Thread by @prasanna_s

#Aadhaar Judgment continued
(Sorry the earlier thread no longer loads for me on twitter).

DYC J has penned a partial dissent.

DYC says this is a seminal case that poses questions on democracy, power and liberty and constitutionalism.

DYC J overrules earlier judgment on money bill whether or not speaker decision is subject to judicial review. Elaborate discussion of rule of law and judicial review. Sikri J agrees on this point.

However DYC J holds that Aadhaar cannot have been a money bill. Not even Section 7. Passing a Bill which is not a money bill as a money bill a subterfuge and a fraud on the constitution. This is a dissent from Sikri J view.

DYC J although has held the Aadhaar Act as unconstitutional on the basis of money bill, has also gone into separate provisions and the project.

DYC J says the propose of Act is legitimate. However not enough robust safeguards as to informed consent, individual rights such as opt out and several issues in the process and the regulations...both prior to and post the passage of the Act.

DYC J holds that the Aadhaar programme as a whole is completely violative of privacy and unconstitutional.

Constitutional guaratees cannot be subjected to probabilility algorithims and technological vicissitudes.

DYC J holds that Respondents' claims on security and safeguards have not only not been convicing enough, but falls short of standards required to protect privacy and data protection.

Potential surveillance is possible through Aadhaar.

Algorithms by foreign companies such as L1 and Accenture and control out of UIDAI is noted and not approved by DYC J. Rights of citizens and national security cannot be protected by merely a contract between UIDAI and private foreign corporations.

DYC J also notes how UIDAI takes no responsibility for identification.

DYV J develops the concept of structural due process and says the framework under the law clearly violates that doctrine. Criminal offences under the Act alone are insufficient.

DYCJ strikes down also Section 57, Section 7 separately for being overbroad and authorising breaking down of separate silos and violative of privacy

Section 59 which validated earlier notification struck down. Also notes how even 2009 notification did not authorise biometrics.

DYC J also strikes down Bank Linking and Telecom linking orders. Says cell phone providers must immediately delete and destroy aadhaar data they have collected immediately.

DYC J : entire Aadhaar Act and the programme since 2009 is held as unconstitutional. The data shall be kept for 1 year. If govt is able to reenact a new reasonable law, the same can be used for that. But if not, #DestroyTheAadhaarData.

DYC J judgment has some great pasages. Unable to capture all on twitter. But in dissent!

Next judgment read by Ashok Bhushan J.

Bhushan J: No expectation of privacy in demographic data used regularly in transactions with govts and public authorities.

Bhushan J: Everyone has a right of identity. Aadhaar is a Pan India identity.

Bhushan J: After constitution, all governments have tried to eliminate poverty.

Bhushan J: Impementation problems and shortcomings do not make Section 7 unconstitutional. No material record to say exclusion has increased post Aadhaar.

Bhushan J: Authorities will have to take steps to minimise exclusion.

Bhushan J: Even if authentication is probabilistic as on date, we have no doubt that authentication success rates will improve.

Bhushan J: Dissipation of social benefits is a major problem facing the nation.

Bhushan J: Phone linking struck down as it is not backed by law.

Bhushan J: Certification as a money bill can be reviewed by court. Sidiqqi and Yogesh Jaiswal cases overruled.

Bhushan J: No violation of privacy by Aadhaar. Passes the three fold test in 9 judge bench decision.

Bhushan J: Section 57 to the extent it includes "contract" is struck down.

Bhushan J: Section 59 upheld.

Bhushan J: Upholds bank linking and 139AA as well.

Bhushan J: appreciation for all counsels appearing for all parties.

Over.