In a hearing at the Calcutta High Court, UIDAI clarified that an Aadhaar number doesn’t prove citizenship or domicile, emphasizing its role for residents eligible for government subsidies. The case, brought by the Joint Forum against NRC, challenges Aadhaar Act’s regulation 28A.
Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to subscribe!
KOLKATA: On Thursday (4th July), The Calcutta High Court delved into a significant issue: whether an Aadhaar number can serve as proof of citizenship or domicile. Senior counsel Laxmi Gupta, representing the Unique Identification Authority of India (UIDAI), emphasized that it cannot.
Laxmi Gupta pointed to the Aadhaar (Enrolment and Update) Act to clarify the purpose of the Aadhaar card.
According to Gupta-
“The Aadhaar card is intended for residents who have lived in India for at least 182 days, primarily to facilitate targeted government subsidies.”
This stance underscores that Aadhaar’s primary function is to assist in the distribution of subsidies and benefits to residents rather than to establish citizenship or domicile.
Background:
This case was initiated by the Joint Forum against NRC, which seeks to nullify regulation 28A of the Aadhaar Act, 2023. Regulation 28A specifically pertains to foreign nationals. According to Gupta, the UIDAI possesses the authority to deactivate the Aadhaar card of any foreign national who overstays in the country after their visa expires.
Key Arguments
Forum counsel Jhuma Sen pointed out discrepancies in the statements of Union ministers regarding this issue.
“There is confusion and contradiction in statements made by Union ministers. A letter addressing this issue has been sent from the CMO to the PMO, and a Rajya Sabha member from Bengal has also raised concerns with the Centre. Initially, UIDAI attributed the issue to a technical error.”
-she stated.
Gupta further explained the process UIDAI follows in such cases. According to her, the UIDAI can initiate an inquiry into individuals’ documents under regulation 29, based on inputs from passport authorities or other relevant bodies. The UIDAI’s counsel maintained that the petition is not maintainable, as it involves individuals who are not Indian citizens.
This legal debate is pivotal as it addresses the broader implications of Aadhaar, a crucial identity document in India. The court’s decision could potentially influence how Aadhaar is perceived in terms of legal residency and citizenship.
For the UIDAI, this case underscores the importance of clear guidelines and robust checks to ensure that Aadhaar is used correctly and that its issuance does not inadvertently validate illegal stays or misrepresentations of citizenship.
Sen has called for the annulment of Regulation 28A, emphasizing its problematic nature when coupled with Regulation 29.
“Regulation 28A, coupled with regulation 29, is seen as insidious—an indirect implementation of NRC. This appears to be an abuse of authority.”
– she asserted during the proceedings.
Sen highlighted a precedent where a single bench of the High Court had previously intervened to halt the deactivation of an Aadhaar card. This intervention serves as a critical reference in the ongoing debate. However, the counterarguments presented by Additional Solicitor General Ashoke Kumar Chakraborty brought another dimension to the discussion.
Chakraborty contended that the Public Interest Litigation (PIL) in question was not sustainable. His argument was based on the assertion that the PIL failed to contest section 54 of the Aadhaar Act, the legislative foundation from which these regulations emanate. Chakraborty also raised a fundamental question about the petitioner’s capacity to challenge the sovereignty of a nation.
The debate over Regulation 28A and its intersection with Regulation 29 is a critical juncture in the ongoing discourse about Aadhaar and its regulatory framework. Sen’s arguments underscore the potential dangers and abuses of these regulations, calling into question the balance between national security measures and personal freedoms. On the other hand, the government’s stance, as articulated by Chakraborty, highlights the importance of maintaining legal coherence and the challenges inherent in contesting established legislative provisions.
Adding another layer to the discussion, Chief Justice TS Sivagnanam referenced a recent case that illustrated the broader implications of Aadhaar regulations. The case involved a foreign national residing in Ballygunge who, despite holding an Aadhaar card and filing income tax returns, managed to acquire 11 properties in West Bengal. This case underscores the complex interplay between national security, regulatory oversight, and individual rights.
The division bench, which includes Justice Hiranmay Bhattacharyya, has set the next hearing for July 11. This forthcoming session promises to be a crucial juncture in the ongoing legal battle, potentially setting significant precedents for how Aadhaar regulations are interpreted and enforced in the future.
