Supreme Court of India
BINOY VISWAMversusUNION OF INDIA & ORS.
- Citation
- 2017 INSC 478
- Decided
- 9 June 2017
- Disposal
- Disposed off
- Bench
- A K SIKRI
Holding
Section 139AA of the Income Tax Act is constitutionally valid, does not offend Articles 14 or 19(1)(g), and the proviso to sub‑section (2) must be read down to operate prospectively, pending a separate determination of its compatibility with Article 21.
Summary
The petitioners, a group of public‑spirited individuals, challenged the constitutionality of Section 139AA of the Income Tax Act, 1961, which makes it mandatory for income‑tax assessees to quote their Aadhaar number while applying for a PAN or filing returns. They argued that the provision violated Articles 14 and 19(1)(g) of the Constitution, and, by making Aadhaar compulsory, conflicted with the voluntary nature of the Aadhaar Act and infringed the right to privacy and dignity under Article 21. The Union of India contended that Parliament had the competence to enact the provision, that the classification of assessees was reasonable, and that the provision did not offend equality or trade‑related freedoms. The Court held that Parliament was competent, the classification was reasonable, and Section 139AA did not violate Articles 14 or 19(1)(g); however, the penal proviso must be read down to operate prospectively and its validity remains subject to the pending Article 21 challenge before a larger bench. The writ petitions were dismissed with a partial stay on the retrospective operation of the proviso.
Issues considered
- The constitutional competence of Parliament to enact Section 139AA making Aadhaar mandatory for PAN and tax returns
- Whether Section 139AA violates Article 14 (equality) of the Constitution
- Whether Section 139AA infringes Article 19(1)(g) (right to carry on trade, business or profession)
- Whether the provision is retrospective and thus violative of Article 20(1)
- Whether the mandatory requirement conflicts with the voluntary nature of the Aadhaar Act and the pending privacy challenge under Article 21
Legislation cited
- Aadhaar (Targeted Delivery of Financial and Other Subsidies, Benefits and Services) Act, 2016s. 2(a), s. 2(c), s. 2(g), s. 3, s. 7
- Constitution of Indias. Article 13, s. Article 14, s. Article 19(1)(g), s. Article 21, s. Article 24, s. Article 246, s. Article 248, s. Article 372
- Income Tax Act, 1961s. 139A, s. 139AA, s. 196J, s. 206AA, s. 272B, s. 27IF
- Information Technology Act, 2000s. 43A
Subjects
AadhaarPANSection 139AAIncome Tax ActConstitutional validityArticle 14Article 19(1)(g)Article 21PrivacyEqualityTax complianceDe‑duplicationLimited governmentJudicial review
Judgment
[2017] 7 S.C.R. 1
BINOY VISWAM A
v.
UNION OF INDIA & ORS.
(Writ Petition (Civil) No. 247 of2017)
JUNE 09, 2017 B
[A. K. SIKRI AND ASHOK BHUSHAN, JJ.) ·
Income Tax Act, 1961:
s.139AA - Constitutionality of- s.139AA makes it compulsory
for assessees to give aadhaar number - Constitutional validity of C
s.139AA challenged on the ground that since enrolment under
Aadhaar Act is voluntary, it canno1 be made compulsory under the
· Income Tax Act - Held: The purpose for enrolment under the
Aadhaar Act is to avail benefits of various welfare schemes etc. as
stipulated in. s. 7 of.th.e Aadhaar Act - The purpose behind Income D
Tax Act, on the other hand, is entirely different - For achieving the
purpose such as curbing black money, money laundering and tax
evasion etc., if the Parliament chooses to make the provision
mandatory under the Income Tax Act, the competence of the
Parliament cannot be questioned on the ground that it is
impermissible only because under Aadhaar Act, the provision is E
directory in nature - It is the prerogative of the Parliament to make
a particular provision directory in one statute and mandatory/
compulsory in other - That by itself cannot be a ground to question
the competence of the legislature - After all, Aadhaar Act is not a
mother Act - Two laws, i.e., Aadhaar Act, on the one hand, and law
F
in the form of s.139AA of the Act, on the other hand, are two different
stand alone provisions/laws and validity of one cannot be examined
in the light of provisions of other Acts - Thus, there is no conflict
between the provisions of Aadhaar Act and s.139AA of Income Tax
Act in as much as when interpreted harmoniously they operate in
distinct fields - Legislation - Interpretation ofstatutes - Harmonious G
0
construction - Aadhaar (Targeted Delivery of Financial and other
Subsidies, Benefits and Services) Act.
s.139AA - Purpose of- Held: s.139AA is aimed at seeding
Aadhaar with PAN - One of the main objectives is to de-duplicate
H
2 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2017] 7 S.C.R.
A PAN cards and to bring a situation where one person is not having
more than one PAN card or a person is not able to get PAN cards in
assumed/fictitious names - In such a scenario, if those persons who
violate s. I 39AA of the Act without any consequence, the provision
shall be rendered toothless - It is the prerogative of the Legislature
to make penal provisions for violation of any law made by it - The
B
requirement of giving Aadhaar enrolment number to the designated
authority or stating this number in the income tax returns is directly
connected with the issue of duplicate/fake PANs - Therefore, it
cannot be denied that there has to be some provision stating the
consequences for not complying with the requirements of s. l 39AA
c of the Act, more particularly when these requirements are found as
not violative of Arts.14 and 19 - If Aadhar. number is not given, the
said exercise may not be possible - Sub-section (1) of s. l 39AA
stipulates that those who are not PAN holders, while applying for
PAN, they are required to give Aadhaar number - At the same time,
as far as existing PAN holders are concerned, since the impugned
D provisions are yet to be considered on the touchstone of Art.21 of
the Constitution, including on the debate around Right to Privacy
and human dignity, etc. as limbs of Art.2I, till the said aspect of
Art.2I is decided by the Constitution Bench a partial stay of the
said proviso is necessary - Those who have already enrolled
E themselves under Aadhaar scheme would comply with the
requirement of sub-section (2) of s.l 39AA of the Act - However,
those assessees who are not Aadhaar card holders and do not comply
with the provision of s.139(2), their PAN cards be not treated as
invalid for the time being - A person wJio is holder of PAN and if
his PAN is invalidated, he is bound to suffer immensely in his day to
F
day dealings, which situation should be avoided till the Constitution
Bench authoritatively determines the argument of Art.21 of the
Constitution - Since this course of action is adopted, in the
interregnum, it would be permissible for the Parliament to consider
as to whether there is a need to tone down the effect of the said
G proviso by limiting the consequences - However, at the same time,
proviso to s. l 39AA(2) cannot be read retrospectively - Constitution
of India - Art.21.
s.139AA(2) proviso - Retrospective effect - Constitutionality
of- Held: If failure to intimate the Aadhaar number renders PAN
H
BINOY VISWAM v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS. 3
void ab initio with the deeming provision that the PAN allotted would A
be invalid as if the person had not applied for allotment of PAN
would have rippling effect of unsettling settled rights of the parties
- It has the effect of undoing all the acts done by a person on the
basis of such a PAN - It may have even the effect of incurring other
penal consequences under the Act for earlier period on the ground B
that there was no PAN registration by a particular assessee - The
rights which are already accrued to a person in law cannot be taken
away - Therefore, proviso to sub-section (2) has to be read down to
mean that it would operate only prospective.
Aadhaar (Targeted Delivery of Financial and other Subsidies,
Benefits and Services) Act, 2016: c
Object of its enactment - Held: The Aadhaar Act is enacted
to enable the Government to identify individuals for delivery of
benefits, subsidies and services under various welfare schemes.
Whether Aadhaar card scheme whereby biometric data of an D
individual is collected violates- Right to Privacy and, therefore, is
offensive of Art.21 of the Constitution - Held: This issue is pending
before the Constitution Bench and is yet to be decided - In the
process, the Constitution Bench is also called upon to decide as to
whether Right to Privacy is a part of Art. 21 of the Constitution at
all - Final decision pending - Constitution of India - Art.21. E
Need to interconnect the databases - Linking PAN with
Aadhaar/biometric information to prevent use of wrong PAN for
high value transactions - Multiple methods of giving proofs of
identity - There is no mechanism/system at present to collect the
data available with each of the independent prooft of ID - Seeding F
of existing PAN with Aadhaar is perceived as the best method, and
the only robust method for de-duplication of PAN database.
Constitution of India:
Art.14 - Reasonable classification -· Art.14 enshrines the
G
principle of equality as a fundamental right - It gives the right to
equal treatment in similar circumstances, both in privileges conferred
and in the liabilities imposed - However, the guarantee against the
denial of equal protection of the law does not mean that identically
the same rules of law should be made applicable to all persons in
H
4 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2017] 7 S.C.R.
A spite of difference in circumstances or conditions - The varying
needs of different classes or sections of people require differential
and separate treatment - The Legislature is required to deal with
diverse problems arising out of an infinite variety of human relations
- The principle of equality of law, thus, means not that the same law
should apply to everyone but that a law should deal alike with all
B
in one class; that there should be an equality of treatment under
equal circumstances - Aadhaar (Targeted Delivery of Financial and
other Subsidies, Benefits and Services) Act, 20 i 6.
Art.i4 - Class legislation - it is permissible for the State to
classify persons for 'legitimate purposes - The Legislature is also
c competent to exercise its discretion and make classification -
s.i39AA of income Tax Act, i96i has created two classes, i.e. one
class of those persons who are assessees and other class of those
persons who are income tax assessees. - The impugned provision is
applicable only to those who are filing income tax returns - There
D cannot be any dispute that there is a reasonable basis for
dijferentiation and, therefore, equal protection clause enshrined in
Art. i 4 is not attracted - What Art. i 4 prohibits is class legislation
and not reasonable classification for the purpose of legislation -
All income tax asessees constitute one class and they are treated
alike by the impugned provision.
E
Art. i 9(1 )(g) - Quoting the Aadhaar number for purposes
mentioned in sub-section (1) of s.i 39AA of Income Tax Act, i96i
or intimating the Aadhaar number to the prescribed authority as
per the requirement of sub-section (2) does not, by itself, impinge
upon the right to carry on profession or trade, etc. - Therefore, it is
F not violative of Art.i9(l)(g) of the Constitution.
Art.i9(l)(g) - If the PAN of a person is withdrawv or is
nullified, it definitely amounts to placing restrictions on the right to
do' business.
G Principle of separation of power - Each wing of the State to
act within the sphere delineated for it under the Constitution -
Crossing these limits would render the action of the State ultra vires
the Constitution - When it comes to power of taxation, undoubtedly,
power to tax is treated as sovereign power of any State - Taxation.
H
BINOY VISWAM v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS. 5
Judicial review; A
Power of courts to interfere with legislative action - Scope of
- Held; Courts can strike down legislation either on the basis that
it falls foul of federal distribution of powers or that it contravenes
fandamental rights or other Constitutional rights/provisions of the
Constitution of India - No doubt, since the Supreme Court and the B
High Courts are treated as the 'ultimate arbiter in all matters involving
interpretation of the Constitution, it is the Courts which have 1he
final say on questions relati'!g to rights ~nd its violation.
Stages ·of judicial review - Exercise of judicial review to be
done at three stages - Jn the first stage, the Court would examine as c
to whether impugned provision in a legislation is compatible with
the fandamental rights or the -Constitutional provisions (substantive
judicial review) or it falls foul of the federal distribution of powers
(procedural judicial review) - If it is not found to be so, no further
exercise is needed as challenge would fail - On the other hand, if it
·is found that Legislature lacks competence as. the subject legislated D
was not within the powers assigned in the list in VII Schedule, no
farther enquiry is needed and such a law is to be declared as ultra
vires the Constitution - However, while undertaking substantive
judicial review, if it is found that the impugned provision appears
to be violative offundamental rights or other Constitutional rights, E
the Court reaches the second stage of review -:- At this second phase
· of enquiry, the Court is supposed to undertake the. exercise as to
w.hether the impugned provision can still be saved by reading it
down so as to bring it in conformity with the Constitutional provisions
·- If that is not achievable then the enquiry enters the third stage -
If the offending portion of the statute is severable, it is severed and F
the Court strikes down the impugned provision declaring the same
as unconstitutional - Administrative law.
Disposing of the writ petitions, the Court
HELD: 1. Scope of Judicial Review of Legislative Act G
Under the CO'nstitution; Supreme Court as well as High
Courts are vested with the power of judicial review of not. only
administrative acts of the executive but legislative enactments
passed by tJle legislature as well. This power is given to the
High Courts under Article 226 of the_ Constitution .and to the H
6 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2017] 7 S.C.R.
A Supreme Court under Article 32 as well as Article 136 of the
Constitution. At the same time, the parameters on which the
power of judicial review of administrative act is to be undertaken
are different from the parameters on which validity of legislative
enactment is to be examined. No doubt, in exercise of its power
of judicial review of legislative action, the Supreme Court, or for
B
that matter, the High Courts can declare law passed by the
Parliament or the State Legislature as invalid. However, the
power to strike down primary legislation enacted by the Union
or the State Legislatures is on limited grounds. Courts can strike
down legislation either on the basis that it falls foul of federal
c distribution of powers or that it contravenes fundamental rights
or other Constitutional rights/provisions of the Constitution of
India. No doubt, since. the Supreme Court and the High Courts
are treated as the 'ultimate arbiter in all matters involving
interpretation of the Constitution, it is the Courts which have
the final say on questions relating to rights and whether such a
D right is violated or not. The basis of this statement lies in Article
13(2) of the Constitution which proscribes the State from making
'any law which takes away or abridges the right conferred by Part
Ill', enshrining fundamental rights. It categorically states that
any law made in contravention thereof, to the extent of the
E contravention; be void. In the context of judicial review of
legislation, Article 372 (1) gives an indication that all laws enforced
prior to the commencement of the Constitution can be tested for
compliance with the provisions Of the Constitution by Courts.
[Paras 73, 74][77-G-H; 78-A-D, G]
F Union of India & Ors. v. Sicom Limited & Am: (2009) 2
SCC 121 : [2008) 17 SCR 120; Ashok Kumar Thakur
v. Union of India & Ors. (200~) 6 SCC 1 : [2008) 4
SCR 1; State of A.P. & Ors. v. McDowell & Co. & Ors.
(1996) 3 SCC 709 : [19961 3 SCR 721 - relied on.
G United States Department of Justice v. Reporters
Committee for Freedom of the Press 489 U.S. 749 (1989)
- referred to.
1.2 A legislation cannot be declared unconstitutional on the
ground that it is 'arbitrary' inasmuch as examining as to whether
H a particular Act is arbitrary or not implies a value judgment and
BINOY VISWAM v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS. 7
the courts do not examine the wisdom of legislative choices and, A
therefore, cannot undertake this exercise. [Para 78] [84-A-B]
Rajbala & Ors. v. State of Haryana & Ors. (2016) 2
SCC 445 : [2015] 12 SCR 1106; Jindal Stainless Ltd.
& Anr. v. State of Haryana & Ors. (2016) 11 SCALE 1
- relied on. B
1.3 Afortiori, a law cannot be invalidated on the ground that
the Legislature did not apply its mind or it was prompted by some
improper motive. It is, thus, clear that in exercise of power of
judicial review, Indian Courts are invested with powers to strike
down primary legislation enacted by the Parliament or the State c
legislatures. However, while undertaking this ~xercise of judicial
review, the same is to be done at three levels. In the first stage,
the Court would examine as to whether impugned provision in a
legislation is compatible with the fundamental rights or the
Constitutional provisions (substantive judicial review) or it falls
foul of the federal distribution of powers (procedural judicial D
review). If it is not found to be so, no further exercise is needed
as challenge would fail. On the other hand, if it is found that
Legislature lacks competence as the subject legislated was not
within the powers assigned in the list in VII Schedule, no further
enquiry is needed and such a law is to be declared as ultravires E
the Constitution. However, while undertaking substantive judicial
review, if it is found that the impugned provision appears to be
violative of fundamental rights or other Constitutional rights, the
Court reaches the second stage of review. At this second phase
of enquiry, the Court is supposed to undertake the exercise as
to whether the impugned provision can still be saved by reading F
it down so as to bring it in conformity with the Constitutional
provisions. If that is not achievable then the enquiry enters the
third stage. If the offending portion of the statute is severable, it
is severed and the Court strikes down the impugned provision
declaring the same as unconstitutional. [Paras 79, 80)(85-A-E] G
2.1 Concept of 'Limited Government' and its impact on
powers of Judicial Review
Undoubtedly, the Constitution of India, as an instrument of
governance of the State, delineates the functions and powers of
H
8 SUPREME COURT REPORTS .[2017] 7 S.C.R.
A each wing of the State, namely, the Legislature, the Judiciary and
the Executive. It also enshrines the principle of separation of
powers which mandates that each wing of the ·state has to function
within its own domain and no wing of the State is entitled to trample
over the function assigned to the other wing of tlte State. This.
fundamental document of governance also contains principle of
D
federalism wherein the Union is assigned cer.taln powers and
likewise powers of the State are also prescribed. In this context,
the Union Legislature, i.e. the Parliament, as well a,s the State
Legislatures are given specific areas in respect of which they
have power to legislate. That is so stipulated in Schedule VII of
c the Constitution wherein List I enumerates the subjects over
which Parliament has the dominion, List II spells out those areas
where the State Legislatures have the power to make laws while
List III is the Concurrent List which is accessible both to the
Union as well as the State Governments. The Scheme pertaining
to making laws by the Parliament as well as by the Legislatures
D of the State is primarily contained in Articles 245 to 254 of the
Constitution. Therefore, it cannot be disputed that each wing of
the State to act within the sphere delineated for it under the
Constitution. It is correct that crossing these limits would render
the action of the State ultra vires the Constitution. When it comes
E to power of taxation, undoubtedly, power to tax is treated as
sovereign power of any State. [Para 82)(85-G-H; 86-A-DJ
2.2 In a democratic society governed by the Constitution,
there is a strong tr~nd towards the Constitutionalisation of
democratic politics, where the actions~or democratic elected
F Government are judged in the light of the Constitution, In this .
context, judiciary assumes the roie of protector of the Constitution
and democracy, being the ultimate arbiter in all matters involving
the interpretation of the Constitution. When it comes. to
exercising the power of judicial review of a legislation, the scope
of such a power has to be kept in mind and the power is to be
G exercised within the limited sphere assigned to the judiciary to
undertake the judicial review. Therefore, unless the petitioner
demonstrates that the Parliament, in enacting the impugned
provision, has exceeded its power prescribed in the Constitution
or this provision violates any of the provision, the argument
H
BINOY VISWAM v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS. 9
predicated on 'limited governance' will not succeed. (Paras 84, A
85] [88-G-H; 89-A-CJ
State of Madhya Pradesh & Anr. v. Thakur Bharat Singh
AIR 1967 SC 1170 : [1967) 2 SCR 454 - relied on.
