On Wednesday Mr. Aarghya Sengupta presented his arguments for the Central Government in the AADHAAR case; he argued that arbitrariness cannot be a ground for declaring a statute unconstitutional, he then went on to rebut Mr. Shyam Divanโs submission that the law is discriminatory in nature, he concluded his argument by pointing out that the right to informational self determination is not absolute ย in nature and that it needs to be seen in the Indian context where the problem of fake pan cards is persisting.
After this Mr. Shyam Divan began his rebuttals by pointing out that the UIDAI website advertised AADHAAR to be voluntary while the counsels for the Respondents were arguing it to be mandatory. He then pointed out that the importance of this case and concluded by pointing out that Section 139AA is not a fiscal provision even though it was placed in the Income Tax Act by the Finance Act.
While this challenge is continuing, advocate Rana Pratap Bismal from Odisha has moved the apex against compulsory AADHAAR for applying to the post of Additional Public Prosecutor. He has challenged this as being violative of Articles 14, 16(equal opportunity for employment) and 21 of the Constitution. This is the first that a challenge has arisen on the violation of Article 16 and the matter is scheduled to be taken up on Thursday before the CJIโs bench after Mr. Shyam Divan made a mentioning for urgent hearing.
