In the light of the nine-bench decision in the landmark ‘right to privacy’ case, CPI leader Binoy Viswam has again approached the Supreme Court for re-considering the two-judge bench verdict in his earlier case wherein the Court upheld the constitutional validity of the provision mandating linkage of Aadhaar with Permenant Account Number (PAN) and Income tax returns under Section 139AA of Income Tax Act.
While dismissing the petition in July, a bench comprising Justices Justice A.K Sikri and Ashok Bhushan had partially stayed the operation of the above provision till the verdict of the Constitution Bench.
In August, a nine-Judge Bench in Justice K.S. Puttasamy v. Union of India unanimously held that the right to privacy is a fundamental right and inherent to Article 21 of the Constitution of India.
Consequently, Viswam has also placed reliance on the Aadhaar Act and various interim orders of the Supreme Court to contend that Aadhaar cannot be made mandatory.
He has, therefore, prayed for invalidating the provision as the same is unconstitutional, illegal and arbitrary and violates the provisions of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution.
The petition reads that “this Hon’ble Court has held that a law that infringes on the right to privacy must satisfy the test of proportionality. It is submitted that the impugned provision that seeks to link PAN cards to Aadhar cards is grossly disproportionate to the object it seeks to achieve. It is submitted that the decision in Binoy Vishwam’s case (cited supra) merely dealt with the quesiton of proportionality in the context of Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India, and therefore, in view of the decision of the 9 Judge decision of this Hon’ble Court, the proportionality of the impugned provision must be examined in the context of the right to privacy. Merely unsubstantiated allegations of misuse of PAN card citing the ubiquitious malice like black money, funding of terrorism etc. cannot be a justification to coerce the individuals to part with their biometric information.”
Further, the petitioner has also placed reliance on the Aadhaar Act and various interim orders of the Supreme Court to contend that Aadhaar cannot be made mandatory.
Adv Sriram, the counsel appeared for the petitioner said that “When WP 247 was decided, the challenge to 139 AA of the IT Act based on violation of the right to privacy was not considered. Today in the light of the 9 Judge Bench decision upholding the right of privacy, the challenge to 139AA on the basis of right to privacy is automatically revived. Secondly the decision in Benoy Viswom (WP 247 of 2017) was expressly overruled in Shira Bhanu.”
“This gives a breathe of fresh air to the challenge of constitutionality of 139AA,” he added.