3.1 TheAadhaar Act is enacted to enable the Government
to identify individuals for delivery of benefits, subsidies and B
services under various welfare schemes. Section· 7 of the Aadhaar
Act states that proof of Aadhaar number is necessary for receipt"
of such subsidies, benefits and services. At the same time, it
cannot be disputed that once a person enro)s himself and obtains
Aadhaar number as mentioned in Section 3 of the Aadhaar Act, c
such Aadhaar number can be used for many other purposes. In
fact, this Aadhaar number becomes the Unique Identity (UID) of
that person. Having said that, it is clear that there is no provision
in Aadhaar Act which makes enrolment compulsory. May be for
the purpose of obtaining benefits, proof of Aadhaar card is
necessary as per Section 7 of the Act. Proviso to Section 7 D
stipulates that if an Aadhaar number is not assigned to enable an
individual, he shall be offered alternate and viable means of
identification for delivery of the subsidy, benefit or service.
According to the petitioners, this proviso, with acknowledges
alternate and viable means of identification, and therefore makes E
Aadhaar optional and voluntary and the enrolment is not necessary
even for the purpose of receiving subsidies, benefits and services
under various schemes of the Government. The respondents,
however, interpret the proviso differently and there plea is that
the words 'if an Aadhaar number is not assigned to an individual'
deal with only that situation where application for Aadhaar has F
been made but for certain reasons Aadhaar number has.not been
assigned as it may take some time to give Aadhaar card.
Therefore, this proviso is only by way of an interim measure till
Aadhaar number is assigned, which is otherwise compulsory for
obtaining certain benefits as stated in Section 7 of the Aadhaar G
Act. Fact remains that as per the Government and UIDAI itself,
the requirement of obtaining Aadhaar number is voluntary. It
has been so claimed by UIDAI on its website. However, for the'
·purposes of Income Tax Act, Section 139AA makes it compulsory
for the assessees to give Aadhaar number which means insofar
H
10 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2017] 7 S.C.R.
A as income tax assessees are concerned, they have to necessarily
enroll themselves under the Aadhaar Act and obtain Aadhaar
number which will be their identification number as that has
become the requirement under the Income Tax Act. The
contention that since enrollment under Aadhaar Act is voluntary,
it cannot be compulsory under the Income Tax Act, cannot be
B
countenanced.[Paras 90, 92][90-C-G; 91-C)
Municipal Corporation of Delhi v. Shiv Shanker (1971)
1 SCC 442 : [1971] 3 SCR 607 - relied on.
3.2 A harmonious reading of the two enactments would
c clearly suggests that whereas enrollment of Aadhaar is voluntary
when it comes to taking benefits of various welfare schemes even
if it is presumed that requirement of Section 7 of Aadhaar Act
that it is necessary to provide Aadhaar number to avail the benefits
of schemes and services, it is upto a person to avail those benefits
or not. On the other hand, purpose behind enacting Section
D 139AA is to check a menace of black money as well as money
laundering and also to widen the income tax net so as to cover
those persons who are evading the payment of tax. There are
few cases where interim orders are passed by Court where the
Court was of the opinion that till the matter is dedded finally in
E the context of Right to Privacy issue, the implementation of the
said Aadhaar scheme would remain voluntary. In fact, the main
issue as to whether Aadhaar card scheme whereby biometric data
of an individual is collected violates Right to Privacy and,
therefore, is offensive of Article 21 of the Constitution or not is
yet to be decided. In the process, the Constitution Bench is also
F called upon to decide as to whether Right to Privacy is a part of
Article 21 of the Constitution at all. Therefore, no final decision
has been taken.[Paras 93, 94][92-G-H; 93-C-D]
Whether Section 139AA of the Act is discriminatory and
offends Article 14 of the Constitution of India?
G
. 4.1 Article 14 forbids class legislation; it does not forbid
reasonable classification of persons, objects and transactions by
the Legislature for the purpose of achieving specific ends.
Classification to be reasonable should fulfil the following two tests:
(1) It should not be arbitrary, artificial or evasive. It should be
H
BINOY VISWAM v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS. 11
based on an intelligible differentia, some real and substantial A
distinction, which distinguishes persons or things grouped
together in the class from others left out of it. (2) The differentia
adopted as the basis of classification must have a rational or
reasonable nexus with the object sought to be achieved by the
statute in question. Thus, Article 14 in its ambit and sweep B
involves two facets, viz., it permits reasonable classification which
is founded on intelligible differentia and accommodates the
practical needs of the society and the differential must have a
rational relation to the objects sought to be achieved. Further, it
does not allow any kind of arbitrariness and ensures fairness and
equality of treatment. It is the fonjuris of our Constitution, the C
fountainhead of justice. Differential treatment does not per se
amount to violation of Article 14 of the Constitution and it violates
Article 14 only when <there is no reasonable basis and there are
several tests to decide whether a classification is reasonable or
not and one of the tests will be as to whether it is conducive to
D
the functioning of modern society. [Para 96][94-F-H; 95-A-C]
Sri Srinavasa Theatre & Ors. v. Government of Tamil
Nadu & Ors. (1992) 2 SCC 643 : [1992] 2 SCR 164;
Chiranjit Lal Chowdhuri v. Union ofIndia & Ors. [1950)
SCR 869 - relied on.
E
4.2 Unearthing black money or checking money laundering
is to be achieved to whatever extent possible. Various measures
can be taken in this behalf. If one of the measures is introduction
of Aadhaar into the tax regime, it cannot be denounced only
because of the reason that the purpose would not be achieved
fully. Such kind of :menace, which is deep rooted, needs to be F
tackled by taking multiple actions and those actions may be
initiated at the same time. It is the combined effect of these
actions which may yield results and each individual action
considered in isolation may not be sufficient. Therefore, rationality
of a particular measure cannot be challenged on the ground that G
it has no nexus with the objective to be achieved. Of course,
there is a definite objective. For this purpose alone, individual
measure cannot be ridiculed. The committee headed by Chairman,
CBDT on 'Measures to tackle black money in India and Abroad'
has in no uncertain terms, suggested that one singular proof of
H
12 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2017] 7 S.C.R.
A identity of a person for entering into finance/business transactions
etc may go a long way in curbing this foul practice. That apart,
even if solitary purpose of de-duplication of PAN cards is taken
into consideration, that may be sufficient to meet the second test
of Article 14. It has come on i:ecord tl1at 11.35 lakhs cases of
duplicate PAN or fraudulent PAN cards have already been
B
detected and out of this 10.52 lakh cases pertain to individual
assessees. This figure, by no means, can be termed as miniscule,
to harm the economy and create adverse effect on the nation. It
cannot be said that there is no nexus with the objective sought to
be achieved. [Paras 99, 100)(95-G-H; 96-A-F]
c 4.3 Validity-of a legislative act cannot be challenged by
c·reating artifidal classes by those who are objecting to the said
. provision and predicating the a.rgument of discrimination on that
basis. When a law is made, all those who are covered by that law
''lire
supposed to' follow the same. · No doubt, it is the right of a
D Citizen to approach the Court and question the constitutional
· validity of a particular law enacted by the Legislature. However,
merely ·because a section of persons opposes the law, would not
mean that it has become a separate class by itself. Two classes,
cannot be created on this basis, namely, one of those who want to
be covered by the scheme, and others who do not want to be
. E covered thereby. If such a proposition is accepted, every
legislation would be prone to challenge on the ground of
discrimination. As far as plea of discrimination is concerned, it
has to be raised by showing that the impugned law creates two
classes without any reasonable classification and treats them
F differently. [Para 102][97-A-C)
4.4 The principle of equality does not mean that every law
must have universal application for all persons who are not by
nature, attainment or circumstances, in the same position, as the
varying needs of different classes of persons often require
G separate treatment. It is permissible for the State to classify
persons for legitimate purposes. The Legislature is also
competent to exercise its discr~tion and make classification. In
the present scenario the impugned legislation has created two
classes, i.e. one class of those persons who are assessees and
other class of those persons who are income tax assessees. It is
H
BINOY VISWAM v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS. 13
because of the reason that the impugned provision is applicable A
only to those who are filing income tax returns. Therefore, the
only question would be as to whether. this classification is
reasonable or not. There cannot be any dispute that there is a
reasonable basis for differentiation and, therefore, equal
pr~tection clause enshrined in Article 14 is not attracted. What B
Article 14 prohibits is class legislation and not reasonable
classification for the purpose of legislation. All income tax
asesl\ees constitute one class and they are treated alike by the
impugned provision. [Para 103)(97-D-F)
E.P Royappa v. State of Tamil Nadu & Anr. (1974) 4
SCC 3 : [1974) 2 SCR 348 - referred to. c
5.1 Whether impugned provision is violative of Article
19(1)(g)
Invocation of'provisions of Article 19(1)(g) of the
Constitution by the petitioners was in the context of proviso to D
sub-section (2) of Section 139AA of the Act which contains the
consequences of the failure to intimate the Aadhaar number to
such authority in such form and manner as may be prescribed.
Insofar as first limb of Section 139AA of the Act is concerned, it
was within the competence of the Parliament to make a provision
of this nature and further that it is not offensive of Article 14 of E
the Constitution. This requirement, per se, does not find foul
with Article 19(1)(g) either, inasmuch as, quoting the Aadhaar
number for purposes mentioned in sub-section (1) or intimating
the Aadhaar number to the prescribed authority as per the
requirement of sub-section (2) does not, by itself, impinge upon F
the right to carry on profession or trade, etc. Therefore, it is not
violative of Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution either. [Para 106,
114][98-B-C; 102-E-F]
Modern Dental College and Research Centre & Ors, v.
State of Madhya Pradesh (2016) 7 SCC 3S3 - referred G
to.
S.2 Though PAN is issued under the provisions of the Act
(Section 139A), its function is not limited to giving this number
in the income-tax returns or for other acts to be performed under
the Act, as mentioned in sub-sections (5), (SA), (SB); S(C), S(D) H
14 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2017] 7 S.C.R.
A and 6 of Section 139A. Rule 114B of the Rules mandates quoting
of this PAN in various other documents pertaining to different
kinds of transactions listed therein. It is for sale and purchase of
immovable property valued at Rs.5 lakhs or more; sale or purchase
of motor vehicle etc., while opening deposit account with a sum
exceeding Rs.50,000/- with a banking company; while making
B
deposit of more than Rs.50,000/- in any account with Post Office,
savings bank; a contract of a value exceeding Rs.1 lakh for sale
or purchase of securities as defined under the Securities Contract
(Regulation) Act, 1956; while opening an account with a banking
company; making an application for installation of a telephone
c connection; making payment to hotels and restaurants when such
payment exceeds Rs.25,000/- at any one time; while purchasing
bank drafts or pay orders for an amount aggregating Rs.50,000/-
or more during any one day, when payment in cash; payment in
cash in connection with travel to any foreign country of an amount
D exceeding Rs.25,000/- at any one time; while making payment of
an amount of Rs.50,000/- or more to a mutual fund for purchase
of its units or for acquiri.ng shares or debentures/bonds in a
company or bonds issued by the Reserve Bank of India; or when
the transaction of purchase of bullion or jewellery is made by
making payment in cash to a dealer above a specified amount,
E etc. This shows that for doing many activities of day to day nature,
including in the course of business, PA,N is to be given. Thus, in
the absence of PAN, it will not be possible to undertake any of
the aforesaid activities though this requirement is aimed at curbing
the tax evasion. Thus, if the PAN of a person is withdrawn or is
nullified, it definitely amounts to placing restrictions on the right
F
to do business as a business under Article 19(l)(g) of the Act.
The question would be as to whether these restrictions are
reasonable and, therefore, meet the requirement of clause (6) of
Article 19. [Para 115][102-H; 103-A-F]
5.3 By making use of the technology, a method is sought to
G be devised, in the form of Aadhaar, whereby identity of a person
is ascertained in a flawless manner without giving any leeway to
any individual to resort to dubious practices of showing multiple
identities or fictitious identities. That is why it is given the
nomenclature 'unique identity'. It is aimed at securing
H
BINOY VISWAM v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS. 15
advantages on different levels some of which are (i) In the first A
instance, as a welfare and democratic State, it becomes the duty
of any responsible Government to come out with welfare schemes
for the upliftment of poverty stricken and marginalised sections
of the society. This is even the.ethos oflndian Constitution which
casts a duty on the State, in the form of 'Directive Principles of B
State Policy', to take adequate and effective steps for betterment
of such underprivileged classes. State is bound to take adequate
measures to provide education, health care, employment and even
cultural opportunities and social standing to these deprived and
underprivileged classes. It is not that Government has not taken
steps in this direction from time to time. At the same time, c
however, harsh reality is that benefits of these schemes have not
reached those persons for wh.om that 11re actually meant. India
has achieved significant economic growth since independence.
In particular, rapid economic growth has been achieved in the
last 25 years, after the country adopted the policy of liberalisation D
and entered the era of, what is known as, globalisation. Economic
growth in the last decade has been phenomenal and for many
years, the Indian economy grew at highest rate in the world. At
the same time, it is also a fact that in spite of significant political
and economic success which has proved to be sound and
sustainable, the benefits thereof have not percolated down to E
_the poor and the poorest. In fact, such .benefits are reaped
primarily by rich and upper middle classes, resulting into widening
the gap between the rich and the poor. Not only sustainable
development is needed which takes care of integrating growth
and ·development, thereby ensuring that the benefit of economic
F
growth is reaped by every citizen of this country, it also becomes
the duty of the Government in a welfare State to come out with
various welfare schemes which not only take care of immediate
needs of the deprived class but also ensure that adequate
opportunities are provided to such persons to enable them to
make their lives better, economically as well as socially. Various G
welfare schemes are, in fact, devised and floated from time to
time by the Government, keeping aside substantial amount of
money earmarked for spending on socially and economically
backward classes. However, for various reas'ons including
corruption, actual benefit does not reach those who are supposed
H
16 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2017] 7 S.C.R.
A to receive such benefits. One of the main reasons is failure to
. identify these p~rsons for lack of means by which identity could
be established of such genuine needy cl;tss. Resultantly, lots of
ghosts and duplicate beneficiaries are able to take undue and
impermissible benefits. A former Prime Minister of this country
has gone to record to say that out of one rupee spent by the
B
Government for welfare of the downtrodden, only 15 paisa thereof
actually reaches those persons for whom it is meant. It cannot
be doubted that with UID/Aadhaar much of the malaise in this
field can be ta_ken care of. [Para 118)[109-D-H; 110-A-B; 111-C-
F)
c 5.4 Menace of corruption and black money has reached
alarming proportion in this country. It is eating into the economic
progress which the country is otherwise achieving. Even as per
the observations of the Special Investigation Team (SIT) on black
morley headed by Justice M.B. Shah, one of the reasons is that
D persons have the option to quote their PAN or UID or passport
number or driving licence or any other proof of identity while
entering into financial/business transactions. Because of this
multiple methods of giving proofs of identity, there is no
mechanism/system at present to collect the data available with
each of the independent proofs of ID. For this reason, ~ven SIT
E suggested that these databases be interconnected. To the same
effect ~s the recommendation of the Committee headed by
Chairman, CBDT on measures to tackle black money in India
and abroad which also discusses the problem of money-laundering
being done to evade taxes under the garb of shell companies by
F the persons who hold multiple bogus PAN numbers under different
names or variations of their names. That can be possible if one
uniform proof of identity, namely, UID is adopted. It may go a
long way to.check and minimise the said malaise. Thirdly, Aadhaar
or UID may facilitate law enforcement agencies to take care of
problem of terrorism to some exten( and may also be helpful in
G checking and cracking the crimes. No doubt, it Js the intention
of the Government to give fillip to Aadhaar movement !llld
encourage the people of thi~ country to enroll themselves under
the Aadhaar scheme. [Para 118)(111-G-H; 112-A-E)
5.5 Insofar as Section 139AA of the Income Tax Act, 1961
H
BINOY VISWAM v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS. 17
is concerned, the explanation of the respondents is that the A
primary purpose of introducing this provision was to take care of
the problem of multiple PAN cards obtained in fictitious names.
Such multiple cards in fictitious names are obtained with the
motive of indulging into money laundering, tax evasion, creation
and channelising of black money. It is mentioned that in a de- B
duplication exercises, H.35 lakhs cases of duplicate PANs/
fraudulent PANs have been detected. Out of these, around 10.52
lakhs pertain to individual assessees. Parliament in its wisdom
thought that one PAN to one person can be ensured ,by adopting
Aadhaar for allottment of PAN to individuals. As of today, that is
the only method available i.e. by seeding of existing PAN with C
Aadhaar. It is perceived as the best method, and the only. robust
. method of de-duplication of PAN database. The respondents have
claimed that linking of Aadhaarwith PAN is consistent with India's
international obligations and goals. In this behalf, it is pointed
out that India has signed the Inter-Governmental Agreement (IGA) D
with the USA on July 9, 2015, for Improving International Tax
Compliance and implementing the Foreign Account Tax
Compliance Act (FATCA). India has also signed a multilateral
agreement on June- 3, 2015, to automatically exchange
information based on Article 6 of the Convention on Mutual
Administrative Assistance in Tax Matters under the Common E
Reporting Scheme (CRS), formally referred to as the Standard
for Automatic Exchange of Financial Account Information (AEoI).
As part of India's commitment under FATCA and CRS, financial
sector entities, capture the details about the customers using the
PAN. In case the PAN or submitted details ar.e found to be
F
incorrect or fictitious, it will create major embarrassment for the
country. Under Non-filers Monitoring System (NMS), Income
Tax Department identifies non-filers with potential tax liabilities.
Data analysis is carried out to identify non-filers about whom
specific information was available in AIR, CIB data and TDS/TCS
Returns. Email/SMS and letters are sent to the identified non- G
filers communicating the information summary and seeking to
know the submission details of Income tax return. In a large
number of cases (more than 10 lac PAN every year) it is seen
that the P~N holder neither submits the Tesponse and in many
cases the letters are return unserved. Field verification by fields
H
18 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2017) 7 S.C.R.
A formations have found that in a large number of cases, the PAN
holder is untraceable. In many cases, the PAN holder mentions
that the transaction does not relate to them. There is a need to
strengthen PAN by linking it with Aadhaar/biometric information
to prevent use of wrong PAN for high value transactions.(Paras
119, 12111112-G-H; 113-A-B; 115-E-H; 116-A-CJ
B
5.6 The impugned provision is aimed at seeding Aadhaar
with PAN. One of the main objectives is to de-duplicate PAN
cards and to bring a situation where one person is not having
more than one PAN card or a person is not able to get PAN cards
in assumed/fictitious names. In such··a scenario, if those persons
c who violate Section 139AA of the Act without any consequence,
the provision shall be rendered toothless. It is the prerogative
of the Legislature to make penal provisions for violation of any
law made by it. In the instant case, requirement of giving Aadhaar .
enrolment number to the designated authority or stating this
D number in the income tax returns is directly connected with the .
issue of duplicate/fake PANs. Therefore, it cannot be denied that
there has to be some provision stating the consequen·ces for not
complying with the requirements of Section 139AA of the Act,
more particularly when these requirements are found as not
violative of Articles 14 and 19. If Aadhar number is not given,
. E
the said exercise may not be possible. Sub-section (1) of Section
139AA stipulates that those who are not PAN holders, while
applying for PAN, they are required to give Aadhaar number. At
the same time, as far as existing PAN holders are concerned,
since the impugned provisions are yet to be considered on the
F touchstone of Article 21 of the Constitution, including on the
debate around Right to Privacy and human dignity, etc. as limbs
of Article 21, till the said aspect of Article 21 is decided by the
Constitution Bench a partial stay of the said proviso is necessary.
