Memorial on Behalf of Respondent

TEAM CODE SMC-017

1ST PROF. N. R. MADHAVA MENON SAARC MOOTING COMPETITION, 2016

India Round
9th to 10th January, 2016

BEFORE THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT OF INDISTAN

In the matter of
Petitioner

Mr. X, Mr. Y and Ors.

Versus

Union of Indistan

Respondent

Written Submissions on behalf of the Respondent,

Counsel for the Respondent.

Memorial on Behalf of Respondent

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Table of Contents.2
List of Abbreviation.5
List of Authorities6
Cases Referred.........................................6
Books Referred8
Legal Databases...8
Lexicons...9
Legislations..9
Conventions.9
Statement of Jurisdiction....10
Statement of Facts..11
Issues Presented.13
Summary of Pleading.14
Detailed Pleadings.....................................15
I.

Whether there is any right to privacy guaranteed under our Constitution?...15

[I.1] Introducing UID Scheme.15
[I.2] JUDICIAL INTERPRETATION OF THE RIGHT TO PRIVACY AS A
FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT15
2

Memorial on Behalf of Respondent

[I.2.i] Later observation by Supreme Court of smaller benches17
[I.2.ii] Case-by-case development.18
[I.2.iii] Judgement of District Registrar v. Canara Bank..18
[I.3] Establishing the Principle of Stare Decisis..19
[I.4] Is collection of data and biometrics under the UID scheme violating Right to
Privacy?.......................................................................................................................20
[I.4.i] Great benefit schemes through aadhar20
[I.4.ii] Issued on consensual basis..21
[I.5] EXISTING PROVISIONS for issuance of UID (Excerpts from NIDAI Bill,
2010) ..21
[I.5.i] Choice and Consent.21
[I.5.ii] Security...21
[I.5.iii] Accountability22
[I.5.iv] Verification23
[I.6] Exceptions to Right to Privacy..23
[I.7] Interim order in Justice K.S.Puttaswamy(Retd). v. Union Of India & Ors...............23
[I.8] On State Governments Collecting &Using Biometric Information..24
[I.9] ON UK ABANDONING ITS ID PROJECT..26
[I.10] ON EXISTING IDs vs. AADHAR....27
[I.10.i] For residents..27
[I.10.ii] For Registrars and enrollers.28
[I.10.iii] For Governments28

[I.11] ON NO DATA PROTECTION LAWS.28

3

Memorial on Behalf of Respondent

[I.12]. On involvement of Private agencies...30
[I.13] A COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF THE PRIVACY SAFEGUARDS..30
[I.13.i] INDIAN TELEGRAPH ACT, 188531
[I.13.ii] THE INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY ACT, 2001.32
[I.13.iii] THE INCOME TAX ACT, 196133
II. Whether UID Scheme has any legal basis?..........................................................................34
[II.1] powers of the Executive are co-extensive with the legislative.35.
[II.2] presently functioning under the Executive Notification dated 28th January, 2009
which is a valid authority.37
[II.3] Article 73 of Indian Constitution also empowers37
[II.4] Delegated legislation38
[II.5] On whether UID Scheme is helping illegal migrants42
[II.5.i] de novo exercises each time for field level data collection42
[II.5.ii] already built in processes to handle biometric exceptions42
[II.6] AFFECT ON THE MIGRANT POPULATIONS..43

Prayer.44

Memorial on Behalf of Respondent

LIST OF ABBREVATIONS

AIR.All India Report

Regd.........Registered

Co...Company

Edn/Ed..Edition

ER...English Reporter

Anr.Another

Ors.Others

Etc.Etcetera

Vol.........................................................................................................................Volume

SC....Supreme Court

SCC....Supreme Court Cases

SCR......Supreme Court Record

Id. ...Ibid

Ltd.........Limited

No....Number

Pg./p..Page

Para.....................................................................................................................Paragraph

Honble.............................................................................................................Honourable

u/s...Under Section

UOI.Union of India

CJ.....................................................................................................................Chief Justice

UID............................................................................................................Unique Identification

UIDAI..........................................................................Unique Identification Authority of India

Memorial on Behalf of Respondent

INDEX OF AUTHORITIES

CASES REFERRED

Travancore-Cochin vs. Bombay Co.Ltd (1952) SCR 1112

17

S.R.Chaudhuri vs. State Of Punjab, (2001) 7 SCC 126

17

M.P. Sharma & Others v. Satish Chandra & Others, AIR 1954 SC 300

17, 18

Kharak Singh v. State of U.P. & Others, AIR 1963 SC 1295

16, 17,18

R. Rajagopal & Another v. State of Tamil Nadu & Others, (1994) 6 SCC 632

17

Peoples Union for Civil Liberties (PUCL) v. Union of India & Another, 17
(1997) 1 SCC 301

State Of Andhra vs. A.P.Jaiswal, (2001) 1 SCC 748

17

Govind v. State of Madhya Pradesh, AIR 1975 SC 1378

18

District Registrar v. Canara Bank,(2005) 1 SCC 496

18

Union of India v. Raghubir Singh, A.I.R. 1989 S.C. 1933

19
6

Memorial on Behalf of Respondent

State of U.P. v. Ram Chandra Trivedi, A.I.R. 1976 S.C. 2547

19

Poolpandi v. Supdt., Central Excise, A.I.R. 1992 S.C. 1795

19

CST v. Pine Chemicals Ltd., (1995) 1 S.C.C. 58

19

C.I.T. v. Trilok Nath Mehrotra, (1998) 2 S.C.C. 289

19

State of Orissa v. Titaghur Paper Mills, A.I.R. 1985 S.C. 1293

19

S.H. Rangappa v. State of Karnataka, (2002) 1 S.C.C. 538

19

Bharat Petroleum Corpn. Ltd. v. Mumbai Shramik Sangha, (2001) 4 S.C.C. 19

448

SBI SC/ST Employees Welfare Assn. v. State Bank of India, (1996) 4 20

S.C.C. 119

N.S. Giri v. Corpn. City of Mangalore, A.I.R. 1999 S.C. 1958, 12

19

P. Ramachandra Rao v. State of Karnataka, (2002) 4 S.C.C. 578, 28

20

Memorial on Behalf of Respondent

U.S v. Dionisio, 410 US 1, 764, 35 L. Ed. 2d 67 (1973).

