India, who are the rightful owners.

Beard war intensifies, as official punished for not smoking (The Funny Side)
An atheist friend got in my car the other day and I snapped him into prayer mode with a single line: "Put on your seat belt, I want to try something." Heh heh heh.
 
Religion is on my mind after seeing a news report from China.
 
Recently, communist party officials were shocked to hear that one of their members had failed to be sufficiently disrespectful during a meeting with a group of religious citizens.
 
Local party secretary Jelil Matniyaz did not smoke a single cigarette at a meeting with Uyghurs in Xinjiang province, despite knowing that clean-living spiritual groups disliked such practices, the Global Times reported. 
 
"A dutiful party member would choose to smoke in front of religious believers in order to demonstrate his or her commitment to secularism," an official said. Insulting clean-living faith groups is mandatory. He and other disapproving colleagues stripped Jelil of his duties and demoted him, Agence France Presse reported.
 
Your columnist was forwarded this report by an old China hand who follows Beijing's war on spirituality. His report reminded me of the time Chinese communist party officials got rid of a divinely chosen leader from Tibet and replaced him with their own divinely chosen leader. People on both sides asked how a strictly atheist group could have such advanced knowledge of divine choices. Flustered officials, having no answer, made it illegal to ask the question.
 
In 2011, party bosses were alarmed to notice that members became less materialistic and more spiritual as they aged. They issued a regulation extending severe restrictions on what party members can believe in the period between retirement and death. "There are clear rules that retired cadres and party members cannot believe in religion," an official told the BBC.
 
In 2014, party members in Xinjiang started offering cash handouts to citizens who reported that their neighbours were growing beards. The logic was that beard equals spiritual person equals dangerous weirdo. This is surely wrong. I'm sure it is scientifically possible to be a bearded man and not be a dangerous weirdo, and it is pure coincidence that that two-word phrase is a perfect description of pretty much all my friends who have large amounts of facial hair. 
 
The no-beards rule was copied by China's neighbour, Tajikistan, where police in 2015 boasted of having shaved 13,000 men, many of whom they had just snatched off the street for that purpose. 
 
The curious thing is that big beards are the height of hipster fashion in the West, so it's likely that baffled American tourists are being snatched for committing facial hair crimes against society. This may actually be an appropriate response.
 
The most recent twist in this story is intriguing. The Chinese government has become alarmed at the lack of morality in society and leader Xi Jinping has launched a campaign to revive traditional beliefs and values. "These are the same traditional values that the party spent 60 years trying to destroy," the Economist magazine noted.
 
Life is weird. There's really nothing quite like it.
 
Here endeth the sermon. Amen.
 
Disclaimer: Information, facts or opinions expressed in this news article are presented as sourced from IANS and do not reflect views of Moneylife and hence Moneylife is not responsible or liable for the same. As a source and news provider, IANS is responsible for accuracy, completeness, suitability and validity of any information in this article.

User

COMMENTS

Hayath MS

2 months ago

Atheist society will be immoral and violent place because to destroy religion all its teaching needs to be destroyed and all religions have plenty of such good guidance and teachings and supporting assumption of punishment and rewarding articles .

We are listening!

Solve the equation and enter in the Captcha field.
  Loading...
Close

To continue


Please
Sign Up or Sign In
with

Email
Close

To continue


Please
Sign Up or Sign In
with

Email

BUY NOW

The Scam
24 Year Of The Scam: The Perennial Bestseller, reads like a Thriller!
Moneylife Magazine
Fiercely independent and pro-consumer information on personal finance
Stockletters in 3 Flavours
Outstanding research that beats mutual funds year after year
MAS: Complete Online Financial Advisory
(Includes Moneylife Magazine and Lion Stockletter)