Those who have already enrolled themselves under Aadhaar
scheme would comply with the requirement of sub-sectiol\ (2) of
G Section 139AA of the Act. Those who still want to enrol are free
to do so. However, those assessees who are not Aadhaar card
holders and do not comp!y with the provision of Section 139(2),
,,_. · their PAN cards be not treated as invalid for the time being. It is
only to facilitate other transactions which are mentioned in Rule
H
BINOY VISWAM v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS. 19
114B of the Rules. This is held so because of very severe A
consequences that entail in not adhering to the requirement of
sub-section (2) of Section 139AA of the Act. A person who is
holder of PAN and if his PAN is invalidated, he is bound to suffer
immensely in his day to day dealings, which situation should be
avoided till the Constitution Bench authoritatively determines B
the argument of Article 21 of the Constitution. Since this course
of action is adopted, in the interregnum, it would be permissible
for the Parliament to consider as to whether there is a need to
tone down the effect of the ·said proviso by limiting the
consequences. However, at the same time, proviso to Section
139AA(2) cannot be read retrospectively. If failure to intimate C
the Aadhaar number renders PAN void ab initio with the deeming
provision that the PAN allotted would be invalid as if the person
had not applied for allotment of PAN would have rippling effect of
unsettling settled rights of the parties. It has the effect of undoing
all the acts done by a person on the basis of such a PAN. It may D
have even the effect of incurring other penal consequences under
the Act for earlier period on the ground that there was no PAN
registration by a particular assessee. The rights which are already
accrued to a person in law cannot be taken away. Therefore, this
provision needs to be read down by making it clear that it would
operate prospectively.[Paras 122, 124, 125, 126][116-D-F; 119- E
B, C-H; 120-A-C)
· 6. The impugned provision has passed the mu:;ter of
Articles 14 and 19(1)(g) of the Constitution. However, more
stringent test as to whether this statutory provision violates
Article 21 or not is yet to be qualified. Therefore, constitutional F
validity of this provision is upheld subject to the outcome of batch
of petitions referred to the Constitution Bench where the said
issue is to be examined. It is also necessary to highlight that a
large section of citizens feel concerned about possible data leak,
even when many of those support linkage of PAN with Aadhaar.
· This is a concern which needs to be addressed . ,by the G
Government. It is important that the said apprehensions are
assuaged by taking proper measures so that confidence is instilled
among the public at large that there is no chance of unauthorised
leakage of data whether it is done by tightening the operations of
H
20 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2017] 7 S.C.R.
A the contractors who are given the job of enrollment, they being
private persons or by prescribing severe penalties to those who
are found guilty of leaking the details, is the outlook of the
Government.· However, measures in this behalf are absolutely
essential and it would be in the fitness of things that proper
B scheme in this behalf is devised at the earliest.[Para 127)(120-
H; 121-A-D)
MP. Sharma & Ors. v. Satish Chandra & Ors. AIR
1954 SC 300 : [1954) SCR 1077; Kharak Singh v. State
of UP. & Ors. AIR 1963 SC 1295 : i196:iJ SCR 332;
Ram Jawaya Kapoor v. State of Punjab [1955) 2 SCR
c 225; Madan Mohan Pathak v, Union of India AIR 1978
SC 803 : [1978] 3 SCR 334; Bakhtawar Trust v. MD.
Narayan (2003) 5 SCC 298 : [2003] 1 Suppl. SCR 1;
R.K. Dalmia v. Justice S.R. Tendolkar [1959) SCR 279;
National Legal Services Authority v. Union of India &
D Ors. (2014) 5 SCC 438; Sunil Batra & Am: v. Delhi
Administration & Ors. (1978) 4 SCC 494 : [1979) 1
SCR 392; Aruna Ramachandra Shdnbaug v. Union of
India & Ors. (2011) 4 SCC 454 : [2011] 4 SCR 1057;
Nagpur Improvement Trust & Am: v. Vithal Rao & Ors.
(1973) 1 SCC 500 : [1973] 3 SCR 39; Subramanian
E Swamy V, Director, Central Bureau of Investigation &
. Am: (2014) 8 SCC 682 : (2014] 6 SCR 873; M Nagaraj
& Ors. v. Union of India & Ors. (2006) 8 SCC 212 :
[2006] 7 Suppl. SCR 336; Gobind v. State of Madhya
Pradesh (1975) 2 SCC 148 : [1975] 3 SCR 946; Anuj
F Garg v. Hotel Association of India (2008) 3 SCC 1 :
[2007] 12 SCR 991; Dayawati v. lnderjit [1966] 3 SCR
275; Sharda v. Dharmpal (2003) 4 SCC 493 : [2003]
3 SCR 106; K.T. Plantation Private Limited & Am: v.
State of Karnataka [2011) 13 SCR 636 : (2011) 9 SCC
1; State of Madhya Pradesh v. Rakesh Kohli & Am:
G (2012) 6 SCC 312 : (2012] 6 SCR 661; Secretary to
Government of Madras & Am: v. P.R. Sriramulu & Am:
(1996) 1 sec 345 : [1995) 5 Suppl. SCR 551; GC.
Kdnungo v. State of Orissa (1995) 5 SCC 96 : [1995]
_! Suppl. SCR 510; Mohd. Hanif Quareshi & Ors. v.
H
BINOY VISWAM v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS. 21
State of Bihar AIR 1958 SC 731 : [1959] SCR 629; A
Synthetics and Chemicals Ltd. & Ors. v. State of UP. &
Ors. (1990) 1 SCC 109 : [19891 1 Suppl. SCR 623;
Goa Foundation & Am: v. State of Goa & Am: (2016) 6
SCC 602 : [2016] 1 SCR 1025; PUCL v. Union of
India (2011) 14 SCC 331; State of Kera/a & others v.
B
President, Parents Teachers Association, SNVUP and
Others (2013) 2 SCC 705 : [2013] 4 SCR 66; Peoples
Union for Civil Liberties (PDS Matter) v. Union of India
& Ors. (2013) 14 SCC 368; Peoples Union for Civil
Liberties v. Union of India & Ors. 2010 (5) SCC 318;
Lokniti Foundation v. Unio.n of India & Ors. 2017 (7) c
SC.C 155; R. Rajagopal & Am: v. State of Tamil Nadu
& Ors. (1994) 6 SCC 632 : [1994] 4 Suppl. SCR 353 -
referred to.
Roe v. Wade 410 U.S. 113 (1973) - referred to.
Case Law Reference D
[1954] SCR 1077 referred to Para 9
[1964] SCR 332 referred to Para9
[1955] 2 SCR 225 referred to Para 21
[1978] 3 SCR 334 referred to Para 22
E
[2003) 1 Suppl. SCR ·1· referred to Para 22
[1959] SCR 279 referred to Para 28
(2016) 1 sec ~53 referred to Para 30
[1967] 2 SCR 454 relied on Para 35
(2014) 5 sec 438 referred to Para 37 F
[1979) 1 SCR 392 referred to Para 37
[20111 4 SCR 1057 referred to Para 37
[1973] 3. SCR 39 referred to Para40
.
[2014) 6 SCR 873
! .
referred to ·· Para 41 .
G
.[2006] 7 Suppl. SCR "336 referred to Para44
·[1975) 3 SCR 946 referred to Para 46
[2007] 12 SCR 991 referred to Para 46
[1966] 3 SCR 275 referred to Para 48
H
22 SUPREME COURT REPORTS . [2017] 7 S.C.R.
A [2003) 3 SCR 106 referred to Para 50
[2011) 13 SCR 636 referred to Para 52
[2012] 6 SCR 661 referred to Para 53
[1995) 5 Suppl. SCR 551 referred to Para 54
B [1995) 1 Suppl. SCR 510 referred to Para 54
[1959] SCR 629 referred to, Para 54
[1989) 1 Suppl. SCR 623 referred to Para 55
[2016] 1 SCR 1025 referred to Para 56
c (2011) 14 sec 331 referred to Para 61
[2013) 4 SCR 66 referred to Para 62
(2013) 14 sec 368 referred to Para 64
(2010) 5 sec 318 referred to Para 65
D
(2011) 1 sec 155 referred to Para 66
[1994) 4 Suppl. SCR 353 referred to Para 71
[2008] 17 SCR 120 relied on Para 74
[2008) 4 SCR 1 relied on Para 76
E
[1996] 3 SCR 721 relied on Para 77
(2015) 12 SCR 1106 relied on Para 78
(2016) 11 SCALE 1 relied on Para 82
F [1971) 3 SCR 607 relied on Para 92
[1992) 2 SCR 164 relied on Para 94
(1950) SCR 869 relied on Para 94
[1974) 2 SCR 348 referred to Para 104
G CIVIL ORIGINAL'JURISDICTION: Writ Petition (C) No. 247
of2017.
Under Article 32 of the Constitution oflndia
WITH
H W. P. (C) Nos. 277 and 304 of 2017.
BINOY VISWAM v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS. 23
Atmaram N. S. Nadkarni, ASG, Salman Khurshid, Arvind P. Datar, A
Shyam Divan, Sr. Advs, Sriram P., Vishnu Shankar M. S., Mukund P.,
Vishnu Jain, Govind Manoharan, Ms. Sneha Ravi Iyer, Ms. Athira G
Nair, Ms. Sanchita, Pratap Venugopal, Ms. Surekha Raman, Udayaditya
Banerjee, Prasanna S., Ms. Niharika , Ms. Kanika Kalaiyarasan, Ms.
Samiksha G, Apar Gupta, M/s. K. J. John & Co., Anando Mukherjee, B
Nipun, Saxena, Ms. DivyaAnand, Kumar Shivam, Dr. Arghya Senguptl'i,
Saurabh Kirpal, Zoheb Hossain, Ritesh Kumar, Abhinav Mukherji, Ms.
Ranjeeta Rohatgi, Mrs. Anil Katiyar, Santosh Rebello, Jai Dehadrai, Ms.
Sneha Tendulkar, Ms. Nivedita Nair, Anil Gulati, Ms. Ritwika Sharma,
Ms. Adeeba N., Advs. for the appearing parties.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
c
A. K. SIKRI, J. I. In these three writ petitions filed by the
petitioners, who claim themselves to be pubic spirited persons, challenge
is laid to the constitutional validity of Section 139AA of the Income Tax
Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act'), which provision has
been inserted by the amendment to the said Act vide'FinanceAct, 2017. D
Section 139AA of the Act reads as under:
"Quoting of Aadhaar number. -(1) Every person who is eligible
to obtain Aadhaar number shall, on or after the 1st day of July,
2017, quote Aadhaar number-
E
(i) in the application form for allotment of permanent account
number;
(ii) in the return of income:
Provided that where the person does not possess the Aadhaar
Number, the Enrolment ID ofAadhaar application form issued to F
him at the time of enrolment shall be quoted in the application for
permanent account number or, as the case may be, in the return
of income furnished by him.
(2) Every person who has been allotted permanent account
number as on the 1st day of July, 2017, and who is eligible to
obtain Aadhaar number, shall intimate his Aadhaar number to such
.
G
authority in such form and manner as may be prescribed, on or
before a date to be notified by the Central Government in the
Official Gazette:
H
24 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2017]7 S.C.R.
A Provided that in case of failure to intimate the Aadhaar number,
the permanent account number allotted to the person shall be
deemed to be invalid and the other provisions of this Act shall
apply, as if the person had not applied for allotment of permanent
account number.
B (3) The provisions of this section shall not apply to such person or
class or classes of persons or any State or part of any State, as
may be notified by the Central Government in this behalf, in the
Official Gazette.
Explanation. - For the purposes of this section, the expressions -
·C (i) "Aadhaar number'', "Enrolment" and "resident" shall have
the same meanings respectively assigned to them in clauses
(a), (m) and (v) of section 2 of the Aadhaar (Targeted
Delivery of Financial and other Subsidies, Bi;nefits and
Services) Act, 2016 (18 of 2016);
D (ii) "Enrolment ID" means a 28 digit Enrolment Identification
Number issued to a resident at the time of enrolment."
2. Even a cursory look at the aforesaid provision makes it clear
that in the application forms for allotment of Permanent Account Number
(for short, 'PAN') as well as in the income-tax returns, the assessee is
E obliged to quote Aadhaar number. This is necessitated on any such
applications for PAN or return of income on or after July 01, 2017,
which means from that date quoting ofAadhaar number for the aforesaid
purposes becomes essential. Proviso to sub-section (1) gives relaxation
from quoting Aadhaar number to those persons who do not possess
Aadhaar number but have already applied for issuance of Aadhaar card.
F
In their cases, the Enrolment ID of Aadhaar application form is to be
quoted. It would mean that those who would not be possessing Aadhaar
card as on-JulyOI, 2017 may have to necessarily apply for enrolment of
A.adhaar before July 01, 2017.
G 3. The effect of this provision, thus, is that every person who
desires to obtain PAN card or who is an assessee has to necessarily
enrol for Aadhaar. It makes obtaining of Aadhaat card compulsory for
those persons who are income-tax assessees. Proviso to sub-section
(2) of Section 139AA of the Act stipulates the consequences of failure '·.
H
BINOY VISWAM v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS. 25
[A. K. SIKRI, J.]
to intimate the Aadhaar number. In those cases, PAN allotted to such A
persons would become invalid not only from July 01, 2017, but from its
inception as the deeming provision in this proviso mentions that PAN
would be invalid as ifthe person had not applied for allotment of PAN,
i.e. from the very beginning. Sub-section (3), however, gives discretion
to the Central Government to exempt such person or class or classes of
B
persons or any State or part of any State from the requirement of quoting
Aadhaar number in the application form for PAN or 'in the return of
income.
The challenge is to this compulsive nature of provision inasmuch
as with the introduction of the aforesaid provision, no discretion is left
with the income-tax assessees insofar as enrolment under the Aadhaar C
(Targeting Delivery of Financial and Other Sub~idies, Benefits and
Services) Act, 2016 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Aadhaar Act') is
concerned. According to the petitioners, though Aadhaar Act prescribes
that enrolment u11der the said Act is voluntary and gives choice to a
person to enrol or not to enrol himself and obtain Aadhaar card, this D
compulsive element thrusted in Section'l39AA of the Act makes the
said provision unconstitutional. The basis on which the petitioners so
contend would be taken note of at the appropriate stage. Purpose of
these introductory remarks was ta highlight the issue involved in these
writ petitions at the threshold. ·
E
4. Before we take note of the arguments advanced by the
petitioners and the rebuttal.thereof by the respondents, it would be in the
fitness of things to take stock of historical facts pertaining to the Aadhaar
scheme and what Aadhaar enrolment amounts to.
Aadhaar Scheme and its administrative and statutory F
framework
5. Respondent No. I, Union of India, through the Planning
Commission, issued Notification dated January 28, 2009, constituting the
Unique Identification Authority of India (for short, 'UIDAI') for the
purpose of implementing of Unique Identity (UID) scheme wherein a G
UID database was to be collected from the residents ofindia. Pursuant
to the said Notification, the Government ofindia appointed Shri Nandan
Nilekhani, an entrepreneur, as tlie Chairman of the UIDAI on July 02,
2009. According to this scheme, every citizen ofindia is entitled to enrol
herself/himself with it and get a unique, randomnly selected 12 digit
H
26 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2017] 7 S.C.R.
A number. For such enrolment, every person so intending would have to
provide his/her personal information along with biometric details such a
fingerprints and iris scan for future identification. Accordingly, it is
intended to create a centralized database under the UIDAI with all the
above information. The scheme was launched in September 2010 in the
rural areas of Maharashtra and thereafter extended all over India. One
B
of the objects of the entire project was non-duplication and elimination
of fake identity cards.
6. On December 03, 2010, the National Identification Authority·
oflndia Bill, 2010 was introduced {n the Rajya Sabha. On December
13, 2011, the Standing Committee Report was submitted to the Parliament
c stating that both the Bill and project should be re-considered. The
Parliamentary Standing Committee on Finance rejected the Bill of2010
as there was opposition to the passing of the aforesaid Bill by the
Parliament. Be that as it may, the said Bill of 2010 did not get through.
The result was that as on that date, Aadhaar Scheme was not having
D any statutory backing but was launched and contifmed to operate in
exercise of executive power of the Government. It may also be
mentioned that the Government appointed private enrollers and these
private collection/enrolment centres run by private parties continued to
enrol the citizens under the UID scheme.
E 7. Writ Petition (Civil) No. 494 of2012, under Article 32 of the
Constitution of India, was preferred by Justice K.S. Puttuswamy, a
former Judge of the Karnataka High Court before this Court, challenging
the UID scheme stating therein that the same does not have any statutory
basis and it violated the 'Right to Privacy', which is a facet of Article 21
of the Constitution. This Court decided to consider the plea raised in the
F said writ petition and issued notice. Vide order dated September 23,
2013, the Court also passed the following directions:
"In the meanwhile, no person should suffer for not getting·the
Aadhaar card in spite of the fact that some authority had issued a
circular making it mandatory and when any person applies to get
G the Aadhaar Card voluntarily, it may be checked whether that
person is entitled for it under the law and it should not be given to
any illegal immigrant."
In the meanwhile, various writ petitions were filed by public spirited
citizens and organisations challenging the validity of the Aadhaar scheme
H
BINOY VISWAM v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS. 27
[A. K. SIKRI, J.]
and this Court has tagged all those petitions along with Writ Petition A
(Civil) No. 494 of2012.
8. In the meantime, in some proceedings before the Bombay High
Court, the said High Court passed orders requiring UIDAI to provide
biometric information to CBI for investigation purposes with respect to
a criminal trial. This order was challenged by UIDAI by filing Special B
Leave Petition (Criminal) No. 2524 of2014, in which orders dated March
24, 2014 were passed by this Court restraining the UIDAI from
.
transferring any biometric information t-0 any agency without the written
consent of the concerned individual. The said order is in the following
terms:
c
."In the meanwhile, the present petitioner is restrained from
transferring any biometric information of any person who has been
allotted the Aadhaar number to any other agency without his
consent in writing.
More so, no person shall be deprived of any service for want of D
Aadhaar number in case he/she is otherwise eligible/entitled. All
the authorities are direeted to modify their forms/circulars/likes
so ·as to not compulsorily require the Aadhaar number in order to
meet the requirement of the interim order passed by this Court
forthwith."
E
9. Thereafter, the aforesaid writ petitions and special leave petitions
were taken up together. Matter was heard at length by a three Judges
Bench of this Court and detailed arguments were advanced by various
counsel appearing for the petitioners as well as the Attorney General for
India who appeared on behalf of the Union oflndia. As stated above,
one of the main grounds of attack on Aadhaar Card scheme was that F
the very collection of biometric data is violative of the 'Right to Privacy',
which, in turn, violated not only Article 21 of the Constitution oflndia but
otherArticles embodying the fundamental rights guaranteed under Part
III of the Constitution. This argument was sought to be rebutted by the
respondents with the submission that in view of eight Judges' Bench G
judgment of this Court in M.P. Sharma & Ors. v. Satish Chandra &
Ors. 1 and that of six Judges' Bench in Kharak Singh v. State of U.P. &
Ors.:, the legal position regarding the existence of fundamental Right. to
1
AIR 1954 SC 300
2
AIR 1963 SC 1295
H
28 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2017] 7 S.C.R.