27

Schmerber v. CA, 384 US 757, 86 1826, 16 L. Ed. 2d 908 (1966)

27

UIDAI & Anr. v. Central Bureau of Investigation, Petition(s) for Special 30

Leave to Appeal (Crl) No(s).2524/2014

Justice K.S.Puttaswamy(Retd). v. Union Of India & Ors, Writ Petition 24

(Civil) No.494 Of 2012

Jyoti Pershad v. Union Territory of India, AIR 1961 SC 1602.

36

Kathi Raning Rawat v. State of Saurashtra, AIR 1952 SC 123.

37

BOOKS REFERRED

1. Basu, Durga Das, Shorter Constitution Of India 396 (14th ed., 2012)
2. Row, Sanjiva, Hand Book of Indian Copyright Act, 1957 (6th ed., 2014)
3. Aggrawal, J.P., Pleadings and Precedents in India (3rd ed., 2012)
4. Shukla, V.N. , Constitution of India (12th Ed., 2014)
5. Jain, M.P., Indian Constitutional Law (7th Ed. 2014)
6. Volumes I and II Basu, Durga Das, Commentary on the Constitution of India (8th Ed.,
2012)
8

Memorial on Behalf of Respondent

7. Prasad, Rajendra, Law of Social Status, 5th Ed. 1998, Hindu Law House.
8. Seervai, H.M., Constitutional law of India, 4th Ed. 2002, Volume 2, Universal Book
Traders.

RESEARCH PAPERS/ REPORTS REFERRED

1. Govt. of India under Planning Commission, Notification No. A-43011/02/2009, Published in

Part-I, Section-2 of the Gazette of India.
2. Sandeep Challa, The Fundamental Right To Privacy: A Case by- Case Development Sans
Stare Decisis, NALSAR IJCL 225,224-230 (2012).
3. Amba Uttara Kak & Swati Malik, Privacy and the National Identification Authority of India
Bill: Leaving much to the imagination, NUJS L. REV 488, 485-509 (2010).
4. Government Of India, Approach Paper For Legislation On Privacy (October 13, 2010).
5. UshaRamanathan, A Unique Identity Bill, 45 ECONOMIC & POLITICAL WEEKLY 30 10,
10-14 (2010).
6. Govt. of India under Planning Commission, Notification No. A-43011/02/2009, Published in
Part-I, Section-2 of the Gazette of India.
7. 42nd Report of Standing Committee on the National Identification Authority of India Bill,
2010

Memorial on Behalf of Respondent

LEGAL DATABASES REFERRED

1. Manupatra Online Resources, http://www.manupatra.com.

2. Lexis Nexis Academica, http://www.lexisnexis.com/academica.

3. SCC Online, http://www.scconline.co.in.

4. Oxford Dictionary, http://www.oxforddictionaries.com

5. Supreme Court of India, http://supremecourtofindia.nic.in/

6. West Law, http://www.westlawindia.co

7. Hein Online, http://home.heinonline.org/

LEXICONS

1. Aiyar Ramanathan P , Advanced Law Lexicon, 3 rd Edition, 2005, Wadhwa Nagpur.

2. Garner Bryana, Blacks Law Dictionary,7th Edition,1999
LEGISLATIONS

1. The Constitution of India, 1950

2. Information Technology Amendment Act 2008
3. Right to Information Act 2005
4. The Telecom Unsolicited Commercial Communications Regulation, 2007
5. INDIAN TELEGRAPH ACT, 1885
6. THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961
10

Memorial on Behalf of Respondent

7. U.S. Privacy Act of 1974
8. U.S. Computer Matching and Privacy Act, 1988

CONVENTIONS

1. United Nation Declaration of Human Rights, 1948

2. International Convention on Civil and Political Rights, 1966
3. International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, 1966
4. United Nation Declaration on Indigenous People, 2007
5. European Convention on Human Rights, 1953

11

Memorial on Behalf of Respondent

STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION

The Respondents has approached the Honble Supreme Court of Indistan under Article 137 with
reference to 139-A and 145(3).
The matter has been referred by the division bench to this Honble Bench of Supreme Court of
Indistan.

12

Memorial on Behalf of Respondent

STATEMENT OF FACTS

1. The Govt. of Indistan based on recommendations of various expert panels decided to

issue unique identification numbers to such individuals to ensure that the benefits of all
Government sponsored schemes and measures reach to right person and not misused.

2. The scheme of unique identification involves collection of demographic and biometric

information from individuals for the purpose of issuing of unique identification numbers
to such individuals.

3. The Govt. of Indistan constituted the Unique Identification Authority of Indistan (UIDAI)
in January, 2010, through an executive order. A noted activist and anthropologists filed a
PIL titled as Mr.X vs. Union of Indistan invoking the writ jurisdiction of Supreme Court
of Indistan challenging the manner in which the Bill has been passed in the Upper House
of the Parliament inspite of Standing Committee rejecting the Bill in its entirety in
present form.

4. By the year 2014, the UIDAI claim to have issued unique identification number to 80%
of its target population. Fearing the misuse of data at the hand of Govt. agencies and its
leakage to private corporations, agencies one of the distinguished members of the
Supreme Court Bar filed another PIL titled as Mr. Y vs. Union of Indistan questioning
the linking and availability of social security schemes to the Unique identification
number.

13

Memorial on Behalf of Respondent

5. In light of the legal proposition as laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, a local NGO
has also questioned the legality of UID card vis- a vis issuance of the same to the illegal
migrants based on residence criteria by way of a Writ Petition in the High Court of
United Province.

6. Both the PILs have been clubbed together by the Supreme Court of Indistan and it also
transferred the Writ Petition pending before the High Court of United Province in
exercise of power conferred under Article 139-A of the Constitution of Indistan. The
Division Bench of the Supreme Court fixed the date of hearing on 18th August 2015.

7. The Division Bench of the Supreme Court prima facie opined that 'a substantial question
of law' has thus arisen and passed the following reference order:-Therefore, in our
opinion to give a quietus to the kind of controversy raised in this batch of cases once for
all, it is better that the ratio decidendi of M.P. Sharma (supra) is scrutinized and the
jurisprudential correctness of the subsequent decisions of this Court where the right to
privacy is either asserted or referred be examined and authoritatively decided by a Bench
of appropriate strength.

8. A bench of 'appropriate strength' has been constituted by the Chief Justice of Indistan to
consider all the above issues raised in the moot proposition and the final hearing is
scheduled to take place on 9th -10th January 2016.

