The Supreme Court on Friday refused to entertain a petition challenging the constitutional validity of the Aadhaar Ordinance brought by the Centre, The Leaflet reported. The top court asked the petitioners to first approach a High Court with its plea.

On March 3, President Ram Nath Kovind had promulgated Aadhaar and other laws (Amendment) Ordinance, 2019, which amends relevant laws to comply with a Supreme Court judgement passed in September 2018. The amendment to the Telegraph Act makes Aadhaar-based identification for mobile phone services voluntary and prohibits the storage of either the Aadhaar number or the biometric data linked to it. A similar amendment to the Prevention of Money Laundering Act enables banking firms to use customers’ Aadhaar on a voluntary basis.

The Lok Sabha had passed a bill for the purpose on January 4, but the Rajya Sabha had not voted on it yet.

Senior advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi, arguing for the petitioners, claimed the matter was of national importance as it would have a pan-India effect, PTI reported.

The Supreme Court bench said they are not deciding anything on the merits of the case and that they would like to have a view of the High Court on the matter. The bench allowed the petitioner to withdraw the plea and granted liberty to approach the High Court concerned.

Aadhaar Ordinance

The amendments make it clear that a service cannot be denied for want of Aadhaar. This follows the Supreme Court’s decision to strike down the Section 57 of the Aadhaar Act, which had made the use of Aadhaar mandatory for availing various services.

A new clause to the Aadhaar Act, Section 8A, makes it mandatory to obtain a user’s consent for offline verification of their identity and requires that the information thus collected be used for the sole purpose of verification. The changes include a definition of the “Aadhaar ecosystem” as covering enrolment agencies, registrars, verification entities and any other entity specified by the regulations. Violating the regulations would attract stringent penalties, including a prison term of up to 10 years.

Under the amendments, Aadhaar users can opt for offline verification without needing to share their biometric ID. Children enrolled for Aadhaar by their parents will also be bable to opt out after they turn 18 if the amendments are approved in the Upper House too.

The Supreme Court’s verdict in September, passed by a 4:1 majority, had come after several petitioners raised concerns about privacy and asked why the unique identity number was made mandatory for people to avail of welfare schemes, file income tax returns, hold mobile numbers, and bank accounts. The court made Aadhaar optional for mobile phones and bank accounts but said it would still need to be linked with Permanent Account Numbers to file income tax returns.

The amendments, however, do not comply with the court’s order regarding the Aadhaar Act’s surveillance provisions, which were specifically struck down for want of proper oversight.