A Privacy is doubtful. At the same time, it was also accepted that
subsequently smaller Benches of two or three Judges of this Court had
given the judgments recognising the Right to Privacy as part of Article
21 of the Constitution. On that basis, respondents submitted that the
matters were required to be heard by a Larger Bench to debate important
questions like:
B
(i) Whether there is any Right to Privacy guaranteed under the
Constitution; and
(ii) If such a Right exists, What is the source and what are the
contours of such a Right as there is no express provi§fon in the
c Constitution adumbrating the Right to Privacy.
10. Though, this suggestion of the respondents were opposed by
the counsel for the petitioners, the said Bench still deemed it proper ~o
refer the matter to the Larger Bench and the reasons for taking this
course of action are mentioned in paras 12 and 13 of the order dated
D August 11, 2015 which reads as under:
"12. We are of the opinion that the cases on hand raise far
reaching questions of importance involving_ interpretation of the
Constitution, What is at stake is the amplitude of the fundamental
rights including that precious and inalienable right under Article
E 21. If the observations made in MP. Sharma (supra) and Kharak
Singh (supra) are' to be read literally and accepted as the law of
this country, the (undamental rights guaranteed under the
Constitution oflndia and more particularly right to liberty under
Article 21 would be- denuded of vigour and vitality. At the same
time, we are also of the opinion that the institutional integrity and
F judicial discipline require that pronouncement made by larger
Benches of this Court cannot be ignored by the smaller Benches
without appropriately explaining the reasons for not following the
pronouncements made by such larger Benches. With due respect
to all the learned Judges who rendered the subsequent judgments
G - where right to privacy is asserted or referred to their Lordships
concern for the liberty of human beings, we are of the humble
opinion that there appears to be certain amount of apparent
unresolved contradiction in the law declared by this Court.
13. Therefore, in our opinion to give a quietus to the kind of
controversy raised in this batch of cases once for all, it is better
H
BINOY VISWAM v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS. 29
[A. K. SIKRI, J.]
that ratio decidendi of MP. Sharma (supra) and Kharak Singh A
(supra) is scrutinized and the jurisprudential correctness of the
subsequent decisions of this Court where the right to privacy is
either asserted or referred be examined and authoritatively decided
by a Bench of appropriate strength. ·
(emphasis supplied)" B
11. While referring the matter as aforesaid, by another order of
the even date, the Bench expressed that it would be desirable tl;J.at the
matter be heard at the earliest. On the same day, yet another order was
passed by the Bench in those petitions giving certain interim directions
which would prevail till thematter is finally decided by the Larger Bench. c
We would like to reproduce this order. containing the said interim
arrangement in toto:
"I N T E R I M 0 R D E R
After the matter was referred for decision by a larger Bench,
the learned counsel for the petitioners prayed for further interim D
orders. The last interim or.der in force is the order of this Court
dated 23 .9.2013 which reads as follows:-
"All the matters require to be heard finally. List all matters for
final hearing after the Constitution Bench is over..
E
In the meanwhile, no person should suffer for not getting the
Aadhaar card inspite of the fact that some authority had issued a
circular making it mandatory and when any person applies to get
the Aadhaar card voluntarily, it may be checked whether that
. person is entitled for it under the law and it should not be given to
any illegal immigrant." F
It was submitted by Shri Shyam Divan, learned counsel for the
petitioners that the petitioners having pointed out a serious breach
of privacy in their submissions, preceding the reference, this Court
may grant an injunction restraining the authorities from proceeding
further in the matter of obtaining biometrics etc. for an Aadhaar G
card. Shri Shyam Divan submitted that the biometric information
_ of an individual can be circulated to other authorities or corporate
bodies which, in turn can be used by them for commercial
exploitation and, therefore, must be stopped.
H
30 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2017] 7 S.C.R.
A The learned Attorney General pointed out, on the other hand,
that this Court has at no point of time, even while making the
inter!m order dated 23.9.2013 granted an injunction restraining
the Unique Identification Authority oflndia from going ahead and
obtaining biometric or other information from a citizen for the
purpose of a Unique Identification Number, better known as
B
"Aadhaar card". It was further submitted that the respondents
have gone ahead with the project and have issued Aadhaar cards
to about 90% of the population. Also that a large amount of money
has been spent by the Union Government on this project for issuing
Aadhaar cards and that in the circumstances, none of the well-
c known consideration for grant of injunction are in favour of the
petitioners.
The learned Attorney General stated that the respondents do
not share any personal information of an Aadhaar card holder
through biometrics or otherwise with any other person or authority.
D This statement allays the apprehension for now, that there is a
widespread breach of privacy of those to whom an Aadhaar card
has been issued. It was further contended on behalf of the
petitioners that there still is breach of privacy. This is a matter
which need not be gone into further at this stage. ·
E The learned Attorney General has further submitted that the
Aadhaar card is of great benefit since it ensures an effective
implementation of several social benefit schemes of the
Government like MGNREGA, the distribution of food, ration and
kerosene through PDS system and grant of subsidies in the
distribution of LPG It was, therefore, submitted that restraining
F the respondents from issuing further Aadhaar cards or fully utilising
the existing Aadhaar cards for the social schemes of the
Government should be allowed.
The learned Attorney General further stated that the respondent
Union of India would ensure that Aadhaar cards would only be
G issued on a consensual basis after informing the public at large
about the fact that the preparation of Aadhaar card involving the
parting of biometric information of the individual, which shall
however not be used for any purpose other than a social benefit
schemes.
H
BINOY VISWAM v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS: 31
[A. K. SIKRI, J.]
Having considered the matter, we are ofthe view that the balance A
of interest would be best served, till the matter is finally decided
by a larger Bench if the U11ion of India or the UIDA proceed in
the following manner:-
!. The Union oflndia shall give wide publicity in the electronic
and print media including radio and television networks that it is B
not mandatory for a citizen to obtain an Aadhaar card;
2. The production of an Aadhaar card will not be condition for
obtaining any benefits otherwise due to a citizen;
3. The Unique Identification Number or the Aadhaar card will not
be used by the respondents for any purpose other than the PDS C
Scheme and in particular for the purpose of distribution of
foodgrains, etc. and cooking fuel, such as kerosene. The Aadhaar
card may also be used for the purpose of the LPG Distribution
Scheme;
4. The information about an individual obtained by the Unique D
Identification Authority of India while issuing an Aadhaar card
shall not be used for any other purpose, save as above, except as
may be directed by a Court for the purpose of criminal investigation.
Ordered accordingly."
E
12. In nutshell, the direction is that obtaining anAadhaar Card is
not mandatory and the benefits due to a citizen under any scheme are
not to be denied in the absence ofAadhaar Card. Further, unique
identification number or the Aadhaar Card was to be used only for the
PDS Scheme and, in particular, for the purpose of distribution of food
grains etc. and cooking fuels suc.h as Kerosene and LPG Distribution F
Scheme, with clear mandate that it will not be used by the respondents
for any other purpose. Even the information about the individual collected
while issuing an Aadhaar Card was not to be used for any other. purpose,
except when it is directed by the Court for the purpose of criminal
investigation. Thus, making of Aadhaar Card was not to be made G
mandatory and it was to be used only for PDS Scheme and LPG
Distribution Scheme. Thereafter, certain applications for mo.dification
of the aforesaid order dated August 11, 2015 was filed before this Court
by the Union oflndia and a five Judges Bench of this Court was pleased
to pass the following order:
H
32 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2017] 7 S.C.R.
A "3. After hearing the learned Attorney General for India and
other learned senior counsels, we are of the view that in paragraph
3 of the Order dated August 11, 2015, if we add, apart from the
other two Schemes, namely, PDS .Scheme and the LPG
Distribution Scheme, the Schemes like The Mahatma Gandhi
National Rural Employment Guarantee Scheme 12 (MGNREGS),
B
National Social Assistance Progi:aipme (Old Age Pensions, Widow
Pensions, Disability Pensions) Prime Minister's Jan Dhan Yojana
(PMJDY) and Employees' Provident Fuq4 Organisation (EPFO)
for .the present, it would not dilute earlier order passed by this
Court. Therefore, we now include the aforesaid ~chemes apart
c from the other two Schemes that this Court has permitted in its
earlier order dated August~ 1, 2015.
4. We impress upon the Union oflndia that it shall strictly follow
. all the earlier orders passed by this Court commencing from
September 23, 2013.
D 5. We will also make it clear that the Aadhaar card Scheme is
purely voluntary and it cannot be made mandatory till the matter
is finally decided by this Court qne way or the other."
Thus, Aadhaar is permitted for some more schemes as well.
E 13. The petitioner herein, laying stress on' the above orders, plead
that from a perusal of the various interim orders passed by this Court it
is· amply clear that the Court has reiterated the position that although
there is no interim.order against the colle~on of information from the
citizens for the purpose of enrolment for Aadhaar, the scheme is purely
voluntary and the same is not to be made mandatory by the Government.
F
14. While matters stood thus, the Government oflndia brought in
a legislation to govern the Aadhaar Scheme with the enactment of the
Aadhaar (Targeted Delivery of Financial and other subsidies, benefits
and services) Act, 2016.(hereinafter referred to as the 'Aadhaar.Act').
G 15. Introduction to the said Act gives the reasons forp.assing that
Act and Statement of Objects and Reasons mention the objectives sought
to be achieved with the enactment of Aadhaar Act. Introduction reads
asunder:
"The Unique Identification Authority oflndia was established by
a resolution of the Government of India in 2009. It was meant
H
BINOY VISWAM·v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS. 33
[A. K. SIKRI, J.]
0
primarily to lay down policies and to implement the Unique A
Identification Scheme, by which residents of India were to be
provided unique identity number. This number would serve as
proof of identity and could be used for identification ofbeneficiaries
for transfer of benefits, subsidies, services and other purposes.
Later on, it was felt that the process of enrolment, authentication, B
security, confidentiality and use of Aadhaar related information
be made statutory so as to facilitate the use of Aadhaar·number
for delivery of various benefits, subsidies and services, the
expenditures of which were incurred from or receipts therefrom
formed part of the Consolidated Fund oflndia.
c.
The Aadhaar (Targeted Delivery ofF inancial and Other Subsidies,
Benefits and Services) Bill, 2016 inter alia, provides for
establishment ofUnique Identification Authority of India, issuance
of Aadhaar number to individuals, maintenance and updating of
information in the Central Identities Data Repository, issues
pertaining to security, privacy and confidentiality of information D
as well as offences and penalties for contravention of relevant
statutory provisions."
16. In the Statement of Objects and Reasons, it is inter alia
mentioned that though number of social benefits schemes have been
floated by the Governrnent, the failure to establish identity of an individual E
has proved to be a major hindrance for successful implementation of
those programmes as it was becoming difficult to ensure that subsidies,
benefits and services reach the unintended beneficiaries in the absence
of a credible system to authenticate identity of beneficiaries. Statement
of Objects and Reasons also discloses that over a period of time, the use F
of Aadhaar Number has been increased manifold and, therefore, it is
also necessary to take measures relating to ensuring security of the
information provided by the individuals while enrolling for Aadhaar Card.
Having these parameters in mind, para 5 of the Statement of Objects
and Reasons enumerates the objectives which Aadhaar Act seeks to
achieve. It reads as under: G
""5. The Aadhaar (Targeted Delivery of Financial and Other
Subsidies, Benefits and Services) Bill, 2016 inter alia, seeks to
provide for -
(a) issue of Aadhaar numbers to individuals on providing his
H
34 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2017] 7 S.C.R.
A demographic and biometric information to the Unique
Identification Authority oflndia;
(b) requiring Aadhaar numbers for identifying an individual for
delivery of benefits, subsidies, i(nd services the expenditure is
incurred from or the receipt therefrom forms part of the
B Consolidated Fund oflndia;
(c) authentication of the Aadhaar number of an Aadhaar number
holder in relation to his demographic and biometric information;
(d) establishment of the Unique Identification Authority oflndia
consisting of. a Chairperson, two Members and a Member-
c Secretary to perform functions in pursuance of the objectives
above;
(e) maintenance and updating the information of individuals in the
Central Identities Date Repository in such manner as may be
specified by regulations;
0
D
· (f) measures pertaining to security, privacy and confidentiality of
information in possession or control of the Authority including
information stored in the .Central Identities Date Repository;
and
(g) offences and penalties for contravention of relevant statutory .
E
provisions."
17. Some of the provisions of this Act, which have bearing on the
matter that is being dealt with herein, may be taken note of. Sections
2(a), 2(c), 2(d), 2(e), 2(g), 2(h), 2(k), 2(1), 2(m), 2(n), Section 3, Section
7, Section 28, Section 29 and Section 30 reads as under:
F
"2(a) "Aadhaar number" means an identification number issued
to an individual under sub-section (3) of section 3;
xxx xxx xxx
2(c) "authentica.tion" means the pr.ocess by which the Aadhaar
G number alongwith demographic .information or biometric
information of an individual is submitted to the Central Identities .
Data Repository for its verification and such Repository verifies
the correctness, or the lack thereof, on the basis of information
available with it;
BINOY VISWAM v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS. 35
[A. K. SIKRI, J.]
2(d) "authentication record" means the record. of the time of A
authentication and identity of the requesting entity and the response
provided by the Authority thereto;
2(e) "Authority" means the Unique Identification Authority of India
established under sub-section ( 1) of section 11;
xxx xxx xxx B
2(g) "biometric information" means photograph, finger print, Iris
scan, or such other biological attributes of an individual as may be
specified by regulations;
2(h) "Central Identities Data Repository" means a centralised c
database in one or more locations containing all Aadhaar numbers
issued to Aadhaar number holders along with the corresponding
demographic information and biometric information of such
individuals and other information related thereto;
xxx xxx xxx D
2(k) "demographic information" includes information relating to
the name, date of birth, address and other relevant information of
an individual, as may be specified by regulations for the purpose
of issuing an Aadhaar number, but shall not include race, religion,
caste, tribe, ethnicity, language, records of entitlement, income or
E
medical history; ·
2(1) "enrolling agency" means an agency appointed by the
Authority or a Registrar, as the case may be, for collecting
demographic and biometric information of individuals under this
Act;
F
2(m) ''.enrolment" means the process, as may be specified by
regulations, to collect demographic and biometric information from
individuals by the enrolling agencies for the purpose of issuing
Aadhaar
. .
numbers to such individuals under this Act;
2(n) "identity information" in respect ofan individual, includes his G
Aadhaar number, his biometric information and his demographic
information; .
3. Aadhaar number. - (1) Every resident shall be entitled to
obtain an Aadhaar number by submitting his demographic
H
36 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2017] 7 S.C.R.
A information and biometric information by undergoing the process
of enrolment:
Provided that the Central Government may, from time to time,
notify such. other category of individuals who may be entitled to
obtain an Aadhaar number.
B (2) The enrolling agency shall, at the time of enrolment, inform
the individual undergoing enrolment of the following details in such
manner as may be specified by regulations, namely:
_(a-) the manner_ in which the information shall be used; '
c · (b) the nature of recipients with whom· the information is
intended to be shared during authentication; and
(c) the existence of a right to access information, the procedure
for making requests for such access, and details of the person
or department in-charge to whom such requests can be
D made.
(3) On receipt of the demographic.information and biometric
information under sub~section (l ), the Authority shall, after verifying
the information, in such manner as may be specified by regulations,
issue an Aadhaar number to such individual.
E xxx xxx xxx
7. Proof of Aadhaar number necessary for receipt of certain
subseidies, benefits ·and services, etc. - The Central
Government or, as the case may be, the State Government may,
for the purpose of establishing identity of an individual as a condition
F for receipt of a subsidy, benefit or service for which the expenditure
is incurred from, or the receipt therefrom forms part of, the
Consolidated Fund oflndia, require that sui;h individual undergo
authentication, or furnish proof of possession of Aadhaar number
or in the case of an individual to whom no Aadhaar µumber has
been assigned, such individual makes an application for enrolment:
G
Provided that if an Aadhaar number is not assigned to an
individual, the individual shall be offered alternate and viable means
of identification for delivery of the subsidy, benefit or service.
xxx xxx xxx
H
BINOY VISWAM v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS. 37
[A. K. SIKRI, J.]
28. Security and confidentiality of information - (1) The A
Authority shall ensure the security 9f identity information and
authentication records ofindividuals.
(2) Subject to the provisions of this Act, the Authority shall ensure
confidentiality of identity information and authentication records
ofindividuals. B
(3) The Authority shall take all necessary measures t.o ensure
that the information in the possession or control of the Authority,
including information stored in the Central Identities Data
Repository, is se3ured and protected f!gainst access, use or
disclosure not permitted under this Act or regulations made · c
thereunder, and against accidental or intentional destruction, loss
. or damage.
(4) Without prejudice to sub-sections (1) and (2), the Authority
shall-
(a) adopt and implement appropriate technical and organisational D·
security measures;
(b) ensure that the agencies, consultants, advisors or other
persons appointed or engaged for performing any function
of the Authority under this Act, have in place appropriate
technical and organisational security measures for the E
information; and ·
(c) ensure that the agreements or arrangements entered into
with such agencies, consultants, advisors or other persons,
·impose obligations equivalent to those imposed on the
Authority under this Act, and require such agencies, F
consultants, advisors and other persons to act oply on
instructions from the Authority.
(5) Notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the
time being in force, and save as otherwise provided in this Act,
the Authorit)'' or any of its officers or other employees or any G
agency that maintains the Central Identities Data Repository shall
not, whether during his service or thereafter, reveal any information
stored in the Central Identities Data Repository or authentication
record to anyone:
H
38 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2017) 7 S.C.R.
A Provided that an Aadhaar number holder may request the
Authority to provide access to his identity information excluding
his core biometric information in such manner as may be specified
by regulations.
29. Restriction on sharing information.-(!) No core.biometric
B inforrl1:ation, collected or created under this Act, shall be~
(a) shared with an)'one for any reason whatsoever; or
(b) used for any purpose other than generation of Aadhaar
numbers and authentication under this Act.
c (2) The identity information, other than core biometric information,
collected or created under this Act may be shared only in
accordance with the provisions of this Act and in such manner as
may be specified by regulations.
(3) No identity information available with a requesting <)ntity shall
D be-
( a) used for any purpose, other than that specifie4 to the·
individual at the time of submitting any identity information
for authentication; or
(b) disclosed further, except with the prior consent of the
E individual to whoni such information relates.
(4) No Aadhaar number or core biometric information collected
or created under this Act in respect of an Aadhaar number holder
shall be published, displayed or posted publicly, exc~pt for the
purposes as may be specified by regulations.
F 30. Biometric information deemed to be sensitive personal
information.-The biometric information collected and stored in
electronic form, in accordance with this Act and regulations made
0
thereunder,. shall be deemed to be "electronic record" and
"sensitive personal data or information'', and the provisions
G contained in the Information Technology Act, 2000 (21 of 2000)
and t~e rules made thereunder shall apply to sut;h information, in
.addition to, and to the extent not in derogation of the provisions of
this Act.
Explanation.- For the purposes of this section, the expressions--
H
BINOY VISWAM v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS. 39
. [A. K. SIKRI, J.]
(a) "electronic form" shall have the same meaning as assigned A
to it in clause (r) of sub-section (I) of section 2 of the
Information Technology Act, 2000 (21 of2000);
(b) "electronic record" shall have the same meaning as assigned
to it in clause (t) of sub-section (I) of section 2 of the
Informatipn Technology Act, 2000 (21 of2000); B
· "sensitive personal data or information" shail have the same
meaning as assigned to it in clause (iii) of the Explanation to section
43A of the Information Technology Act, 2000 (21 of2000)."