14

Memorial on Behalf of Respondent

ISSUES PRESENTED

ISSUE I
Whether there is any right to privacy guaranteed under our Constitution?
Is Right to Privacy a fundamental right?
Whether collection of data and biometrics under the UID scheme violates it?

ISSUE II
Whether UID Scheme has any legal basis?
Whether the manner of passing National Identification of Indistan Bill, 2010 is
against the constitutional convention?
Whether UID Scheme is helping illegal migrants?

15

Memorial on Behalf of Respondent

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS

I.

Whether there is any right to privacy guaranteed under our Constitution?

It is humbly submitted before this Honble court that the right to privacy is not covered
under the Constitution of Indistan. The claim of some people that this right is a result of
development of law is totally baseless and lacks authoritative grounds. The right to
privacy has never been a part of the constitutional scheme neither by any strange method
of development of law can we deduce the existence of such a right. From Kharak Singh v.
State of U.P1 to various other cases (discussed in advanced arguments), one can simply
conclude that there is no such right guaranteed by our constitution.

II.

Whether UID Scheme has any legal basis?

The Counsel on behalf of Respondents humbly submits before the Honble Supreme
Court of Indistan that this UID Scheme per se is legally propounded by Government of
India. Since the Counsel has established beforehand that there is no Fundamental Right to
Privacy and the Government is not at all infringing privacy rights of the citizens of this
country, now the legality of UID Scheme is in question. Though there is an absence of
any statute on Aadhar, still the Government of India is functioning under the Executive
Order permitted by President of Indistan which is binding over UIDAI, 2 and thus shows
the Legal Basis of UID Scheme.

AIR 1963 SC 1295

Govt. of India under Planning Commission, Notification No. A-43011/02/2009, Published in Part-I, Section-2 of
the Gazette of India.

16

Memorial on Behalf of Respondent

DETAILED PLEADINGS

QUESTION PRESENTED: I
Whether there is any right to privacy guaranteed under our Constitution?
[I.1] The counsel on behalf of respondents humbly submits before the Honble Supreme Court
of Indistan that the Unique Identification Scheme proposed by Government of Indistan for the
welfare of our people is not in any way a threat to privacy of our people.
The European Convention on Human Rights3 represents a valiant attempt to tackle this issue.
Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Right states:

"There shall be no interference by a public authority with the exercise of this right except such as
is in accordance with the law and is necessary in a democratic society in the interests of
national security, public safety or the economic well-being of the country, for the prevention of
disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals or for the protection of the rights and
freedoms of others."
[I.2] JUDICIAL INTERPRETATION OF THE RIGHT TO PRIVACY AS A
FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT
It is humbly submitted before this Honble court that the right to privacy is not covered under
the ambit of Indian constitution. The claim of petitioners that the right is a result of development
of law is totally baseless and lacks ground. The right to privacy has never been a part of the

ETS 5; 213 UNTS 221

17

Memorial on Behalf of Respondent

constitutional scheme neither by any strange method of development of law can we deduce the
existence of such a right.

The most important source which can be taken account of while interpreting the constitution is
the constituent assembly debates. This court in its judgment in Travancore-Cochin vs. Bombay
Co.Ltd4 observed that for proper understanding or in case of ambiguity these debates can be
taken into consideration. Further in another case the supreme court held that it is a settled
position that debates in the constituent assembly may be relied5 these observations make clear
that Constituent Assembly Debates can treated as instrument to interpret the law and moreover to
know the intention of the constitution framers which may have its weights in parliamentarian
democracy. The early drafted proposal of constitution contained this right but when the debates
started this was not agreed upon so it should be considered that the constitution makers were not
silent upon the issue on the contrary they have argued it and then denied.

Even larger bench of this court have denied it in M.P.Sharma vs. Satish Chandra observing that
when the constitution makers have thought fit not to subject such regulation to constitutional
limitations by recognition of a fundamental right to privacy, analogous to the American fourth
amendment, we have no justification to import it, into a totally different fundamental right, by
some process of strained construction.6 Similar question on privacy was argued upon in
Kharak Singh v. State of U.P7 where the court held .nor do we consider that Art.21 has any

(1952) SCR 1112

S.R.Chaudhuri vs. State Of Punjab, (2001) 7 SCC 126

AIR (1954) SC 300,Pg. 306 18

AIR 1963 SC 1295

18

Memorial on Behalf of Respondent

relevance in this regard and that our constitution does not in terms confer any like
constitutional guarantee.
Also in Kharak Singh Case majority stated The right of privacy is not a guaranteed right
under our Constitution, and therefore the attempt to ascertain the movements of an individual
is merely a manner in which privacy is invaded and is not an infringement of a fundamental
right guaranteed in Part III.

In view of the judgments of the Supreme Court in M.P. Sharma & Others v. Satish Chandra &
Others,8 and Kharak Singh v. State of U.P. & Others,9 (decided by Eight and Six Judges
respectively) the legal position regarding the existence of the fundamental right to privacy is
doubtful.

[I.2.i]. Later observation by Supreme Court smaller benches in R. Rajagopal & Another v. State
of Tamil Nadu & Others,10 (popularly known as Auto Shankers case) and Peoples Union for
Civil Liberties (PUCL) v. Union of India & Another,11 are not binding and in itself
contradictory to well established principle of precedential jurisprudence of common law where
higher courts judgments are regarded as law. The Supreme Court in State Of Andhra vs.
A.P.Jaiswal12, emphasizing upon the need for the courts to follow the principle of stare decisis,
has observed: consistency is the cornerstone of the administration of justice. It is consistency
8

Id.

AIR 1963 SC 1295

10

(1994) 6 SCC 632

11

(1997) 1 SCC 301

12

(2001) 1 SCC 748

19

Memorial on Behalf of Respondent

which creates confidence in the system and this consistency can never be achieved without
respect to the rule of finality. It is with a view to achieve consistency in judicial pronouncements,
the courts have evolved the rule of precedents, principle of stare decisis etc. these rules and
principles are based on public policy and if these are not followed by courts then there will be
chaos in the administration of justice. Hence the judgments relied upon by the petitioners are of
smaller benches and are inconsistent with the doctrine of stare decisis and should be considered
as divergent judicial opinion.

