Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
(Debashis Nandy vs Union Of India & Ors.) on 14 November, 2018
Author: Protik Prakash Banerjee
Bench: Protik Prakash Banerjee
1
14.11.2018
CL 420
RP Ct.10 WP 15233 (W) of 2018
(Debashis Nandy vs. Union of India & Ors.)
Mr. Arif Ali, Adv.
.... For the Petitioner
Mr. Ambar Banerjee, Adv.
Mrs. Amrita Panja Moulick, Adv.
.... For the Private Respondent
Mr. Ashim Kumar Ganguly, Adv.
.... For the State The writ petitioner has challenged the cavalier manner in which the second respondent records data relating to citizens in India. Till very recently the second respondent under the provisions of the Aadhaar (Targeted Delivery of Financial and Other Subsidies, benefits and services) Act 2016 had an unlimited mandate of recording the most private information of citizens including their biometrics data. While this has been criticized as being the beginning of Fascist State and the matter has traveled to the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, now the law has been well settled that it is not the only mode of identification of a person nor can it be demanded as a proof of identity in all cases.
One of the criticisms levelled against the system by which the second respondent prepares and issues such Aadhar Card is that there is neither any sanctity of the information which is provided nor any security that such information shall not be available to those who are not expressly authorized to access it. The present writ petition 2 challenges the first part of the system. According to the writ petitioner, an employee of an erstwhile and deceased tenant of the writ petitioner took advantage of the death of the tenant and alleged falsely that he was the son of the deceased tenant and, in fact, filed a civil suit for declaration of his tenancy. There were other documents in which an allegation was made that the respondent no.8's father was the deceased tenant. In one such document after due investigation during the pendency of the suit the respondent no.6 has duly altered the name of the father of the respondent no.8 from Keshab Bhusan Roy to Rakhal Chandra Roy. This document is the "Voter Identity Card of the respondent no.8". This appears from annexure to the writ petition which is at page 61 of the writ petition.
It does not appear that the private respondent no.8 has challenged this decision.
The question therefore arises as to how the Income Tax Authority and other statutory authorities including the second respondent could have merely on the declaration of the respondent no.8 have recorded as the father of the respondent no.8 the name of a person who only had a daughter as alleged by the writ petitioner. Writ petitioner submitted that the Railway Authorities who also a part of Union of India has however confirmed in its record the name of 8th respondent's father as Rakhal Chandra Roy.
3
The best person to dispel the doubts of the Court would have been the second respondent. Despite service as appears from the affidavit of service the second respondent is not represented nor has appeared. Since today is the first day that the matter has taken up, I cannot pass final order in his absence. The State of West Bengal cannot by itself change Aadhar Card. It is truly surprising that the respondent no.2 is so eager to intrude into the personal lives of the citizens and gather information whose security is at best perfunctory but it is shy to appear before the Court when its conduct is under judicial review. However, in the interest of justice as a last chance for the respondent no.2 to appear, I direct that a notice be served on the respondents no.2 and 3 at the addresses given for the respondents no.2 and 3 in the writ petition and its cause title and the learned Additional Solicitor General is requested to assist the Court on the next date fixed.
Despite pendency of the civil suit I am prima facie of the opinion that sufficient grounds exist to consider that the Aadhar Card issued in the name of the private respondent no.8 is materially defective so far as the name of the father of the respondent no.8 is concerned. Though this finding is tentative and subject to further consideration of the matter. In such view of the matter, no benefit can be taken by the respondent no.8 under such Aadhar Card and it shall not be relied upon by the respondent no.8 or any other authority or person 4 whatsoever till the disposal of the writ petitioner or until further orders, whichever is earlier.
Let a copy of this order be served on the learned Additional Solicitor General and the respondent no.2.
Let this matter appear on 4th December, 2018 for further consideration.
(PROTIK PRAKASH BANERJEE, J.) 5