That apart, Chapter VII which comprises Sections 34 to 47,
mentions various offences and prescribes penalties therefor. c
18. Even the Constitutional validity of the aforesaid Act is
challenged in this Court in Writ Petition (C) No. 797 of2016, which has
also been tagged along with Writ Petition (C) No. 494 of2012, the lead
matter in the batch of matters which has been referred to the Constitution
Bench. D
19. At this juncture, by Finance Act, 2017, Income Tax Act is
amended with introduction of Section l 39AA which provision has already
been reproduced. It would be necessary to mention at this stage that
since challenge to the very concept of Aadhaar i.e. unique identification
number is predicated primarily on Right to Privacy, when instant writ E
petitions were initially listed before us, we suggested that these matters
be also tagged along with Writ Petition (C) No. 494 of2012 and other
matters which have been referred to the Constitution Bench. Pertinently,
in the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the Union of India also, plea
has been taken that the matters be tagged along with those pending writ
F
petitions and be decided by a larger Bench. On this suggestion, reaction
of the learned counsel for the petiti.oners was that petitioners would not
be pitching their case on the 'Right to Privacy' and would be questioning
the validity of Section 139 AA of the Act primarily on Articles 14 and 19
of the Constitution. On this basis, their submission was that this Bench
should proceed to adjudicate the matter. Therefore, we make it clear at G
the outset that we are not touching upon the privacy issue while
determining the question of validity of the impugned provision of the
Act.
H
40 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2017] 7 S.C.R.
A The Arguments
· 20. Mr. Datar, learned senio~ counsel who ~pened the attack on
behalf of the petitioners, started by stating the historical fact pertaining
to introduction of Aadhaar Scheme, leading to the passing of Aadhaar
Act and thereafter the impugned provision and referring to the various
B orders passed bythis Court from time to time (which have already been
reproduced above). After this narration, his first submission was that
this Court had, time and again, emphasised by various interim orders
that obtaining anAadhaar Card would be a voluntarily act on behalf of a
citizen and it would not be made mandatory till the pendency of the
petitions which stand referred to the Constitution Bench now. He further
c submitted that even Sedion 3 oftheAadhaar Act spells out that enrollment
of Aadhaar is voluntarily and consensual and not compulsory or by way
of executive action. He also drew our attention to the proviso to Section
7 oflhe Aadhaar Act as per which a person is not 'to be deprived of
subsidies as per the various schemes of the Governrn!lnt as the said
D proviso clearly mentions that if an Aadhaar Number is not assigned to
an individual, he shall be offered alternate and viable means of
identification for delivery of subsidy, benefit or service. According to
him, there was a total reversal of the aforesaid approach for assessees
under the Income Tax Act and those who wanted to apply for issuance
of PAN Card inasmuch as not only it was made compulsory for.them to
E get Aadhaar enrollment number, but serious consequences were also
provided for not adhering to this requirement. In their cases, PAN issued
to these asses sees had to become invalid, that too from the retrospective
effect i.e. from.the date when.it is issued. :Having regard to the aforesaid,
the legal submission of. Mr. Datar . was thatc Section 139AA was ·
F unconstitutional and without legislative competence inasmuch as this:'
provision was enacted contrary to the binding nature of the judgments/
directions of this Court which was categorical that Aadhaar had to remain
voluntary. Questioning the legislative competence of the legislature to
enact this particular law; argument of Mr. Datar was that there were
certain implied limitations of such a legislative competence and one of
G these limitations was that legislature was. debarred from enacting a law
contrary to the binding nature of decisions of this Court. His submission
in this behalf was that though it was within the competence of the
legislature to remove the basis of the Supreme Court decision, at the
same time, iegislature could not go against the decision which was la;v
H
BINOY VISWAM v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS. 41
[A. K. SIKRT, J.]
of the land under Article 141 of the Constitution. He argued that, in the A
instant case, legislature could not be construed as removing the basis of
the various. orders of this Court relating to Aadhaar Scheme itself but
the impugned provision was inserted in the statute book violating the
binding nature of those orders.
21. Dilating on the aforesaid submissions, Mr. Datar argued that
the earlier orders of this Court dated August 23, 2015 of the main writ
petition specifically permitted Aadhaar to be used only for LPG and
PDS. By an order dated October 15, 2015, at the request of the Union
oflndia, it was permitted to be extended to three other schemes, namely,
MNREGA, Jan Dhan Yojana· etc. The Constitution Bench made it
exp,licifly clear that the Aadhaar scheme could not be used for any other
c
purpose. According to him,.the Parliament did not in any manner remove
the basis of these decisions .. The Aadhaar scheme, as enacted under
the Aadhaar Act, continued to retain its voluntary character (as
demonstrated by Section 3 of that Act) that existed when Aadhaar was
operating under executive instructions. Nonetheless, even if it is argued D
that the above orders were passed when Aadhaar was based on executive
instructions, decisions of this Court continue to be binding as they are
made in exercise of the judicial power. According to Mr. Datar, any
judgment ofa court, whether interim or final, whether rendered in the
context ofa legislation, delegated legislation (rules/notifications) or even
executive action will continue to be binding. In view of the judgment of E
this Court in Ram Jawaya Kapoor v. State ofPunjab3 , which held that
executive and legislative powers are co-extensive under the Constitutional
·scheme, .unless the basis of the judgment is- removed by a subsequent
enactment, it cannot be a.rgued that a decision based on executive
instruction is less binding than other judgments/orders of the Supreme F
Court, or that the judgment/order loses force ifthe executive instruction
is replaced.by law. ·
22. He also referred to thetlecision in the case of Madan Mohan
Pati1ak v. Union of India 4, wherein the direction of the Calcutta High
Court to pay bonus to Class-III.and Class-IV employees was sought to . G •
be nullified by a statutbcy amendment. This was held to be impermiss!ble
by the seven Judges'Bench. He also relied upon Bakhtawar Trust v.
M.D. Narayan 5, wherein, after citing the case-laws on this point; the
'(1955) 2 SCR 225 0 ..
4 AIR 1978 SC 803
'(2003) 5 sec 298 H
42 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2011i 1 s.c.R.
A Court reiterated the principle as follows:
""25~ The decisions referred to above, manifestly show that it is
open to the legislature to alter the law retrospectively, provided
the alteration is made in such a manner that it would no more be
possible for the Court to arrive at the same verdict. In other
B words, the very premise of the earlier judgment should be uprooted,
thereby resulting in a fundamental change of the circumstances
upon which it was founded.
xxx xxx xxx
27. Here, the question before us is, whether the impugned Act
c has passed the test of constitutionality by serving to remove the
very basis upon which the decision of the High Court in the writ
petition was based. This question gives rise to further two questions
- first. what was the basis of the earlier decision; and second.
what. if any. may be said to be the removal of that basis?
D · (emphasis supplied)" ·
23. Based on the above principles, Mr. Datar's fervent plea was
that:
(i) The basis of the earlier 0rder of the Supreme Court is that
Aadhaar will be made a voluntary scheme, it is a consensual
E
scheme, and that it is to be expressly limited to six specific
purposes; and
(ii) No attempt whatsoever has been made to remove the basis of
these earlier orders. This alone renders Section l 39AA
unconstitutional.
F
24. Arguing that basis of the orders of this Court was not removed,
plea of Mr. Datar was that the basis of the said orders was that serious
. constitutional concerns had been raised about the Aadhaar scheme, and
that therefore, pending final decision on its validity by the Supreme Court,
it ought to remain voluntary. Consequently, in order to remove the basis
G of these orders, the Parliament would have to pass a law overturning the
voluntar)' character of Aadhaar itself. Notably, a/though Parliament did
have a chance to do so, it elected not to. The Aadhaar Act came into
force on March 25, 2016. This was after the order of this Court.
Significantly, however, the Parliament continued to maintain Aadhaar as ·
H
BINOY VISWAM v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS. 43
[A. K. SIKRI, J.]
a voluntary scheme vide Section 3 of the said Act Mr. Datar submitted A
that if Parliament so desired, it could have removed the basis of this
Court's order by:
(i) Amending Section 3 so that Aadhaar is made compulsory for
every resident oflndia; or
(ii) Introducing either a proviso or adding a sub-section in Section B
3 to the following effect:
"Notwithstanding anything contained in stib-section (1), the
Central Government may notify specific purposes for which
obtaining Aadhaar numbers may be made mandatory in public
interest." C
25. However, Parliament elected hot to do so as there is no non-
obstante clause. Instead of making enrollment for Aadhaar itself
mandatory, it' made Aadhaar mandatory for filing income-tax returns,
even as enrollment itself remained voluntary under Section 3 of the
Aadhaar Act. He, thus, submitted that far from.taking away the basis of D
the earlier Supreme Court orders. The Aadhaar Act strengthened and
endorsed those orders, while Section 139AA impermissibly attempted to
overturn them without taking away their basis. Indeed, Parliament did
not even sof ar as include a non-obstante claus.e in Section 139AA,
which would have made it dear that Section would override contrary E
laws - clearly indicating once again that Section 13AA waa not taking
away the basis of the Court's orders. The emphasis of Mr. Datar is that
unless suitable/appropriate amendments are made to the Aadhaar Act,
the orders of the Court cannot be overruled by the newly inserted Section
139AA.
F
26. On the aforesaid edifice, the argument built and developed by
Mr. Datar is that although the power of Parliament to pass laws with
respect to List-I and List-III is plenary, it is subject to two implied
limitations:
(i) Parliament or any State legislature cannot pass any law that G
overrules a judgment; before any law is passed which may
result in nullifying a decision, it is mandatory to remove the
basis of the decision. Once the basis on which the earlier
decision/order/judgment is delivered is removed, Parliament
can then pass a law prospectively or retrospectively and with
H
44 SUPREME COURT REl;'ORTS [2017] 7 S.C.R.
A or without a validation clause.
(ii) Implied limitation not to pass contrary laws: The doctrine of
harmonious construction applies when there is an accidental
collision or conflict between two enactments and the Supreme
Court has repeatedly read down one provision to give effect to
B other. Thus, both the provisions have to be given effect to.
But ifthe collision or conflict is such that one provision cannot
co-exist with another, then the latter provision must be struck
down. In the present case, obtaining an Aadhaar number
· continues to be voluntary and explii;;itly declared to be so. Once
the Aadhaar Card is voluntary, it cannot be made mandatory
c by the ·impugned Section 139AA of the Act. As long as the
Aadhaar enactment holds the field, there is an implied limitation
on the power of Parliament not to pass a contrary law.
27. He also advanced two examples of such an implied limitation:
D (i) If Parliament, by a statute, makes medical service in rural areas
an attractive option for doctors with incentives like preference
for post-graduate admissions, higher pay/allowances, or even
lower tax, such a scheme is voluntary and only those doctors
who want those benefits may opt for it. While suc,h a statute
exists, it will not be permissible for Parliament to simultaneously
E amend the Medical C~uncil Act, 1956 and state that absence
of rural service will be a ground to invalidate the doctor's
certific;ate of practice. Thus, what is statutorily voluntary under
one Parliamentary Act cannot be made statutorily compulsory
under another Parliamentary Act at the-same time.
F (ii) Second example given by Mr. Datar was that making Aadhaar
compulsory only for individuals with severe consequences of
cancellation of PAN cards and a deeming provision that they
had never applied for PAN is discriminatory when such a
provision is not made mandatory for other assessees.
G 28:Mr. Datar's next plea of violation of Article 14 was based by
him on the application of the twin-test of classification viz. there should
be a reasonable classification and that this classification should have
rational nexus with the objective sought to be achieved as held in R.K.
Dalmia v. Justice S.R. Tendolkar6. Mr. Datar conceded that first test
6
(1959)_SCR 279
H
BINOY VISWAM v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS .. 45
[A. K. SJKRI, J.] .
was met as individual assessees form a separate class and, to this extent, A
there is a rational differentiation between individuals and other categories
ofassessees ..·The main brunt of his argument was on th.e second limb
of the twin~test of classification which according to him is not satisfied
because there is no rational nexus with the object sought to be achieved.
29. Thifd argument of Mr. Datar was that the affected persons B
by Section 139AA are individuals who are professionals like lawyers,
doctors, architects etc: and lakhs of businessmen having small or micro
.. enterprises. By imposing a draconian penalty of cancelling their PAN
cards and deeming that they had nev~r applied for them, there is a direct
infringement to Article 19(1 )(g). The consequences of not having a
PAN card results iri a virtual "civil death" and it will be impossible to C
carry out ariy business or professional activity under Rule l I 4B of the
Income Tax Rules, 1962 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Rules'), it will
not. be possible to operate bank accounts with transactions above
Rs.50,0001-, use creUit/debit'cards, purchase motor-vehicles, purchase
property etc. D
30. Elaborating this point, it was submitted by him that once it is
shown that the right under Article I, 9( I )(g) has been infringed, the burden
shifts to the State to show that the restriction is reasonable, and in the
interests of the public, under Article 19(6) of the Constitution. He referred
to Modern Dental College and Research Centre & Ors. v. State of E
Madhya Prades/i 7, wherein this Court held that the correct test to apply
"
'in the context of Article 19(6) was the test of proportionality:
" ... a limitation of a.constitutional right will be constitutionally
permissible if: (i) it is designated for a proper purpose; (ii) the
measures undertaken to effectuate such a limitation are rationally F
connected to the fulfilment of that purpose; (iii) the measures
undertaken are necessary in that there are no alternative measures
that may similarly achieve that same purpose with a lesser degree
of limitation; and finally (iv) there needs to be a proper relation
('proportionality strict sensu' or 'balancing') between the
importance of achieving the proper purpose and the social G
importance of preventing the limitation on the constitutional right."
3 i. Mr. Datar also submitted that even if the State succeeds in
showing a proper purpose and a rational connection with the purpose,
1
(2016) 1 sec 353
H
46 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2017] 7 S.C.R.
A thereby meeting the test ofArticle 14, the impugned law clearly fails on·
clauses (iii) (narrow tailoring) and (iv) (balancing) of the proportionality
test of the above decision. He submitted that the State has failed entirely
to show that the cancellation of PAN Cards as a consequence of not
enrolling for Aadhaar with its accompanying draconian consequences
for the economic life of an individual is narrowly tailored to achieving its
B
goal of tax compliance. It is also submitted that in accordance with the
arguments advanced above, the State's own data shows that the problem
of duplicate PANs was minuscule, and the gap between the tax payer
base and the PAN Card holding population can be explained by plausible
factors other than duplicates and forgeries. ·He questioned the wisdom
c oflegislature in compelling 99 .6% of the taxpaying citizenry to enroll for
Aadhaar (with the further prospect of seeding) in order to weed out the
0.4% of duplicate PAN Cards, as it fails the proportionality test entirely.
32. On the principle ofproportionality, he submitted that this principle
was applied in the R.K. Dalmia 8 case as per the following passage:
D "11 ...
(d) that the Legislature is free to recognize degrees of harm and
may confine its restrictions to those cases where the need is deemed
to be the clearest;
E (e) that in order to sustain the presumption of cons.titutionality the
court may take into consideration matters of common knowledge,
matters of common report, the history of the times and may assume
every state of facts which can be conceived existing at the time
oflegislation; ... ".
33. Basic premise of the submissions ofMr. Shyam.Divan, learned
F
senior advocate, was also the same as projected by Mr. Datar. He
insisted that Section 139AA of the Act, which had made Aadhaar
mandatory for income-tax assessees, is unconstitutional. However, in
his endeavour to plead that the provision be declared unconstitutional, he
approached the subject from an altogether different premise, giving
G another perception to the whole issue. His basic submission was that
every individual or citizen in this country had complete control over his/
her body and State cannot insist any person from giving his/her finger
tips or iris of eyes, as a condition precedent to enjoy certain rights. He
pointed out that all the petitioners in his writ petition were holding PAN
8
Footnote 6 above
H
BINOY VISWAM v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS. 47
[A. K. SIKRI, J.]
Cards and were income-tax assessees but had not enrolled under Aadhaar A
Scheme. They were the consentions persons in the society and did not
want to give away their finger tips or iris, being consentions objectors,
that too, to private persons who were engaged as contractors/private
enrollers by the Government for undertaking the job of enrolment under
the Aadhaar. It was submitted that the data given to such persons were B
not safe and there was huge possibility that the same may be leaked.
Further, requirement of giving Aadhaar number for every transaction
amounted to Surveillance by the State and the entire profile of such
persons would be available to the State. He also pointed out that with
today's technology, there was every possibility of copying the fingerprint
and even the iris images. Various cases of fake Aadhaar Card had C
come to light and even as per the Government's statement, 3.48 lakh
bogus Aadhaar Cards were cancelled. There were instances of Aadhaar
leak as well. Even hacking was possible. He conceded that these were
the issues within the realm of'Right to Privacy' which were to be decided
by the Constitution Bench. However, according to him, various orders D
passed by this Court in those petitions clearly reflect that the Court had
given the directions that Aadhaar Scheme had to be voluntarily; there
would not be any illegal implants; and no one would suffer any
consequences ifhe does not enroll himself under the Aadhaar Scheme.
He also submitted that even the Aadhaar Act was voluntary in nature
which creates rights for citizens and not obligations. According to him, E
Aadhaar Act envisages free consent for getting certain benefits under
social welfare schemes of the Government. On the other hand, Section
139AA of the Act is compulsory and coercive. Pointing out that ifAadhaar
number is not mentioned in the income-tax returns, the effect provided
under Section 139AA of the Act is that the PAN Card held by such a
F
person would itself become invalid and inoperative which will lead to
various adverse consequences inasmuch as for many other purposes as
well, PAN Card is used. He referred to Sections 206AA, I 96J, 27 IF
and 272B of the Act and Rule 114B of the Rules to demonstrate this.
He also referred to the provisions of Identification of Prisoners Act,
1920 which require a prisoner to give his fingerprints for record and G .
submitted that making Aadhaar compulsory amounted to treating every
person at par with a prisoner.
34. On the aforesaid premise, Mr. Divan articulated his legal
submissions as under:
H
48 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2017] 7 S.C.R.
A (i) Section 139AAoftheAct is contrary to the concept of'limited
Government'.
(ii) The impugned provision coerces the individuals to part with
their private information which was a part of human dignity and,
thus, the said provision was violative ofArticle 21 of the Constitution·
B as it offended human dignity.
(iii) The impugned provision creates the involvement which can
be used for surveillance.
(iv) This provision converts right under Aadhaar Act to duty under
the Income Tax Act.
c
35. Elaborating on the argument predicated on the concept of
'Limited Government', Mr. Divan submitted that the Constitution oflndia
was the basic law or grundnorm which ensures democratic governance
in this country. Though a sovereign country, its governance is controlled
by the provisions of the Constitution which sets parameters within which
D three wings of the State, namely, Legislature, Executive and Judiciary
has to function. Thus, no wing of the State can breach the limitations
provided in the Constitution which employs an array of checks and
balances to ensure open, accountable government where each wing of
the State performs its actions for the benefit of the people and within its
E sphere of responsibility. The checks and balances are many and amongst
them are the respective roles assigned by the Constitution to the legislature,
the executive and the judiciary. Under India's federal structure, with a
distribution oflegislative authority between the Union government and
the States, the fields oflegislation and corresponding executive authority ·
are also distributed between the Union' and the States. Provisions in the
F Constitution such as the fundamental rights chaptef (Part III) and the
chapter relating to inter-state trade (Part XIII) also circumscribe the
authority of the State. These limitations on the power of the State support
the notion of'limited government'. In this sense, the expression 'limited
government' would mean that each wing of the State is restricted by
G provisions of the Constitution and other laws and is required to operate
within its legitimate sphere. Exceeding these limits would render the
action of the State ultra vires the Constitution or a particular Jaw.