[I.2.ii]. The question of privacy as a fundamental right presented itself once again to the Supreme
Court a few years later in the case of Govind v. State of Madhya Pradesh.13 The petitioner in
this case had challenged, as unconstitutional, certain police regulations on the grounds that the
regulations violated his fundamental right to privacy. Here the ratio of the case was qualified
with the disclaimer that this right was not an absolute right and that the same could be curtailed
by the State provided it could establish a compelling public interest in this regard. Here
Mathew, J. as Lord Denning indicated that "The right to privacy in any event will necessarily
have to go through a process of a case-by-case development14

[I.2.iii]. In 2005, the Supreme Court passed one of its most important privacy related judgments
in the case of District Registrar v. Canara Bank.15 The main issue, in the case, related to the
privacy of a customers records stored by a financial institution such as a bank. The impugned

13

AIR 1975 SC 1378

14

Id. at 15728.

15

(2005) 1 SCC 496.

20

Memorial on Behalf of Respondent

provision was held to be unconstitutional by the Supreme Court on the grounds that it failed the
tests of reasonableness enshrined in Articles 14, 19 and 21 of the Constitution.

[I.3]

Establishing the Principle of Stare Decisis The principle of stare decisis16 is of utmost

importance especially in relation to a Supreme Court decision, by virtue of Article 141 of the
Constitution.17 The reasoning behind this principle is to ensure consistency and stability in the
law declared by the Supreme Court.18 The Apex Court held that: It is commonly known that
most decisions of the courts are of significance not merely because they constitute adjudication
on the rights of the parties and resolve the dispute between them, but also because in doing so
they embody a declaration of law operating as a binding principle in future cases.19 In addition,
in cases of conflict of opinions pronounced by the Supreme Court, the opinion expressed by the
larger bench strength prevails.20 Therefore, a decision by a Constitution Bench of the Supreme
Court can in no circumstance be whittled down by a diametrically contrary interpretation

16

The doctrine of precedent emanates from the legal maxim stare decisis et non quieta movere which literally
means to stand by decisions and not to disturb what is settled. 4 P. RAMANATHA AIYAR, ADVANCED LAW
LEXICON 4456 (Y.V. Chandrachud et al. eds., Wadhwa & Co. Nagpur 3rd ed. 2005).
17

Art. 141 The law declared by the Supreme Court shall be binding on all courts within the territory of India.

18

21 C.J.S. Courts Sec. 140.

19

Union of India v. Raghubir Singh, A.I.R. 1989 S.C. 1933, para 8.

20

See State of U.P. v. Ram Chandra Trivedi, A.I.R. 1976 S.C. 2547; State of Orissa v. Titaghur Paper Mills, A.I.R.
1985 S.C. 1293; Poolpandi v. Supdt., Central Excise, A.I.R. 1992 S.C. 1795; CST v. Pine Chemicals Ltd., (1995) 1
S.C.C. 58, at 17; SBI SC/ST Employees Welfare Assn. v. State Bank of India, (1996) 4 S.C.C. 119; C.I.T. v.
Trilok Nath Mehrotra, (1998) 2 S.C.C. 289; N.S. Giri v. Corpn. City of Mangalore, A.I.R. 1999 S.C. 1958, 12;
Lily Thomas v. Union of India, A.I.R. 2000 S.C. 1650, 56; Bharat Petroleum Corpn. Ltd. v. Mumbai Shramik
Sangha, (2001) 4 S.C.C. 448; S.H. Rangappa v. State of Karnataka, (2002) 1 S.C.C. 538, at 11; P. Ramachandra
Rao v. State of Karnataka, (2002) 4 S.C.C. 578, 28. See also N.K. Jayakumar, Courts, in 10 HALSBURYS
LAWS OF INDIA 339 (M.N. Venkatachaliah et al. eds., 2001).

21

Memorial on Behalf of Respondent

provided by a Division Bench of the same Court21. The instant case-comment deals with the
fundamental Right to Privacy in the light of the doctrine of stare decisis.

The Counsel humbly states that the cases on hand raise far reaching questions of importance
involving interpretation of the Constitution. What is at stake is the amplitude of the fundamental
rights including that precious and inalienable right under Article 21.

[I.4]

Is collection of data and biometrics under the UID scheme violating Right to

Privacy?

It is submitted that the respondents have gone ahead with the project and have issued Aadhaar
cards to about 80% of the population till 2104.22 Also a large amount of money has been spent
by the Union Government on this project for issuing Aadhaar cards. Moreover it is of greater
concern that the respondents do not share any personal information of an Aadhaar card holder
through biometrics or otherwise with any other person or authority.

[I.4.i] The learned counsel further submits that the Aadhaar card is of great benefit since it
ensures an effective implementation of several social benefit schemes of the Government like
MGNREGA, the distribution of food, ration and kerosene through PDS system and grant of
subsidies in the distribution of LPG. It is a well known fact that there is a large amount of
diversion of PDS kerosene to the black market and also to blend with petrol and diesel. The same
is true in the case of highly subsidized residential LPG (which is a welfare measure of sorts for
the rich and the middle class). What is not often discussed or highlighted is the amount of black
21

Sandeep Challa, The Fundamental Right To Privacy: A Case by- Case Development Sans Stare Decisis, NALSAR
IJCL 225,224-230 (2012).
22

Facts Dossier Pg.417.

22

Memorial on Behalf of Respondent

money generated by these illegal activities. Actually this is the mother of all corruption,
generating more than Rs 45,000 crore per year. This scam is shockingly far larger than 2-G
scam. It is, therefore, submitted that restraining the respondents from issuing further Aadhaar
cards is incorrect and fully utilizing the existing Aadhaar cards for the social schemes of the
Government should be allowed.

[I.4.ii]. Also the respondent i.e. Union of India would ensure that Aadhaar cards would only be
issued on a consensual basis after informing the public at large about the fact that the preparation
of Aadhaar card involving the parting of biometric information of the individual, which shall
however not be used for any purpose other than a social benefit schemes.

[I.5]

EXISTING PROVISIONS for issuance of UID (Excerpts from NIDAI Bill, 2010)
[I.5.i] Choice and Consent

Sharing of information: The UIDAI will create regulations for the sharing of information of
Aadhaar number holders with their written consent, with such agencies engaged in the delivery
of public benefits and public services.23

[I.5.ii] Security

Security measures: The Authority shall ensure the security and confidentiality of identity
information and authentication records of individuals and take measures (including security
safeguards) to ensure that the information in the possession or control of the Authority (including

23

The National Identification Authority of India Bill, 23 (k),2010.

