Scribd
Upload
21 views2 pages

Wa0004.

Uploaded by

Archi Katiyar
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
21 views2 pages

Wa0004.

Uploaded by

Archi Katiyar
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 2

1.

1 Fundamental rights of the petitioners are violated


It is humbly maintained before the Honorable court of law that the present petition filed by the
petitioners under Art. 32 of the Constitution of Indira while challenging the constitutionality of
DigiId Platform contends that DigiID system infringes upon essential constitutional rights. This occurs
in light of the above specified facts. It is asserted that the DigiID scheme, through its mandatory
biometric collection, compelled data sharing with private entities, and its impact on access to essential
services, prima facie violates the petitioners’ autonomy, dignity, and liberty. The alleged data breaches
and exclusion from welfare benefits directly threaten the life and well-being of citizens.
As the violation of petitioner’s autonomy, dignity and liberty has lead to the infringement of their basic
fundamental rights that are Right to privacy and personal liberty (article 21), right to equality (article
14), and Right to freedom of speech and expression(article 19).

1.1.1Infringement of Fundamentals right


Fundamental rights mark the base of seeking relief under Art. 32. The Hon'ble court has time and again
recognized that the constitutional validity of a legislation can be challenged when any of the
fundamental rights enshrined under Part III of the Constitution have been violated. Therefore, the
violation of fundamental rights is the sine qua non of the exercise of the right to approach SC.
1.1.2 Violation Of Righ to life and personal liberty ( Article 21)
As held in case K.S. Puttaswamy Vs Union Of India, “Article 32 of the Constitution is itself a fundamental
right. The Court has consistently held that the existence of an alternate remedy is no bar to the exercise
of jurisdiction under Article 32 when the petitioner seeks enforcement of a fundamental right.”
“The sanctity of privacy lies in its functional relationship with dignity, autonomy, and liberty. Where a
right to privacy is infringed, recourse under Article 32 is not only permissible but essential.
Exclusion from benefits which affect the right to life and personal liberty is not a mere administrative
lapse. It is a constitutional infraction that must be addressed by the Court under its writ jurisdiction”

Concluding the held of this case it can be stated that the whenever the fundamental rights are infringed the
apex court of India can be directly approached and same will be held maintainable by apex court. It can
also be clearly stated that the exclusion from essential services amount to a constituitional infractio and
warrants dircte judicial intervention.
In the instant matter direct violation of fundamental rights is alleged. The petitioners argued that DigiID
made access to basic services conditional, thereby excluding citizens and threatening their right to life and
dignity.The collection and storage of biometric data without adequate safeguards raised serious privacy
concerns. Hence, t is ataed that there is clear violatuion of fundamental right Article 21.

1.1.3 Violation of Right to equality (Article 14)


As held in case In Binoy Viswam vs Union Of India ‘ A Statue imposing restrictions on constitutional
rights is valid if it is meant to achieve a proper purpose and if measures are taken to achive such purpose
and if measures are taken to achive such purpose and if measures are taken to achieve such prupose are
rationally connected with such purpose and such measures are necessary. The need to do so is extremely
crucial in view of the fact that biometric systems may be bypassed, hacked, or even fail. Unless the same
is done, the identity of the citizens will be reduced to a collection of instrumentalised markers... No such
re-grouping of data can be allowed as could lead to the use of biometrics for exclusion of vulnerable
groups’
Concuding the above held Its can be stated that state can impose restrictions on fundamental rights , such
limitations must be reasonable and proportionate. Also in the above case the constitutional validity of
mandating Adhar linkage with PAN cards touching upon issues of privacy ,exclusion and the
proportionality of state actions.
In the instant matter the DigiId integration with vote ID banking and the over exclusion of people without
didgital literacy or access. Hence violating the right to equality (Article 14).
1.1.4 Violation Of Golden Triangle
As held in case Maneka Ghandhi vs Union Of India , The law must therefore now be taken to be well
settled that Article 21 does not exclude Article 19 and that even if there is a law prescribing a procedure
for depriving a person of 'personal liberty' and there is consequently no infringement of the fundamental
right conferred by Article 21, such a law in so far as it abridges or takes away any fundamental right
under Article 19 would have to meet the challenge of that Article.”

As Laid down in para 5 of this case the court emphasized about golden triangle formed by article 14,
19and 21. Also held that the law affecting personal liberty must also stand the test of equality and
reasonablessness. In the instan matter the digiId platform through exclusionary practicesand data sharing
mandates fails to meet these constitutional standards and thus violates this triangle.

1.2 HE PETITIONER HAS AN ADEQUATE LOCUS STANDI.


The term ‘locus standi’ signifies the right to bring an action and to be heard. Any member of
public or any public-spirited organization6 having a bona fide7 and sufficient public interest8
will have adequate locus standi to maintain an action for writ petition under Art. 32 of the
Indira Constitution as held by the Hon’ble Apex court in case of S.P Gupta v. Union .
of India10, while relaxing the terms of locus standi, that if a legal wrong or legal injury is
caused to a person or any class of person then they can approach the Court through an order
or writ in the High Court under Art. 226 or to the Supreme Court under Art 32. Also, in case
of Ashok Kumar Pandey v. State of West Bengal 11,it was held that PIL should contain
sufficient interest of general public in order to maximize its objective of serving justice to
maximum people.
1.2.1 Arya Public Interest Foundation is a non-governmental, non-profit organization (NGO)
committed to the protection and promotion of civil liberties, digital rights, and access to
social justice in the Union of Indira. The organization works to ensure that marginalized and
underrepresented communities are not deprived of their constitutional rights due to socio-
economic or technological barriers.
Through research, legal advocacy, and policy intervention, the Foundation regularly engages
in public interest litigation to safeguard the rights guaranteed under the Constitution of
Indira, especially Articles 14, 19, and 21."
1.2.2. The PIL filed by the foundation is bona fide and also the petitioners do have sufficient
interest in reaching out the consequences of the filed petition which is to carry on fight for
the protection and promotion fundamental rights of the citizens

You might also like

pFad - Phonifier reborn

Pfad - The Proxy pFad of © 2024 Garber Painting. All rights reserved.

Note: This service is not intended for secure transactions such as banking, social media, email, or purchasing. Use at your own risk. We assume no liability whatsoever for broken pages.


Alternative Proxies:

Alternative Proxy

pFad Proxy

pFad v3 Proxy

pFad v4 Proxy