He further argued that the concept of'limited government' may
also be understood in a much broader and different sense. This notion
of a limited government is qua the citizenry as a whole. There are
H
BINOY VISWAM v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS. 49
[A. K. SIKRI, J.]
certain things that the State simply cannot do, because the action A
fundamentally alters the relationship between the citizens and the State.
The wholesale collection of biometric data including finger prints and
storing it at a central depository per se puts the State in an extremely
dominant position in relation to the individual citizen. Biometric data
belongs to the concerned individual and the State cannot collect or retain
B
.•it to be used against the individual or to his or her prejudice in the future.
Further the State cannot put itself in a position where it can track an
individual and engage in surveillance. The State cannot deprive or
withhold the enjoyment ofrights and entitlements by an individual or
makes such entitlements conditional on a citizen parting with her
·biometrics. Mr. Divan referred to the judgment of this Court in State of C
Madhya Pradesh & Anr. v. Thakur Bharat Singh 9 where the concept
oflimi ted government is highlighted in the following manner:
"5 .... All executive action which operates to t~e prejudice of any
person must have the authority oflaw to support it, and the terms
of Article 358 do not detract from that rule. Article 358 expressly D
authorises the State to take legislative or executive action provided
such action was competent for the State to make or take, but for
the provisions contained in Part III of the Constitution. Article
358 does not purport to invest the State with arbitrary authority to
take action to the prejudice of citizens and others: it merely provides
that so long as the proclamation of emergency subsists Jaws may E
be enacted, and exclusive action may be taken in pursuance of
lawful authority, which ifthe provisions ofArticle 19 were operative
would have been invalid. Our federal structure is founded on certain
fundamental principles: (J) the sovereignty of the people with
limited Government authority i.e. the Government must be F
conducted in accordance with the will of the majority of the people.
The people govern themselves through their representatives,
whereas the official agencies of the executive Government
possess only such powers as have been conferred upon them by
the people; (2) There is a distribution of powers between the
three organs of the State- legislative, executive and judicial - G
each organ having some check direct or indirect on the other; and
(3) the rule of law which includes judicial review of arbitrary
executive action. As pointed out by Dicey in his Introduction to
'AIR 1967 SC 1170: (1967) 2 SCR 454
H
50 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2017) 7 S.C.R.
A the study of the Law of the Constitution, 10th Ecln., at p. 202,
the expression "rule oflaw" has three meanings, or may be regarded
from three different points of view. "It means, in the first place,
the absolute supremacy er predominance of regular law as opposed
to the influence of arbitrary power, and excludes the existence of
arbitrariness, of prerogative, or even of wide discretionary authority
B
on the part of the Government". At p. 188 bicey points out: .
'"In alfh,ost every continental community the executive
exercises far wider discretionary authority in the matter of
arrest, of temporary imprisol)ment, of expulsion from its
territory, and the like, than is either legally cla\med or in fact
c exerted by the Govetnment in England: and a study of European
politics now and again reminds English readers that wherever
there is di~retion there is room for arbitrariness, and that in a
republic no less than under a monarchy discretionary authority
on the part of the Government must mean insecurity for legal
D freedom on the part of its subjects."
We have adopted under our Constitution not the continental system
but the British system under which the rule of law prevails. Every
Act done by the Government or by its officers must, if it is to
operate to the prejudice of any person must, be supported by some
E legislative authority."
36. Relying on the aforesaid observations, Mr. Divan submitted
that the recognition of the distinction between an individual or person
and the State is the single most important factor that distinguishes a
totalitarian State from one that respects individuals and recognizes their
F special identity ~nd entitlement to dignity. The Indian Constitution does
not establish a totalitarian State but creates a State that is respectful of
individual liberty and constitutionally guaranteed freedoms. The
Constitution oflndia is not a charter of servitude.
37. Proceeding further, another submission of Mr. Divan, as noted
G above, was that Section 139AA which coerces the in.dividuals to part
with t~eirpersonal information was unconstitutional. He submitted that
a citizen is ehtitled to enjoy all these rights 'including social and civil
rights such as the right to receive an education, a scholarship, medical
assistance, pensions. and benefits under government schemes without
having to part with his or her personal biometrics. An individual's
H
BINOY VISWAM v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS. 51
[A. K. SIKRI, J.]
biometrics such as finger prints and iris scan are the property ~nd A
entitlement of that individual and the State cannot co~rce an individual
or direct him or her to part witlibiometrics as a condition for the ex'ercise
of rigb.ts or the enjoyment of entitlements. Every citizen has a basic
right to informational self-determinatioI) and the state cannot exercise
dominion over a citizen's proprietary information either in individual cases
B
or collectively so as to place itself in a position where it can aggregate
information and create detailed profiles of individuals or facilitate this
process. The Constitution of India is not a charter for a Police State
which permits the State to maintain cradle to grave records of the
citizenry. No democratic country in the world has devised a system
similar to Aadhaar which operates like an electronic leash to tether every c
citizen from cradle t-0 grave. There can be no question of free consent
in situations where an individual is being coerced to part with its biometric
information (a) to be eligible for welfare schemes of the State; and/or
(b) under the threat of penal consequences. In other words, the State
cannot compel a person to part with biometrics as a condition precedent
D
for discharge of the State's constitutional and statutory obligations. In
· support of his submission that there cannot be coercive measures on the
parf<.if the Government to part with such information ·and it has to be
voluntary and based on informed consent, Mr. Divan refered to the
followingjudgments:
(i) National Legal Services Authority v. Union ofIndia & Ors. '0 E
'.'75. Article 21, as already indicated, guarantees the protection
of"personal autonomy" ofan individual. In Anuj Garg v. Hotel
Assn. of India [(2008) 3 SCC l] (SCC p. 15, paras 34-35),
this Court h.eld that personal autonomy i'ncludes both the
negative right of not to be subject to interference by others F
and the. positive right of individuals to make decisions about
their life, to express themselves and to choose wb.ich activities
tp take part in. Self-de.terminati~n of.gender is art integral part
of personal autonomy and self-expressiop and falls within the
realm of petsonal liberty guaranteed uncler Article 21 of the. G
Constitutio~ otindia." ·
(ii) Suni/ Batra &°Anr. v, Delhi Administration & Ors. 11
'° (2014·) s sec 438
11
(1978) 4 sec 494
H
52 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2017] 7 S.C.R.
A "55. And what is "life" in Article 21? In Kharak Singh
case [AIR 1963 SC 1295 : (1964) 1 SCR 332, 357] Subba
Rao, J. quoted Field, J. in Munn v. Illinois [94 US 113 (1877)]
to emphasise the quality oflife covered by Article 21:
"Something more than mere animal existence. The inhibition
B against its deprivation extends to all those limbs and faculties
by which life is enjoyed. The provision equally prohibits the
mutilation of the body by the amputation of an arm or leg, or
the putting out of an eye or the destruction of any other
organ of the body through which the soul communicates with
the outer world."
c
A dynamic meaning must attach to life and liberty."
(iii) Aruna Ramachandra Shanbaug v. Union ofIndia & Ors. 12
"25. Mr T.R. Andhyarujina, learned Senior Counsel whom we
had appointed as amicus curiae, in his erudite submissions
D explained to us the law on the point. He submitted that in general
in common law it is the right of every individual to have the
control of his own person free from all restraints or interferences
of others. Every human being of adult years and sound mind
has a right to determine what shall be done with his own body.
E In the case of medical treatment, for example, a surgeon who
performs an operation without the patient's consent commits
assault or battery. It follows as a corollary that the patient
possesses the right not to consent i.e. to refuse treatment. (In
the United States this right is reinforced by a constitutional
right of privacy). This is known as the principle ot self-
F determination or informed consent. Mr Andhyarujina submitted
that the principle of self-determination applies when a patient
of sound mind requires that life support should be discontinued.
The same principle applies where a patient's consent has been
expressed at an earlier date before he became unconscious or
G otherwise incapabre of communicating it as by a "living will"
or by giving written authority to doctors in anticipation of his
incompetent situation.
xxx xxx xxx
12
(2011) 4 sec 454
H
BINOY VISWAM v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS. 53
[A. K. SIKRI, J.]
93. Rehnquist, C.J. noted that in law even touching of one A
person by another without consent and without legal justification
was a battery, and hence illegal. The notion of bodily integrity
has been embodied in the requirement that informed consent
is generally required for medical treatment. As observed by
Cardozo, J. while on the Court of Appeals of New York:
B
"Every human being of adult years and sound mind has a
right to determine what shall be done with his own body, and
a surgeon who performs an operation without his patient's
consent commits an assault, for which he is liable in
damages."
c
"Vide Schloendorff v. Society of New York Hospital [211
NY 125: 105NE92(1914)], NY at pp. 129-30, NEatp. 93.
Thus the informed consent doctrine hl),s become firmly
entrenched in American Tort Law. The logical corollary of the
doctrine of informed consent is that the patient generally
possesses the right not to consent, that is, to refuse treatment." D
38. He, thus, submitted that the right to life covers and extends to
a person's right to protect his or her body and identity from harm. The
right to life extends to allowing a person to preserve and protect his or
her finger prints and iris scan. The strongest and most secure manner
of a person protecting this facet of his or her bodily integrity and identity E
is to retain and not part with finger prints/iris scan. He argued that the
right to life under Article 21 permits every person to live life to the fullest
and to enjoy freedoms guaranteed as fundamental rights, constitutional
rights, statutory rights and common law rights. He also argued that the
constitutional validity of a statutory provision must be judged by assessing F
the effect the impugned provision has on fundamental rights. The effect
of the impugned provision is to coerce persons into parting with their
finger prints and iris scan and lodging these personal and intimate aspects
of an individual's identity with the State as part of a programme that is in
the petitioner's view wholly illegitimate and the validity of which is pending
before the Constitution Bench. G
39. Expressing his grave fear and misuse of personal information
parted with by the citizenry in the form of biometrics i.e. finger prints
and iris scan, Mr. Divan made a passionate plea that requirement of
enrollment for Aadhaar is designed to facilitate and encourage priva.!e
H
54 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2017] 7 S.C.R.
A sector operators to create applications that depend upon the Aadhaar
data base for the purposes of authentication/verification. This would
mean that non-governmental, private sector entities such as .banks,
employers, any point of payment, taxi ~ervices, airlines, colleges, schools,
movie theatres, clubs, service providers, travel companies, etc. will all
utilise the Aadhaar data base and may also insist upon an Aadhaar nllmber
B
or Aadhaar authentication. This would mean that at every stage in an
individual's daily activity his or her presence could be traced to a location
in real time. One of the purposes of Aadhaar as projected by the
respondents is that it will be a single point verification for KYC (Know
Your Customer). This is permissible and indeed contemplated by the
c impugned Act. Given the very poor quality of scrutiny of documents by
private enrollers and enrollment agencies (without any governmental
supervision) means that the more rigorous KYC process at present being
employed by banks and other financial institutions will yield to a system
which depends on a much weaker data base. This would eventually
imperil the integrity of the financial system and also threaten the economic
D
sovereignty of the nation. According to him, Aadhaar Act does not
serve as an identity as incorrectly projected by the respondents but serves
as a method of identification. Every citizen-state and citizen-service
provider interaction requiring identification is sought to be captured and
retained by the government at a central base and a whole ecology
E developed that would require reference to this central data base on
multiple occasions in course of the day. He argued that this exercise of
enrollment impermissibly creates the foundation for real time, continuous
and pervasive identification of citizens in breach of the freedoms
guaranteed under the Constitution.
F 40. Another submission ofMr. Divan was that object behind Section
l 39AA of the Act was clearly discriminatory inasmuch as it creates two
classes: one class of those persons who volunteer to enrol themselves
under Aadhaar Scheme and provide the particulars in their income-tax
returns and second category of those who refuse to do so. This provision
by laying down adverse consequences for those who do not enrol
G becomes discriminatory qua that class and, therefore, is violative of
Article 14 of the Constitution. Another limb of his submission was that
it also creates an artificial class of those who object to such a provision
of enrollment under Aadhaar. According to him, this would be violative
ofequalityclause enshrined inArticle 14 of the Constitution and in support
H
BINOY VISWAM v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS. 55
[A. K. SIKRI, J.]
of this submission, he relied upon the judgment of this Court in Nagpur A
Improvement Trust&: Anr. v. Vitflal Rao & Ors.13. Paras 21, 22 and
2.6 reads as under:
"21. The first point which was raised was: whether it is the State
which is the acquiring authority or it is the Improvement Trust
which is the acquiring authority, under the Improvement Act. It B
seems to us that it is quite clear, especially in view of Section 17-
A as inserted by para 6 of the Schedule, that the acquisition will
be by the Government and it is only on payment of the cost of
acquisition to the Government that the lands vest in the Trust. It is
true that the acquisition is for the Trust and may be at its instance,
but nevertheless the acquisition is by the Government. c
22. If this is so, then it is quite clear that the Government can
acquire for a housing accommodation scheme either under the
Land Acquisition Act or under the Improvement Act. If this is so,
it enables the State Government to discriminate between one
owner equally situated from another owner. D
xxx xxx xxx
26. It is now well-settled that the State can make a reasonable
classification forthe purpose oflegislation. It is equally well-settled
that the classification in order to be reasonable must satisfy two E
tests: (i) the classification must be founded on intelligible differentia
and (ii) the differentia must have a rational relation with the object
sought to be achieved by the legislation in question. In this
connection it must be borne in mind that the object itself should be
lawful. The object itself cannot be discriminatory, for otherwise,
for instance, ifthe object is to discriminate against one section of F
the minority the discrimination cannot be justified on the ground
that there is a reasonable classification because it has rational
relation to the object sought to be achieved .
. 41. He also relied upon the judgment in the case of Subramanian
Swamy v. Director, Central Bureau of Investigation & Anr. 14 • Paras G
58 and 59reads as under:
"58. The Constitution permits the State to determine, by the process
of classification, what should be regarded as a class for purposes
" (1973) 1 sec soo
"(2014) s sec 682 H
56 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2017] 7 S.C.R.
A oflegislation and in relation to law enacted on a particular subject.
There is bound to be some degree of inequality when there is
segregation of one class from the other. However, such segregation
must be rational and not artificial or evasive. In other words, the
classification must not only be based on some qualities or
characteristics, which are to be found in all persons grouped
B
together and not in others who are left out but those qualities or
characteristics must have a reasonable relation to the object of
the legislation. Differentia which is the basis of classification must
be sound and must have reasonable relation to the object of the
legislation. If the object itselfis discriminatory, then explanation
c that classification is reasonabldhaving rational relation to the object
sought to be ac::ieved is immaterial.
59. It seems to us that classification which is made in Section 6-
A on the basis of status in government service is not permissible
under Article 14 as it defeats the purpose of finding prima facie
D truth into the allegations of graft, which amount to an offence
under the PC Act, 1988. Can there be sound differentiation
between corrupt public servants based on their status? Surely
not, because irrespective of their status or position, corrupt public
servants are corrupters of public power. The con'upt public
servants, whether high or low, are birds of the same feather and
E must be confronted with the process of investigation and inquiry
equally. Based on the position or status in service, no distinction
can be made between public servants against whom there are
allegations amounting to an offence under the PC Act, 1988."
42. In fine, submission of"Mr. Divan was that save and except by
F "reading down", section I 39AA is unworkable. This is because Aadhaar
by its very design and by its statute is "voluntary" and creates a right in
favour of a resident without imposing any duty. There is no compulsion
under the Aadhaar Act to enroll or obtain a number. If a person chooses
not to enroll, at the highest, in terms of the Aadhaar Act, he or she may
G be denied access to certain benefits and services funded through the
Consolidated Fund oflndia. When the Aadhaar enrollment procedure is
supposedly based on informed free consent and is voluntary a person
_cannot be compelled by another law to waive free consent so as to alter
the voluntary nature of enrollment that is engrafted in the parent statute.
The right of a resident under the parent Act cannot be converted into a
H
BINOY VISWAM v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS. 57
[A. K. SIKRl, J.]
duty so long as the provisions of the Aadhaar Act cannot be converted A
into a duty so long as the provisions of the Aadhaar Act remain as they
are. Argument was that Section 139 AA be read down to hold that it is
only voluntary provision by taking out the sting of mandatoriness contained
therein and there is no compulsion on any person to give Aadhaar number.
43. We may mention at this ~tag,"..ttselfthat on conclusion of his B
argumeQ.ts, Mr. Divan was put a ·specific query that most of the arguments
presented by him endeavoured to project aesthetics of law and
jurisprudel).Ce which had tM shades (Jf •.Right to Privacy' jurisprudence
which could not be gone into by this Bench as this very aspect was
already referred ~ the Constitution Bench. Mr. Divan was candid in
accepting this fact and his submission was that in thes~ circumstances,
c
the option for this Bench was to stay the operation of proviso to sub-
section (2) of Section 139AA of the Act till the decision is rendered by
the Constitution Bench.
44. Mr. Salman Khurshid, learned senior counsel who appeared
in Writ Petition (Civil) No. 247of2017, while adopting the arguments of D
Mr. Datar and Mr. Divan, made an additional submission, invoking the
principle of right to live with dignity which, according to him, was
somewhat different from the Right to Privacy. He submitted that although
dignity inevitably includes privacy, the former has several other
dimensions which need to be explored as well. In his submissions, the E
test to identify whether certain data collected about individuals is intrusive
or merely expansive is to consider whether it causes embarrassment,
indignity or invasion of privacy. Thus, the concept of dignity is quite
distinct from that of privacy. Privacy is a conditional concept. One has
it only to the extent that one's circumstances allow for it, as a matter of
fact and law. While it is widely accepted that a situation may occur F
where a person may not have any Right to Privacy whatsoever, dignity
is an inherent possession of every person, regardless of circumstance.
In that sense, Dignity is an inherent dimension of equality, the basis of
John Rawls 'Theory ofJustice'. The Social Contract theory propounded
by Rousseau remains the ground on which John Rawls developed the G
model of the Original Position in w~ich the contours of the compact are
conceived. Anything that reduces the personality of the participant, such
as diluting the human element and substituting it with a number or biometric
data, virtually destroys the model.. Dignity is an immutable value, held in
equal measure at all times by all people, a quality privacy does not share.
H
58 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2017] 7 S.C.R.