23

Memorial on Behalf of Respondent

information stored in the Central Identities Data Repository) is secured and protected against any
loss or unauthorized access or use or unauthorized disclosure.24

Confidentiality: Notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in force
and save as otherwise provided in the proposed legislation, the Authority or any of its officers or
other employee or any agency who maintains the Central Identities Data Repository shall not
reveal any information stored in the Central Identities Data Repository to any person.25

[I.5.iii] Accountability

Penalties: Penalties will be issued for impersonation, intentional disclosure to unauthorized

individuals, collection of information without authorization for a term which may extend to three
years and with a fine which may extend to ten thousand rupees, for unauthorized tampering with
the data in the Central Identities Data Repository or in any removable storage medium. Section
34, 36, 37, 39 for unauthorized access to the Central Identities Data Repository with
imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years and shall be liable to a fine which shall
not be less than one crore rupees. Section 38 for any other offence under the Act with
imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years or with a fine which may extend to
twenty-five thousand rupees or, in the case of a company, with a fine which may extend to one
lakh rupees or with both. Clause 41 The provisions of the legislation will apply to any offence or
contravention committed outside India. Clause 43

24

Id . 30(1)

25

Id . 30(2)

24

Memorial on Behalf of Respondent

[I.5.iv] Verification

The UIDAI will be responsible for notifying regulations as to the verification of collected
information.26

[I.6] Exceptions to Right to Privacy:

The following exceptions may be considered to right to privacy:

i.

National Security

ii.

Public order

iii.

Disclosure in public interest

iv.

Prevention, detection, investigation, and prosecution of criminal offences

v.

Protection of the individual or of the rights and freedoms of others

However, the respondents will take care of the following principles for the above exceptions that
must apply to measure the extent and validity of the exception to the right:

a. Proportionality: The limitation should be in proportion to the harm that has been caused
or will be caused and the objective of the limitation.
b. Legality: The limitation should be in accordance with the laws in force
c. Necessary in a democratic state: The limitation should extend only to that that is
necessary in a democratic state.

[I.7] The counsel humbly confirms that the respondents will abide by the interim order of SC ON
11th Aug 2015 in Justice K.S.Puttaswamy(Retd). v. Union Of India & Ors27 that are following:
26

Id Rule 23(a)

25

Memorial on Behalf of Respondent

1. The Union of India shall give wide publicity in the electronic and print media including radio
and television networks that it is not mandatory for a citizen to obtain an Aadhaar card;

2. The production of an Aadhaar card will not be condition for obtaining any benefits otherwise
due to a citizen;

3. The Unique Identification Number or the Aadhaar card will not be used by the respondents for
any purpose other than the PDS Scheme and in particular for the purpose of distribution of
foodgrains, etc. and cooking fuel, such as kerosene. The Aadhaar card may also be used for the
purpose of the LPG Distribution Scheme;

4. The information about an individual obtained by the Unique Identification Authority of India
while issuing an Aa\dhaar card shall not be used for any other purpose, save as above, except as
may be directed by a Court for the purpose of criminal investigation.

[I.8]On Collection &Use of Biometric Information:

a) Andhra Pradesh has been collecting biometric information in the form of fingerprints and
iris scans from its residents for the past 5 years as part of a program introducing biometric
ration cards to stop pilferage from the public distribution system (PDS). It is estimated
that this program run by the Andhra Pradesh Civil Supplies Department covered an
estimated 5.8 crore people28. The State Government collected a range of bio-metric data,
including iris scans, photographs and fingerprints, in a period of 4 years. After collecting

27

Writ Petition (Civil) No.494 Of 2012

28

Amba Uttara Kak & Swati Malik, Privacy and the National Identification Authority of India Bill: Leaving much to
the imagination, NUJS L. REV 488, 485-509 (2010).

26

Memorial on Behalf of Respondent

the relevant data, the State Government began a structured program to sort out duplicate
cards on the basis of the biometric information. This was done by comparing fingerprints
and iris scans, initially at the district level and ultimately at the state level. In the process,
the State Government reportedly weeded out 1.1 crore duplicate ration cards. According
to these reported statistics, biometric ration cards have proven to be a great success in the
State Government's efforts to streamline its PDS network and perhaps even reduce
corruption and pilferage.
b) Similarly, Karnataka began a project in 2006 to issue biometric cards to all citizens below
the poverty line. The biometric data collected by Karnataka has been limited to
fingerprints and photographs and did not include iris scans. So far, the State Government
claims to have distributed 5.56 lakh biometric ration cards to below poverty line (BPL)
families.
c) Tamil Nadu is also embarking on a similar project to issue biometric ration cards which
would contain fingerprint and iris scans along with photographs. The State Government
is reportedly going ahead with this project independently, and without the assistance of
the UIDAI.
d) Apart from biometric ration cards, many states have introduced biometric driving licenses
to prevent bogus or fake driving licenses. States like Andhra Pradesh, Uttar Pradesh,
Bihar and Gujarat also require residents to mandatorily submit their fingerprints while
applying for a driving license. Considering that driving licenses are treated as key identity
documents in India, it is paramount that the respective State Governments ensure high
standards of scrutiny while granting them.

27

Memorial on Behalf of Respondent

e) A general review of leading newspapers reveals that there are almost no widespread
protests or criticism of the efforts of various State Governments (measured in the
paragraphs above) to collect biometric information for either ration cards or driving
licences. The lack of any major opposition or criticism of the efforts of the various state
governments indicates predominant Indian attitudes towards the issue of privacy while
collecting biometric data for the purpose of authenticating identity and providing
services. There also do not seem to be any media reports on either the misuse or leakage
of such information, either by private contractors involved in the project or by
governmental agencies implementing the project.
f) It is submitted that the petitioners have placed reliance over the existing norms of
privacy, but have failed in analyzing that many findings 29 of the U.S supreme court have
implied that the use of biometrics does not invade an individuals civil liberties or
privacy.30 The Justice Wadhwa report has suggested a computer- based information
system as well as the use of biometric smart cards to reduce lekage.

[I.9] ON UK ABANDONING ITS ID PROJECT:

There are significant differences between the UKs ID card project and the UID project and to
equate the two would not be appropriate. The differences are as follows:-

a) The UK system involved issuing a card which stored the information of the individual
including their biometrics on the card. UID scheme involves issuing a number. No card

29

U.S v. Dionisio, 410 US 1, 764, 35 L. Ed. 2d 67 (1973).

30

Schmerber v. CA, 384 US 757, 86 1826, 16 L. Ed. 2d 908 (1966)

28

Memorial on Behalf of Respondent

containing the biometric information is being issued. UK already has the National insurance
number which is used often as a means to verify the identity of the individual.

b) The statutory framework envisaged made it mandatory to have the UK ID card. Aadhaar
number is not mandatory.

c) The data fields were large and required the individual to provide accurate information of all
other ID numbers such as drivers license, national insurance number and other such details
thereby linking the UK ID card database to all other databases on which the individual was
registered. UID Scheme collects limited information and the database is not linked to other
databases.

d) In UK, the legislative framework and structure approached it from a security perspective. The
context and need in India is different. The UID scheme is envisaged as a mean to enhance the
delivery of welfare benefits and services.

Also the Counsel submits that the analysis has been carried out on the experience of countries
where National IDs are in use as well as countries where it has been discontinued. In some
countries the use of smart cards to store significant data about the resident added to concerns
about ID fraud and duplication. The comparisons between developed countries, which are
looking at additional ID forms from a security perspective, versus India, a developing country
which, like Brazil and Mexico, is attempting to, build the basic identity and verification
infrastructure essential to delivering welfare benefits, and promoting inclusive growth, is not a
reasonable one.

29

Memorial on Behalf of Respondent

[I.10] ON EXISTING IDs vs. AADHAR:
The Ministry of Planning in a written submission have inter-alia stated the following:- in the
current framework there is no single document which is uniformly acceptable as proof of identity
across India irrespective of age, gender and familial connections. Establishing identity is a
challenge for the poor, particularly when they move from place to place as a consequence lack of
proof of identity makes it difficult for the poor to access benefits and services. Aadhaar number
is an enabler. The benefits of aadhaar number are:-

[I.10.i] For residents: The aadhaar number will become the single source of identity
verification. Once residents enroll, they can use the number multiple times they would
be spared the hassle of repeatedly providing supporting identity documents each time
they wish to access services such as obtaining a bank account, passport, driving license,
and so on. the number will also give migrants mobility of identity.
[I.10.ii] For Registrars and enrollers: The UIDAI will only enroll residents after deduplicating records. This will help Registrars clean out duplicates from their databases,
enabling significant efficiencies and cost savings. For Registrars focused on cost, the
UIDAIs verification processes will ensure lower Know Your Resident (KYR) costs. For
Registrars focused on social goals, a reliable identification number will enable them to
broaden their reach into groups that till now, have been difficult to authenticate. The
strong authentication that the aadhaar number offers will improve services, leading to
better resident satisfaction.
[I.10.iii] For Governments: Eliminating duplication under various schemes is expected
to save the Government exchequer a substantial amount. It will also provide

30

Memorial on Behalf of Respondent

Governments with accurate data on residents, enable direct benefit programs, and allow
Government departments to coordinate investments and share information.

Thus the counsel submits that reason for starting the project is not for overriding existing Ids. All
the documents are relevant to a domain and for a service. Aadhaar number is to be used as a
general proof of identity and proof of address.

[I.11] ON NO DATA PROTECTION LAWS

UIDAI has taken appropriate steps to ensure security and protection of data under this law and
has incorporated data protection principles within its policy and implementation framework.
Since appropriate steps have been taken, there is no dependency on the general data protection
lawwhen the data protection framework comes into place the Authority will follow the same
since a national data protection law will apply to all agencies and institutions collecting
information.

Collection of information without a privacy law in place does not violate the right to privacy of
the individual.There is no bar on collecting information, the only requirement to be fulfilled
with respect to the protection of the privacy of an individual is that care should be taken in
collection and use of information, consent of individual would be relevant, information should be
kept safe and confidential. The proposed Privacy law should also seek to strike a balance
between the legitimate demands of protecting individual liberties while recognizing the need for
larger public interest to prevail in certain well defined circumstances.

31

Memorial on Behalf of Respondent

Recently, the Government of India released an Approach Paper for Legislation on Privacy
which recommended several data protection measures based on international experiences. 31 All
cases of misuse of data are to be tried by criminal courts. Processing, storage and transmission of
personal information is susceptible to abuse by authorities and several disputes can arise out this
process.32

Also it is submitted that issues of linking and matching of databases need to be addressed
through a data protection legislation which is currently being considered by the Department of
Personnel.

[I.12]. On involvement of Private agencies

National Informatics Centre (NIC) had pointed out that the issues relating to privacy and security
of UID data, in case the data is not hosted in a Government data centre may be taken into
consideration. UIDAI is of the opinion that the hosting of data in a private data centre does not
necessarily lead to a violation of privacy or security. Appropriate contractual arrangements are
put in place with the data centre space provider to ensure security and privacy of the data.

The UIDAI has followed government procurement process and engaged the appropriate agencies
for the implementation of the UID scheme. The UIDAI has also implemented a comprehensive
information security policy. Central Government as well as state Governments has linked various

31

GOVERNMENT OF INDIA, APPROACH PAPER FOR LEGISLATION ON PRIVACY (October 13, 2010)
available at http://persmin.gov.in/WriteReadData/RTI/aproach_paper.pdf.
32

Please refer to Chapter 8 titled GRIEVANCE REDRESSAL MECHANISM for a detailed analysis on disputes
that could arise from the Aadhaar project.

32

Memorial on Behalf of Respondent

social sector schemes/ projects to Aadhaar. Further, various Central and State Government
organizations have notified Aadhaar as a valid Proof of Identity and Proof of Address.33
In UIDAI & Anr. v. Central Bureau of Investigation,34 the Unique Identification Authority of
India (UIDAI) itself has approached the Supreme Court (SC) challenging a Bombay High
Court (HC) order which asked it to consider sharing biometric data collected from people
with the CBI in order to help the investigating agency solve a rape case in Goa.

[I.13] A COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF THE PRIVACY SAFEGUARDS:

One of the chief concerns that civil society organizations have against the UID and the Authority
is that it may compromise the privacy of the aadhar number holders by providing the executive
with the means to monitor each and every transaction made by the holder of the number. While it
is recognized by civil liberty activists that citizens are constantly providing personal/private
information when buying a railway ticket, maintaining a bank account, registering in a
university, getting work at an NREGS worksite, taking out an insurance policy, buying a
motorbike, paying telephone bills, etc., their objection with the UID project is that it specifically
provides for the convergence of all this independent information on one single platform which
can be accessed at a click of the mouse.35 Strong legal safeguards to protect the UID database
may have assuaged these fears.