A No court has ever held that a person can be stripped entirely ofhir/her
dignity. The concept of dignity is deeper than that of privacy and its
boundaries do not depend upon the circumstance of any individual and
thus the State cannot legitimately fully infringe upon it. He pointed out
that in M. Nagaraj & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors. 15 , this Court has,
thus, elucidated the concept of Right to Dignity in the following manner:
B
"20 .... This Court has in numerous cases deduced fundamental
features which are not specifically mentioned in Part Ill on the
principle that certain unarticulated rights are implicit in the
enumerated guarantees.
c xxx ' xxx xxx
26. It is the duty of the State not only to protect the human dignity
but to facilitate it by taking positive steps in that direction. No
exact definition of human dignity exists. It refers to the intrinsic
value of every human being, which is to be respected. It cannot
D be taken away. It cannot give (sic be given). It simply is. Every
human being has dignity by virtue of his existence. The
constitutional courts in Germany, therefore, see human dignity as
a fundamental principle within the system of the basic rights. This
is how the doctrine of basic structure stands evolved under. the
German Constitution and by interpretation given to the concept
E by the constitutional courts."
45. After explaining the aforesaid distinction be~een the two
concepts, Mr. Khurshid argued that the impugned provision in the Income
Tax Act was violative of right to live with dignitY guaranteed under Article
21 of the Constitution. He submitted that Right to Life and Liberty .
F mentioned in Article 21 of the Constitution encompasses within its right
to live with dignity as has been held in catena of cases by this Court. He
explained in detail as to how the concept of dignity was dealt with by
different jurists from time to time including Kant who identified dignity
with autonomy and Dworkin who exemplified the doctrine of dignity on
G the conception of living well, which itself is based on two principles of
dignity, namely, selfrespect and authenticity.. In this sense, he submitted
that living with dignity involves giving importance to living our life well
and acting independently from the personal sense of character and
commitment to standards and ideals we stand for. The mandatory.
"(2006) s sec 212
H
BINOY VISWAM v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS. 59
[A. K. SIKRI, J.]
requirement of Aadhaar card makes an unwarranted intrusion in the A
iJUportance we give to our bodily integrity in living our life well and compels
human beings 'tci express themselves the way the State wants. He also
submitted that the features relevant for upholding the dignity of a human
being will be severely compromised with when the data are cross-
referenced with data relating to other spheres of life and are disclosed B
to third parties through different data collected for varied reasons. This
would take place without the knowledge and consent of the poor
assessees who are apparently required to mandatory obtain the Aadhaar
card only for the plirposes of payment of taxes.
46. Mr. Khurshid also raised doubts and fears about the
unauthorised disclosure of the information given by these persons who C
e11roll themselves under Aadhaar and submitted that in the absence of
proper mech~nism in place to check unauthorised disclosure, the impugned
provision of makingAadhaar card for filing tax returns cannot be said to
be consistent with the democratic ideals. Mr. Khurshid also submitted
that there was no compelling state interests in having such a provision D
introducing compulsive element and depriving from erstwhile voluntary
nature of Aadhaar scheme. According to him, the 'proportionality of
means' concept is an essential one since integrating data beyond what is
really necessary for the stated purpose is clearly unconstitutional. He
submitted that in light of the decision in the case of Gobind v. State of
Madhya Pradesh 16 , which has been the position of this Court since the E
past forty-two years and has been cited with approval often, it is humbly
submitted that the State has the onerous burden ofjustifying the impugned
mandatory provision. The 'compelling state interest' justification is only
one aspect of the broader 'strict scrutiny' test, which was applied by this
Court in Anuj Garg v. Hotel Association ofIndia 17• The other essential F
facet is to demonstrate 'narrow tailoring', i.e., that the State must
demonstrate that even if a compelling interest exists, it has adopted a
method that will infringe in the narrowest possible manner upon individual
rights. He submitted that neither is there any compelling State interest
warranting such a harsh mandatory provision, nor has it been narrowly
tailored to meet the object, if any. G
47. In this hue, he also submitted that Section I 39AA of the Act
violates the Rule of Law. Elaborating his argument, he submitted th11t a
legal system which in general observes the rule oflaw treats its people
"(1975) 2 sec 148
11
(2008) 3 sec 1 H
60 SUPREME COURT REPORTS · [2017] 7 S.C.R.
A as persons, in the sense that it attempts to guide their behaviour through
affecting the circumstances of their action. lt, thus, presupposes that
they are rational autonomous creatures and attempts to affect their actions
and habits by affecting their deliberations. It satisfies men's craving for
reasonable certainty of form as well as substance,· and for dignity of
process as well as dignity ofresult. On the other hand, when the rule of
B
law is violated, it maybe either in the form of leading to uncertainty or it
may lead to frustrated and disappointed expectations. · It leads t9 the
first when the law does not enable people to foresee future developments
or to form definite expectations. It leads to frustrated expectations when
the appearance of stab.ility and certainty which encourages people to
c rely and plan on the basis of the existing law is shattered by retroactive
law-making or by preventing proper law-enforcement, etc. The evils of
frustrated expectations are greater. Quite apart from the concrete harm
they cause they also offend dignity in expressing disrespect for people's
autonomy. The law in such cases encourages autonomous action only
in order to frustrate its purpose. When such frustration is the result of
D
human action or the result of the activities of social institutions then it
expresses disrespect. Often it is analogous to entrapment: one is
encouraged innocently t<J rely on the law and then that assurance is
withdrawn and one's very reliance is turned into a cause of harm to one.
Just as in the instant case, the impugned provision came into force when
E the order of the Court that Aadhaar card is not mandatory, still continues
to operate.
48. In the alternative, another submission of Mr. Khurshid was .
that Section 139AA was retrospective in nature as per proviso to sub-
section (2) thereof. As per the said proviso, on failure to give Aadhaar
F number, the consequence was not only to render the PAN Card invalid
prospectively but from the initial date of issuance of PAN Card in view
of the expression 'as ifthe person had not applied for Permanent Account
Number' which would meant that PAN Card would be invalidated by
rendering the same void ab initio i.e. from retrospective effect. Such
a retrospective effect, according to him, was violative of Article 20(1) of
G the Constitution. Further, retrospective operation is not permissible without
separate objects for such operations as held in Dayawati v. Inderjit 18 •
In conclusion, learned senior counsel submitted that the law regarding
mandatory requirement of Aadhaar card is a hasty piece of legislation
"(1966) 3 SCR 275
H
BINOY VISWAM v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS. 61
[A. K. SIKRI, J.]
without much thought going into it. It is submitted that the Aadhaar card A
cannot be made mandatory for filing tax returns with such far-reaching
consequences for non-compliance, unless and until suitable measures
are put in place to ensure that the dignity of the assessees is not
compromised with. The generalisation, centralisation and disclosure of
biometric information, however, accidental it might be, has to be
B
effectively controlled andJnechani&JnS have to be put in place to inquire
and penalise those found g\lijty 6f~i~<i!i!sfllg such information. The need
to do so is extremely crucial ·iri vi'ew of the fact that biometric systems
may be bypassed, hacked, or even fail. Unless the same is done, the
identity of the citizens will be reduced to a collection of instrumentalised
markers. Further, the organisations and authorities allowed to conduct it c
should be strictly defined .. There has to be a strict control over any
systematic use of common identifiers. No such re-grouping of data can
be allowed as coqld lead to the use of biometrics for exclusion of
vulnerable groups. Brown considers surveillance as both a discursive
and a material practice that reifies bodies around divisive lines. D
Surveillance of certain communities has been both social as well as
political norm. He further submitted that this Court cannot lose sight of
the fact that the data collected under the impugned provision may be
used to carry out discriminatory research and sort subjects into groups
for specific reasons. The fact that the impugned provision creates an
~pprehension in the minds of the people, legitimate and reasonable enough E
with no preventive mechanism in place, is in itself a violation of the right
to life and personal liberty as enshrined under the Constitution.
49. Mr, Anando Mukherjee, learned counsel, appeared in Writ
Petition (Civil) No. 304 of 2017, while reiterating the.submissions of
earlier counsel, argued that Section 139AA was confused, self-destructive F
and self-defeating provision for the reason that on the one hand, it had
an effect of making enrollment into Aadhaar mandatory, but, on the other
hand, by virtue of the explanation contained in the provision itself, it is
kept voluntary and as a matter of right for the same set of individuals
and for the purposes of Section 139AA. He also submitted that there
was a conflict between Section 139AA of the Act and Section 29 of G
Aadhaar Act inasmuch as Section 29 puts a blanket embargo on using
the core biometric information, collected or created under the Aadhaar
Act for any purpose other than generation of Aadhaar numbers and
authentication under the Aadhaar Act. Mr. Mukherjee went to the extent
H
62 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2017] 7 S.C.R.
A of describing the impugned provision as colourable exercise of power
primarily on the ground that when Aadhaar Act is voluiltary in nature,
there was no question of making this very provision mandatory by virtue
of Section 139AA of the Act.
50. Appearing for Union of India, Mr. Mukul Rohatgi, learned
B Attorney General for India; put stiff resistance to the submissions
advanced on behalf of the petitioners. In a bid to torpedo and pulverise
the arguments as set forth on the side of t~e petitioners, the learned
Attorneypyramid his arguments in the following style:
In the first, Mr. Rohatgi made few preliminary remarks: First
c such submission was that. many contentions advanced by the counsel
for the petitioners touch upon the question of Right to Privacy which had
already been referred to the Constitution Bench and, th~refore, those
aspects were not required to be dealt with. In this behalf, he specifically
referred to the following observations of this Court in its order dated
August 11, 2015, which were made by the three Judge Bench in Writ
D Petition (Civil) No. 494of2012:
"At the same time, we are also of the opinion that the institutional
integrity and judicial discipline reguire that pronouncement made
by larger Benches of this Court cannot be ignored by the smaller
Benches without appropriately explaining the reasons for not
E following the pronouncements made by such larger Benches. With
due respect to all the learned Judges who rendered the subsequent
judgments - where right to privacy is asserted or referred to their
Lordships concern for the liberty of human beings, we are of the
humble opinion that there appears to be certain amount of apparent
F unresolved contradiction in the law declared by this Court."
Notwithstanding these preliminary remarks, he rebutted the said
argument based on Article 21, including Right to Privacy, by raising a
plea that Right to Privacy/Personal Autonomy/Bodily Integrity is not
absolute. He referred to the judgment of the United States Supreme
G Court in Roe v. Wade 19 wherein it was held:
"The privacy right involved, therefore, cannot be said to be
absolute. In fact, it is not clear to us that the claim assi:rted by
some amici that one has an unlimited right to do with one's body
as one pleases bears a close relationship to the right of privacy
19 410 U.S. 113 (1973)
H
BINOY VISWAM v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS. 63
[A. K. SIKRI, J.]
previously articulated in the Court's decisions. The Court has A
refused. to recognise an unlimited right of this kind in the past."
He also relied upon the judgment of this Court in Sharda v.
DharmpaP. 0 where the Court held that a matrimonial court has the power
to order a person to undergo medical test. Passing of such an order by
the court would not be in violation of the right to personal liberty under B
Article 21 of the Indian Constitution.
51. His second preliminary submission was that insofar as
challenge to the validity of Section 139AA on other grounds is concerned,
it is to be kept in mind that the constitutional validity of a statute could be
chailenged only on two grounds, i.e. the Legislature enacting the law c
was not competent to enact that particular law or such a law is violative
of any of the provisions of the Constitution. In support, he referred to
the various judgments of this Court.
52. He, thus, submitted that no third ground was available to any
of the petitioners to challenge the constitutional validity ofa legislative D
enactment. According to him, the principle proportionality should not be
read into Article 14 of the Constitution, while taking support from the
judgment in K.T. Plantation Private Limited & Anr. v. State of
Karnataka 21 , wherein it is held that plea of unreasonableness,
arbitrariness, proportionality, etc. always raises an element of subjectivity
on which a court cannot strike down a statute or a statutory provision. E
53. Third introductory submission of the learned Attorney General
was that the scope ofjudicial review in a fiscal statute was very limited
and Section 139AA of the Act, being a part of fiscal statute, following
parameters laid down in State ofMadhya Pradesh v. Rakesh Kohli & ·
Anr.22 had to be kept in mind: F
"32. While dealing with constitutional validity of a taxation law
enacted by Parliament or State Legislature, the court must have
regard to the following principles:
(i) there is always presumption in favour of constitutionality of a G
law made by Parliament or a State Legislature,
(ii) no enactment ·can be struck down by just saying that it is
20
c2oos) 4 sec 493
21
c2011)4 sec 414 ·
22 c2012) 6 sec 312
H
64 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2017] 7 S.C.R.
A arbitrary or unreas_onable or irrational but some constitutional
infirmity has to be found,
(iii) the court is not concerned with the wisdom or unwisdom, the
justice or injustice of the law as Parliament and State Legislatures
are supposed to be alive to the needs of the people whom they
B represent and they are the best judge of the community by whose
suffrage they come into existence,
(iv) hardship is not relevant in pronouncing on the.constitutional
validity of a fiscal statute or economic law, and
(v) in the field of taxation, the legislature enjoys greater latitude
c for classification ... ".
54. In this hue, he also argued that the State enjoys the widest
. latitude where measure of ec~:momic regulations are concerned {See -
Secretary to Government of Madras & Anr. v. P.R. Sriramu/u &
Anr. 23 , paragraph 15) and that ma/a jides cannot be attributed to the
D Parliament, as held in G C. Kanungo v. State of Orissa 24, (paragraph
11 ). Also, the courts approached the issue with the presumption of
constitutionality in mind and that Legislature intends and correctly
appreciates the need of its own people, as held in Mohd. HanifQuareshi
& Ors. v. State of Bihar25 (paragraph 15).
E 55. On merits, the argument of Mr. Rohatgi was that once the
aforesaid basic parameters are kept in mind, the impugned provision
passes the muster of constitutionality. Ad".erting to the issue oflegislative
competence, he referred to Article 246 and 248 of the Constitution as
well as Entry 82 and Entry 97 ofList-I of Schedule-VII of the Constitution
which empowers the Parliament to legislate on the subject pertaining to
F
income-tax. Therefore, it could not be said that the impugned provision
made was beyond the competence of the Parliament. He also submitted
that in any case residuary power lies with the Parliament and this power
to legislate is plenary, as held in Synthetics and Chemicals Ltd. &
Ors. v. State of U.P. & Ors. 26
G
"56. On behalf of the State both Mr. Trivedi and Mr. Yogeshwar
Prasad contended that regulatory power of the State was there
" <1996) 1 sec 345
" (I 995) 5 sec 96
"AIR 1958 SC 731
H "(1990) 1 sec 109
BINOY VISWAM v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS. 65
[A. K. SIKRI, J.]
and in order to regulate it was possible to impose certain A
disincentives in the form of fees or levies. Imposition of these
imposts as part of regulatory process is permissible, it was
submitted. Our attention was drawn to the various decisions where
by virtue of "police power" in respect of alcohol the State has
imposed such impositions. Though one would not be justified in
B
adverting to any police power, it is possible to conceive sovereign
power and on that sovereign power to have the power of regulation
to impose such conditions so as to enstit,ffhatJ~e t{;gulations are
obeyed and complied with. We would.riot °like, howi;ver, to embark
upon any theory of police power because the Indian Constitution
does not recognise police power as such. But we must recognise c
the exercise of sovereign power which gives the States sufficient
authority to enact any law subject to the limitations of the
Constitution to discharge its functions. Hence, the Indian
Constitution as a sovereign State has power to legislate on all
branches except to the limitation as to the division of powers
D
between the Centre and the States and also subject to the
fundamental rights guaranteed under the Constitution. The Indian
State, between the Centre and the States, has sovereign power.
The sovereign power is plenary and inherent in every sovereign
State to do all things which promote the health, peace, morals,
education and good order of the people. Sovereignty is difficult to E
define. This power of sovereignty is, however, subject to
constitutional limitations. This power, according to some
constitutional authorities, is to the public what necessity is to the
individual. Right to tax or levy imposts must be in accordance
with the provisions of the Constitution."
F
56. Rebutting the argument of Mr. Datar that by making the
impugned provision mandatory the Legislature had acted contrary to the
judgments of thi:> Court, Mr. Rohatgi argued that this argument was
devoid of any merit on various counts: First, there was no judgment of
this Court and the orders referred were only interim orders. Secondly,
in any case, those orders were passed at a time when Aadhaar was G
being implemented as a scheme in administrative/executive domain and
the Court was considering the validity of Aadhaar scheme in that hue/
background. Those orders have not been passed in the context of
examining the validity of any legislative meas~re. Thirdly, no final view
H
66 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2017] 7 S.C.R.
A is taken in the form of any judgment that Aadhaar is unconstitutional
and, therefore, there is no basis in existence which was required to be
removed. Fourthly, the Parliament was competent to pass the law and
provide statutory framework to give legislative backing to Aadhaar in
the absence of any such law which existed at that time. He, thus,
B submitted that there was no question of curing the alleged basis of
judgment/interim orders by legislation. He .specifically relied upon the
following passage from the judgment in the case of Goa Foundation &
Anr. y. State of Goa'& Anr. 27 : ·
"24. The principles on which first question would require to be
answered are not in doubt. The power to invalidate a legislative
or executive act lies with the Court. A judicial pronouncement,
either declaratory or conferring rights on the citizens cannot be
set at naught by a subsequent legislative act for that would amount
to an encroachment on the judicial powers. However, the
legislature would be competent to pass an amending or a validating
D act, if deemed fit, with retrospective effect removing the basis of
the decision of the Court. Even in such a situation the courts may
not approve a retrospective deprivation of accrued rights arising
from a judgment by means of a subsequent legislation (Madan
Mohan Pathak v. Union of India). However, where the Court's
judgment is purely declaratory, the courts will lean in support of
E the legislative power to remove the basis of a court judgment
even retrospectively, paving the way for a restoration of the status
quo ante. Though the consequence may appear to be an exercise
to overcome the judicial pronouncement it is so only'at first blush; '1
a closer scrutiny would confer legitimacy on such an exercise as
F the same is a normal adjunct of the legislative power. The whole
exercise is one of viewing the different spheres of jurisdiction
exercised by the two bodies i.e. the judiciary and the legislature.
The balancing act, delicate as it is, to the constitutional scheme is
guided by the well-defined values. which have found succinct
manifestation in the views of this Court in Bakhtawar Trust."
G
57. Mr. Rohatgi thereafter read extensively from the counter
affidavit filed on behalf of the Union oflndia detailing the rational and
objective behind introduction of Section 139AA of the Act. He submitted
that the provision aims to achieve, inter alia, the following objectives:
21
(20 J6) 6 sec 602
H
BINOY VISWAM v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS. 67
[A. K. SIKRI, J.]
(i) This provision was introduced to tackle the problem of multiple A
PAN cards to same individuals and PAN cards in the name of
fictitious individuals are common medium of money laundering,
tax evasion, creation and channelling of black money. PAN
numbers in name of firm or fictitious persons as directors or
shareholders are used to create layers of shell companies B
through which the aforesaid activities are done. A de-duplication
exercise was done in the year 2006 and a large number of
PAN numbers were found to be duplicate. The problem of
some persons fraudulently obtaining multiple PANs and using
them for making illegal transactions still exists. Over all 11.35
lakh cases of duplicate PAN/fraudulent PAN have been C
detected and accordingly such PANs have been deleted/
deactivated. Out of this, around 10.52 lakh cases pertain to
individual assessees. Total number of Aadhaar for individuals
exceeds 113 crores whereas total number of PAN for
individuals is around 29 crore. Therefore, whereas the Aadhaar D
Act applies to the entire population, the Income Tax Act applies
to a much smaller sub-set of the population, i.e. the tax payers.