33

vide Office Memorandum on UIDAI issued by GOI, Dated-28th March, 2013,

34

Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (Crl) No(s).2524/2014

35

UshaRamanathan, A Unique Identity Bill, 45 ECONOMIC & POLITICAL WEEKLY 30 10, 10-14 (2010).

33

Memorial on Behalf of Respondent

[I.13.i] INDIAN TELEGRAPH ACT, 1885

The Indian Telegraph Act, 1885 is one of the legislations which regulates the telecom sector in
India. Under Section 5 of this Act, the Central Government may in the interest of the public
safety, the Central Government or a State Government or any officer specially authorized in this
behalf by the Central Government or a State Government may, if satisfied that it is necessary or
expedient so to do in the interests of the sovereignty and integrity of India, the security of the
State, friendly relations with foreign States or public order or for preventing incitement to the
commission of an offence, for reasons to be recorded in writing, by order, direct that any
message or class of messages to or from any person or class of persons, or relating to any
particular subject, brought for transmission by or transmitted or received by any telegraph, shall
not be transmitted, or shall be intercepted or detained, or shall be disclosed to the Government
making the order or an officer thereof mentioned in the order.

Provided that press messages intended to be published in India of correspondents accredited to

the Central Government or a State Government shall not be intercepted or detained, unless their
transmission has been prohibited under this sub-section.

[I.13.ii] THE INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY ACT, 2001

The Information Technology Act, 2001 (IT Act, 2001) is the legislation which recognizes and
regulates electronic communication, electronic data-inter-change and in general, electronic
commerce. Section 69 of this legislation states that
If the Controller is satisfied that it is necessary or expedient so to do in the interest of
the sovereignty or integrity of India, the security of the State, friendly relations with
34

Memorial on Behalf of Respondent

foreign States or public order or for preventing incitement to the commission of any
cognizable offence, for reasons to be recorded in writing, by order, direct any agency of
the Government to intercept any information transmitted through any computer
resource.
The Controller' as defined in the IT Act is a bureaucrat who is controlled completely by the
Central Government.
Similarly Section 29 of the same legislation states (1)Without prejudice to the provisions of subsection (1) of section 69, the Controller or any person authorized by him shall, if he has
reasonable cause to suspect that any contravention of the provisions of this Act, rules or
regulations made there under has been committed, have access to any computer system, any
apparatus, data or any other material connected with such system, for the purpose of searching
or causing a search to be made for obtaining any information or data contained in or available
to such computer system. Both of these provisions therefore vest in the Controller, a bureaucrat,
the right to monitor the electronic activities of Indian citizens without any judicial supervision.

[I.13.iii] THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961

Similarly Section 132 of the Income Tax, Act 1961 gives Officers of the Income Tax Department
sweeping powers to carry out search and seizure operations provided they have a reason to
believe that any person is in possession of undisclosed wealth be it in the form of money,
bullion, jewellery etc. This provision of law authorizes officers the rank of Director General or
Director or Commissioner or Chief Commissioner or Additional Director or Additional

35

Memorial on Behalf of Respondent

Commissioner or Joint Director or Joint Commissioner to carry out such search seizure
operations without requiring any prior judicial approval.
It is obvious from above the Indian Parliaments approach to privacy safeguards has been rather
relaxed.

36

Memorial on Behalf of Respondent

QUESTION PRESENTED: II

Whether UID Scheme has any legal basis?

The Counsel on behalf of Respondents humbly submits before the Honble Supreme Court of
Indistan that this UID Scheme per se is legally propounded by Government of India. Since the
Counsel has established beforehand that there is no Fundamental Right to Privacy and the
Government is not at all infringing privacy rights of the citizens of this country, now the legality
of UID Scheme is in question. Though there is an absence of any statute on Aadhar, still the
Government of India is functioning under the Executive Order permitted by President of Indistan
which is binding over UIDAI,36 and thus shows the Legal Basis of UID Scheme.

[II.1] The counsel of Respondents submits that it is a well settled position that powers of the
Executive are co-extensive with the legislative power of the Government and that the
Government is not debarred from exercising its executive power in the areas which are not
regulated by specific legislation. It has been opined that till the time such legislation is framed
the Authority can continue to function under the executive order issued by the Government and
the scheme that may be prepared by the UIDAI. It was also opined that the Authority can collect
information/data for implementation of the UID scheme. Such implementation can be done by
giving wide publicity to the scheme and persuading the agencies/individual to part with
necessary information. The UIDAI has not faced issues such as breach of security and
confidentiality, manipulation of biometrics, unauthorized access to the CIDR or other related

36

Govt. of India under Planning Commission, Notification No. A-43011/02/2009, Published in Part-I, Section-2 of
the Gazette of India.

37

Memorial on Behalf of Respondent

offences since its inception. Till the time Parliament passes the Bill, these matters will be
covered by the relevant Laws.37

[II.2] Ministry of Law & Justice (Department of Legal Affairs) clarifies that the competence of
the Executive is not limited to take steps to implement the law proposed to be passed by
Parliament. Executive Power operates independently. The Executive is not implementing the
provisions of the Bill. The Authority presently functioning under the Executive Notification
dated 28th January, 2009 is doing so under valid authority and there is nothing in law or
otherwise which prevents the Authority from functioning under the Executive Authorization. The
power of Executive is clear and there is no question of circumventing Parliament or the
Executive becoming a substitute of Parliament. On the contrary, what is sought to be done is to
achieve a seamless transition of the authority from an Executive Authority into a statutory
authority. All the expenditure which is being incurred is sanctioned by Parliament in accordance
with the financial procedure set forth in the Constitution. If the Bill is not passed by any reason
and if Parliament is of the view that the Authority should not function and express its will to that
effect, the exercise would have to be discontinued. This contingency does not arise. The present
Bill being implemented without Parliaments approval does not set a bad precedent in the
Parliamentary form of Government. On the contrary, the fact that the Authority is sought to be
converted from an Executive Authority to a statutory authority, it underlines the supremacy of
Parliament.

[II.3] Article 73 of Indian Constitution also empowers Government to continue with UID
Scheme. It defines the extent of executive power of the Union as:
37

42nd Report of Standing Committee on the National Identification Authority of India Bill, 2010, 14.

38

Memorial on Behalf of Respondent

(1) Subject to the provisions of this Constitution, the executive power of the Union shall extend

(a) to the matters with respect to which Parliament has power to make laws; and

(b) to the exercise of such rights, authority and jurisdiction as are exercisable by the
government of India by virtue of any treaty on agreement: Provided that the executive
power referred to in sub clause (a) shall not, save as expressly provided in this
constitution or in any law made by Parliament, extend in any State to matters with respect
in which the Legislature of the State has also power to make laws

(2) Until otherwise provided by Parliament, a State and any officer or authority of a State may,
notwithstanding anything in this article, continue to exercise in matters with respect to which
Parliament has power to make laws for that State such executive power or functions as the State
or officer or authority thereof could exercise immediately before the commencement of this
Constitution Council of Ministers
[II.4] In the case of Jyoti Pershad v. Union Territory of India38 the Supreme Court defined the
broad scope of delegated legislation in the following manner:
So long as the Legislature indicates, in the operative provisions of the statute with
certainty, the policy and purpose of the enactment, the mere fact that the legislation is
skeletal, or the fact that a discretion is left to those entrusted with administering the law,
affords no basis either for the contention that there has been an excessive delegation of
legislative power as to amount to an abdication of its functions, or that the discretion
vested is uncanalised and unguided as to amount to a carte blanche to discriminate. If the
38

AIR (1961) SC 1602.

39

Memorial on Behalf of Respondent

power or discretion has been conferred in a manner which is legal and constitutional, the
fact that Parliament could possibly have made more detailed provisions, could obviously
not be a ground for invalidating the law.
Another case Kathi Raning Rawat v. State of Saurashtra39 was decided on remarkable facts
(entailing selection of case by the State Government to be tried by special courts), but the
preamble in that case provided that the purpose of the Act was to provide for public safety,
maintenance of public order and preservation of peace and tranquility in the State of
Saurashtra. The validity of this provision was upheld on the ground that the impugned
ordinance had been passed to combat the increasing frequency of certain types of regional crime.
The two-fold classification on the lines of type and territory adopted in the impugned ordinance
was held reasonable and valid. It was held that the reference to public safety, maintenance of
public order and preservation of peace and tranquillity in the preamble shows a definitive
objective and furnishes a tangible and rational basis of classification to the State Government for
the purpose of applying the provisions of the Ordinance and for choosing only such offences or
cases as affect the public safety, maintenance of public order and preservation of peace and
tranquility to refer to special courts.

Thus the Counsel for respondent humbly submits that the Supreme Court has given the
Parliament considerable discretion in delegating its powers to the Executive.

39

AIR (1952) SC 123.

40

Memorial on Behalf of Respondent

[II.5] On whether UID Scheme is helping illegal migrants
[II.5.i] The UID scheme was extended to all residents and other categories of individuals to
gradually do away the de novo exercises each time for field level data collection.
Simultaneously, it would also ensure that links to more and more identity based databases are
created by inclusion of the UID number in their databases

[II.5.ii] While there may be a number of factors contributing to the failure to enroll (like
geography, age groups, occupation etc.). For enrolment purpose, UIDAI has already built in
processes to handle biometric exceptions.

It is clarified that-

(i) aadhaar is sufficient KYC for opening all bank accounts now. This includes no-frill accountsas per Reserve Banks circular dated January 27, 2011 and any bank account as per September
28, 2011 circular.

(ii) Banks may ask for additional proof of residence if the current residence is not the same as the
address given on the aadhaar document. This procedure is consistent with bank policies
applicable to all other officially valid documents including passport, driving license and is not
specific to aadhaar.

Aadhaar number is not a proof of citizenship or domicile [Clause 6 of the Bill]. It only confirms
identity and that too subject to authentication [Clause 4(3)]. This is clearly mandated in the
NIDAI Bill and the communication being sent to the resident. It is the responsibility of the
Registrars to enroll a resident after due verification as per the procedure lay down by the UIDAI.

41

Memorial on Behalf of Respondent

If a person is not a resident as per the Bill, the Authority is being vested with the power to
omit/deactivate the aadhaar number [Clause 23 (2) (g)]. Subsequent attempts to enter the system
can be detected.

[II.6] AFFECT ON THE MIGRANT POPULATIONS

It is no secret that there are millions of illegal immigrants who have jumped borders in
search of livelihood in India, most of which are Bangladeshis. Having said that, the government
also recognizes these "invisible" populations as, the UID project provides for residents under
its mandate as opposed to not providing UID to only citizens. But as this project moves forward
in its implementation, these groups would be clearly identifiable. Now, this may not be a very
good thing, as it diminishes a vast abuse of powers.

If an illegal immigrant is to get a UID he/she may also have to provide the proof of permanent
address. The field for address is mandatory and hence, in the absence of any documents for proof
of address the Government can easily identify illegal immigrants. Moreover regarding the
question of introducer to migrants, in that case those introducers who will introduce any illegal
migrants would be handled within the ambit of stringent laws made by Government of India.

On the whole, Counsel of Respondent most respectfully submits that for governance to be truly
effective, it is necessary to track and guide development. This can be achieved only by further
integration of different agencies of the government and ensuring proper delivery of entitlements
to the beneficiaries. Such integration would result in improvement of delivery which necessarily
entails plugging of leaks and remedying corruption. The manner in which this may be done is
multivariate. In the context of the UID project, it is envisaged that by way of creating a common

42

Memorial on Behalf of Respondent

denominator in terms of a universal identifier, for all the beneficiaries, tracking benefits and
development would be made a lot easier. This common denominator would be further used as a
platform on which integration between different agencies of the government would be enabled.

43

Memorial on Behalf of Respondent

PRAYER

Wherefore, in the light of the questions raised, arguments advanced and authorities cited, it is
most humbly prayed and implored before the Honble Supreme Court of Indistan that it may be
pleased to hold, adjudge declare and

(i)Pass such an order that Right to Privacy is not at all a fundamental right and UIDAI
Scheme is not breaching individuals Privacy Rights.
Also,

(ii) Pass an order that UIDAI Scheme has definitely a legal basis both in terms of Executive
Order and other Migrants.

And,
(iv) Also pass further orders as the Honble Supreme Court may deem fit and proper in the
facts and circumstances of the case.

All of which is most respectfully submitted.

(Counsel for the Respondent)

44