In order to ensure One Pan to One Person, Aadhaar can be
the sole criterion for allotment of PAN to individuals only after
all existing PAN are seeded with Aadhaar and quoting of
Aadhaar is mandated for new PAN applications. E
Counter affidavit filed by the Union ofIndia also gives the following
instances of misuse of PAN:
(a) In NSDL scame of2006, about one lakh bogus bank and demat
accounts were opened through use of PANs. The real PAN
owners were not aware of these accounts. F
(b) As Banks progressively started insisting on PANs for opening
. of bank accouqts, unscrupulous operators managed multiple
PANs for providing entries and operating undisclosed accounts
for making financial transactions.
G
(c)Entry operators manage a large number of shell companies
using duplicate PANs or PANs issued in the name of dummy
directors and name lenders. As the persons involved as bogus
directors are usually the same set of persons, linkage with
Aadhaar would prevent such misuse. Further, it will also be
H
68 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2017] 7 S.C.R.
A expedient for the Enforcement agencies to identify and red
flag such misuses in future.
(d)Cases have also been found where multiple PANs are acquired
by a single entity by dubious means and used for raising loans
from different banks. In one such case at Ludhiana, multiple
B PANs were found acquired by a person in his individual name
as well as in the name of his firms by dubious means. During
investigation, he admitted to have acquired multiple PANs for
raising multiple loans from banks and to avoid adverse CIBIL
information. Prosecution has been launched by the Income
Tax Department in this case u/s 277 A, 278, 278B of the Act in
c addition
(ii) To tackle the problem of black money, Mr. Rohatgi pointed out
that the Second Report of the Special Investigation Team (SIT)
on black money, headed by Justice M.B. Shah (Retd.), after
observing the menace of corruption and black money,
D recommended as follows:
"At present, for entering into financial/business transactions,
persons have option to quote their PAN or UID or passport
number or driving license or any other proof of identity.
However, there is no mechanism/system at present to connect
E the data available with each of these independent proofs of
ID. It is suggested that these databases be interconnected.
This would assist in identifying multiple transactions by one
person with different IDs."
The SIT in its Third Report has recommended the establishment
F of a Central KYC Registry. The rational for the SIT
recommendations was to prove a verifiable and authenticable
identity for all individuals and Aadhaar provides a mechanism to
serve that purpose in a federated architecture without aggregating
all the information at one place.
G The Committee headed by the Chairman, CBDT on 'Measures
to tackle black money in India and abroad' reveals that various
authorities are dealing with the menace of money laundering being
done to evade taxes under the garb of shell companies by the
persons who hold multiple bogus PAN numbers under different
names or variations of their names, providing accommodation
H
BINOY VISWAM v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS. 69
(A. K. SIKRI, J.]
entries to various companies and persons to evade taxes and A
introduce undisclosed and unaccounted income of those persons
into their companies as share applications or loans and advances
or booking fake expenses. These are tax frauds and devices
which are causing loss to the revenue to the tune of thousands of
crores.
B
(iii) Another objective is to curb the menace of shell companies.
It is submitted in this regard that PAN is a basis of all the
requirements in the process of incorporation of a company.
Even an artificial juridical person like a company is granted
PAN. It is required as an ID proof for incorporation of a
company, applying for DIN, digital signature etc. PAN is also c
required for opening a bank account in the name of a company
or individuals. Basic documents required for obtaining a PAN
are ID proof and address proof. It has been observed that
these documents which are a basis of issuance of PAN could
easily be forged and, therefore, PAN cards issued on the basis D
of such forged documents cannot be genuine and it can be
used for various financial frauds/crime. Aadhaar will ensure
that there is no duplication of identity as biometric will not allow
that. If at the time of opening of bank accounts itself, the
more robust identity prooflike Aadhaar had been used in place
of PAN, the menace of mushrooming of non-descript/shell/ E
jamakharchi/bogus companies would have been prevented.
There is involvement of natural person in the complex we~ of
shell companies only at the initial stage when the shareholders
subscribe to the share capital of the shell company. After that
may layers are created because there is company to company F
transaction and much more complex structure of shell company
compromising the finaBcial integration of nation is formed which
makes it almost impossible to identify the real beneficiary
(natural person) involved in these shell companies. These shell
companies have been used for purpose of money laundering
at a large scale. The fake PAN cards have facilitated the G
enormous growth of shell companies which were being used
for layering of funds and illegal transfer of such funds to some
other companies/persons or parked abroad in the guise of
remittances against import. The share capital of these shell
H·
70 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [201.7] 7 S.C.R.
A companies are subscribed by fake shareholders through'
numerous bank accounts opened with the use of fake PAN
cards at the initial stage. ·
(iv) According to the respondents, this provision will help in
widening of tax base. It was pointed out that more than 113
B crore people have registered themselves under Aadhaar. Adults
coverage of Aadhaar is more than 99%. Aadhaar being a
unique identification, the problem ofbogus or duplicate PANs
can be dealt with in a more systematic and foolproof manner.
According to the respondent, in fact, it has already shown results
c as Aadhaar has led to weeding outduplicate and fakes in many
welfare programmes such as PDS, MNREGS, LPG Pahal, Old
Age pension, scholarships etc. during the last two years and it has
led to savings ofapproximately Rs.49,000 crores to the exchequer.
58. Mr. Rohatgi also referred to that portions of the counter
D affidavit which narrates the following benefitsAadhaar seeding in PAN
database:
(a) Permanent Account Number (PAN) - PAN is a ten-digit
alpha-numeric number allotted by the Income Tax Department
to any 'person' who applies for it or to whom the department
E a.Hots the number without an application. One PAN for one
person is the guiding principle for allotment of PAN. PAN
acts as the identifier of taxable entity and aggregator of all
financial transactions undertaken by the. taxable entity i.e.'.·
'person'.
(b) Legal provisions relating to PAN - PAN is the key or
F
identifier of all computerized records relating to the taxpayer.
The requirement for obtaining of PAN is mandated through
Section l 39A of the Act. The procedure for application for
PAN is prescribed in Rule 114 of the Rules. The forms
prescribed for PAN application are 49A and 49AA for Indian
G and Foreign Citizens/Entities. Quoting of PAN has been
mandated for certain transactions above specified threshold
value in Rule l 14B of the Rules.
(c) Uniqueness of PAN - For achieving the objective of one
PAN to one assessee, it is required to maintain uniqueness of
H
BINOY VISWAM v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS. 71
[A. K. SIKRI, J.]
PAN. The uniqueness of PAN is achieved by conducting a A
de-duplication check on all already existing allotted PAN against
the data furnished by new applicant. Under the existing system
· of PAN only demographic data is captured. De-duplication
process is carried out using a Phonetic Algorithm whereby a
Phonetic PAN (PPAN) is created in respect of each applicant B
using the data of applicant's name, father's name, date ofbirth,
gender and status. By comparison of newly generated PPAN
with existing set of PPANs of all assessees duplicate check is
carried out and it is ensured that same person does not acquire
multiple PANs or one PAN is not allotted to multiple persons.
Due to prevalence of common names and large number of C
PAN holders, the demographic way of de-duplication is not
foolproof. Many instances are found where multiple PANs ·
have been allotted to one person or one PAN has been allotted
to multiple persons despite the application of above-mentioned
de-duplication process. While allotment of multiple PAN to D
one person has the risk of diversion of income of person into
several PANs resulting in evasion of tax, the allotment of same
PAN to multiple persons results in· wrong aggregation and
assessment of incomes of several persons as one taxable entity
represented by single PAN.
(d) Presently verification of original documents in only 0.2% cases E
(200 out of 1,00,000 PAN applications) is done on a random
basis which is quite less. In the case of Aadhaar, 100% ·
verification is possible due to availability of on-line Aadhaar
authentication service provided by-the UIDAI. Aadhaar
seeding in PAN database will make PA_N allotment process F
more robust.
(e)Seeding of Aadhaar .number into PAN database will allow a
robust way of de-duplication as Aadhaar number is de-
duplicated using biometric attributes of fingerprints and iris
images. The instance· of a duplicate Aadhaar is almost non- G
existent Further seeking of Aadhaar will allow the Income
Tax Department to weed out any undetected duplicate PANs.
It will also facilitate resolution of cases of one PAN allotted to
multiple persons.
59. After stating the aforesaid purpose, rational and benefits, the, H
72 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2017] 7 S.C.R.
A learned Attorney General submitted that the main provision is not violative
of any constitutional rights of the petitioners. According to him, the
provision was not discriminatory at all inasmuch as it was passed on
reasonable classification, the two classes being tax payers and non tax
payers. He also submitted that it was totally misconceived that this
provision had no rational nexus with the objective sought to be achieved
B
in view of the various objectives and benefits which were sought to be
achieved by seeding Aadhaar with PAN. Mr. Rohatgi also referred to
various orders and judgments of this Court whereunder use of Aadhaar
was endorsed, encouraged or even directed. Following instances are
cited:
c 60. The importance and utility of Aadhaar for delivery of public
services like PDS, curbing bogus admissions in schools and verification
of mobile number subscribers has not only been upheld but endorsed
and recommended by this Court.
61. This Court in the case of PUCL v. Union of India28 has
D approved the recommendations of the High Powered Committee headed
by Justice D.P. Wadhwa, which recommended linking of Aadhaar with
PDS and encouraged State Governments to adopt the same.
62. This Court in State ofKera/a & others vs. President, Parents
Teachers Association, SNVUP and Others 29 has directed use of
E Aadhaar for checking bogus admissions in schools with•the following
observations:
"18. We are, however, inclined to give a direction to the Education
Department, State ofKerala to forthwith give effect to a circular
dated 12.10.2011 to issue UID Card to all the school children and
F follow the guidelines and directions contained in their circular.
Needless to say, the Government can always adopt, in future,
better scientific methods to curb such types of bogus admissions
in various aided schools."
63. While monitoring the PILs relating to night shelters for the
homeless and the right to food through the public distribution system, this
G
Court has lauded and complimented the efforts of the State Governments
for inter alia carrying out bio-metric identification of the head of family
of each household to eliminate fictitious, bogus and ineligible BPL/ AAY
household cards.
"c2011) 14 sec 331
H "c2013) 2 sec 10s
BINOY VISWAM v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS. 73
[A. K. SIKRI, J.]
64. A two Judge Bench of this court in People's Union for Civil A ·
Liberties (PDS Matter) v. Union of India & Ors. 30 has held that
computerisation is going to help the public distribution system in the countly
in a big way and encouraged and endorsed the digitisation of database
including bio-metric identification of the beneficiaries. In fact, this Court
had requested Mr. Nandan Nilekani to suggest ways in which the B
computerisation process of PDS can be expedited.
65. In the case of People's Union/or Civil Liberties v. Union of
India & Ors. 31 , this Court has also endorsed bio-metric identification of
homeless persons so that the benefits like supply of food and kerosene
oil available to persons who are below poverty line can be extended to C
the correct beneficiaries.
66. In the case of Lokniti Foundation v. Union of India &
Ors. 31 , this Court has disposed of the writ petition while approving the
Aadhaar based verification of existing and new mobile number subscribers
and upon being satisfied that an effective process has been evolved to D
ensure identity verification.
67. Mr. Sengupta, learned counsel arguing on behalf of UIDAI,
made additional submissions specifically answering the doctrine of
proportionality argument advanced by Mr. Datar as well as on the aspect
ofinformational self-determination. His submissions in this behalf were E
that proportionality should not be read into Article 14 of the Constitution
and in any case no proportionality or other Article 14 violation had been
made out in the instant case. He also argued that there is no absolute
right to informational self-determination; to the extent such right may
exist it is part of the Right to Privacy whose very existence contours is
before the Constitution Bench of this Court. F
68. Adverting to the doctrine of proportionality, he referred to the
judgments of this Court iu Modern Dental College and Research
Centre3 3 wherein this doctrine is explained and applied and submitted
that the doctrine is applied only in the context of Article 19(1 )(g) and not G
Article 14 of the Constitution. He pointed out that proportionality is not
'' (2013) 14 sec 368
"(2010) s sec 318
32
Writ Petition (C) No. 607 of2016 decided on February 06, 2017
33
Footnote 7 above
H•
74 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2017] 7 S.C.R.
A the governing law even in"the United Kingdom for cl11ims analogous to
Article 14 of the Constitution. His passionate submission was· that
proportionality supplanting traditional review in European Court of Human
Rights cases and not remaining applicable in traditional judicial review
claims has caused immense confusion in British pubic law. Narrating
the stru~ture ofArticle 19, submission of Mr. Sengupta was that freedoms
B
which were enlisted under Article 19(1) were not the absolute freedoms
and they were subject to reasonable restrictions, as provided under sub-
article (2) to (6) of Article 19 itself. It is because of this reason, while
examining as to whether a par.ticular measure violated any of the freedoms
or was a reasonable restriction, balancing exercise was to b~ done by
C the courts and this balancing exercise brings the element of proportionality.
However, this was not envisaged in Article 14 at all.
69. Coming to the impugned provision and referring to the penal
consequences provided in proviso to Section 139AA(2), he argued that
the test of whether' penalty is proportionate is not the same as the doctrine
D of proportionality. Proportionate penalty _is an incident of arbitrariness
whereas there cannot be any arbitrariness qua a. statute. He also
submitted that on facts penalty provided in the impugned provision is
deemed to be the same as that for not filing income tax return with valid
PAN. He also argued that there was rio violation of Article 14 inasmuch
as classification had a reasonable nexus with the object enshrined in the
E
impugned provision. It was open to the Legislature t~ determine decrease
of harm and act accordingly and the Legislature does not have to tackle
problem 100% for it to have a rational nexus. Since individual assessees
are prone to the problem arid financial frauds using fake PAN, whether
individually Or in the guise of legal persons, Aadhaar aims at tackling
F problem which exhibited a rational nexus with the object. According to
Mr. Sengupta, there wa~ no discriminatory object inasmuch as the object .
is to weed out duplicate PANs that allow financial and tax fraud.
Therefore, the provision is not discriminatory in nature.
70. Dealing with the argument of right to informational self-
G determination, the learned counsel submitted that as a matter of c.urrent
practice in India, no absolute right to determine what information about
oneself one wants to disclose; several pieces of personal information
. are required by .Jaw. The perils of comparative law in merely transplanting
from German law; the need to develop an Indian understanding of privacy
and self-determination in the Indian context. Even in German law, the
H
'BINOY VISWAM v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS. 75
[A. K. SIKRI, J.]
·judgment quoted by the petitioner does not demonstrate an untrammelled A
Right to Privacy or information self-determination. The world over,
infopnation over oneself is the most critical element of privacy; the
contours of which are to be determined by a Constitution Bench.
A Caveat
71. Before we enter into the discussion and weigh the merits of B
arguments addressed on both sides, one aspect needs to be made
absolutely clear, though it has been hinted earlier as well. Conscious of
the fact that challenge to Aadhaar scheme/legislation on the ground that
it was violative of Article 21 of the Constitution is pending before the
Constitution B1:nch and, therefore, this Bench could not have decided c
that issue, counsel for the'Petitioners had submitted that they would not
be pressing the issue of Right to P:ivacy. Notwithstanding the same, it
was argued by Mr. Divan, though in the process Mr. Div!ln emphasised
that he was touching upon other facets of Article 21. Likewise, Mr.
Salman Khurshid while arguing that the impugned provision was violative
ofArticle 21, based his submission on Right to Human Dignity as a facet D
of Article 21. He also emphasised that the concept of human dignity
was different from.Right to Privacy. We have taken note of·these
arguments above. However, we feel all these aspects argued by the
petitioners overlap with privacy issues as different aspects of Article 21
of the Constitution. Right to Let Alone has the shades of Right to Privacy E
and it is so held by the Court in R. Rajagopal & Anr. v. State of Tamil
Nadu & Ors. 34 :
"26. We ni.ay now summarise the broad principles flowing from
the above discussion:
(1) The right to privacy is implicit in the right to life and liberty F
guaranteed to the citizens of this country by Article 21. It is a
"right to be let alone". A citizen has a right to safeguard the privacy
of his own, his family, marriage, procreation, motherhood, child-
bearing and education among other matters. None can publish
anything concerning the above matters without .his consent - G
whether truthful or otherwise and whether laudatory or critical. If
he does so, he would be violating the right to privacy of the person
concerned and woµld be liable in an action for damages. Position
rpay, however, be different, if a person voluntarily thrusts himself
·~ (1994) 6 sec 632
H
76 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2017] 7 S.C.R.
A into controversy or voluntarily invites or raises a controversy.
(2) The rule aforesaid is subject to the exception, that any
publication concerning the aforesaid aspects becomes
unobjectionable if such publication is based upon public records
including court records. This is for the reason that once a matter
B becomes a matter of public record, the right to privl!,cy no longer
subsists and it becomes a legitimate subject for comment by press
and media among others: We are, however, of the opinion that in
the interests of decency [Article 19(2)] an exception must be
car¥ed out to this rule, viz., a female who is the victim of a sexual
assault, kidnap, abduction or a like offence should not further be
c subjected to the indignity of her name and the incident being
publicised in press/media.
(3) There is yet another exception to the rule in (1) above -
indeed, this is not an exception but an inder ent rule. In the
case of public officials, it is obvious, right tc· privacy, or for that
D matter, the remedy of action for damages is simply not available
with respect to their ~cts and conduct relevant to the discharge of
their official duties. This is so even where the publication is based
upon facts and statements which are not true, unless the official
establishes that the publication was made (by tfi€defendant) with
E reckless disregard for truth. In such a ca~~, it would be enough
for the defendant (member of the press or media)' to prove that
he acted after a reasonable verification of th~ facts; it is not
necessary for him to prove that what he has written is true. Of
course, where the publication is proved to be false and actuated
by malice or personal animosity, the defendant would have no
F defence and would be liable for damages. It is equally obvious
that in matters not relevant to the discharge of his duties, the
public official enjoys the same protection as any other citizen, as
explained in (1) and (2) above. It needs no reiteration that judiciary,
which is protected by the power to punish for contempt of court
G and Parliament and legislatures protected as their privileges are
by Articles 105 and 104 respectively of the Constitution oflndia,
represent exceptions to this rule.
(4) So far as the Government, local authority and other organs
and institutions exercising governmental power are concerned,
H they cannot maintain a suit for damages for defaming them.
BINOY VISWAM v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS. 77
[A. K. SIKRI, J.]
(5) Rules 3 and 4 do not, however, mean that Official Secrets A
Act, 1923, or any similar enactment or provision having the force
of law does not bind the press or media.
(6) There is no law empowering the State or its officials to prohibit,
or to impose a prior restraint upon the press/media."
So is the Right to Informational Self Determination, as specifically B
spelled out by US Supreme Court in United States Department of
Justice v. Reporters Committee/or Freedom ofthe Press 35 • Because
of the aforesaid reasons and keeping in mind the principle of judicial
discipline, we have made conscious choice not to deal with these aspects
and it would be for the parties to raise these issues before the Constitution c
Bench. Accordingly, other arguments based on Articles 14 and 19 of
the Constitution as well as competence of the legislature to enact such
law are being examined.
72. We have deeply deliberated on the arguments advanced by
various counsel appearing for different petitioners as well as counter D
submissions made by counsel appearing on behalf of the State.
Undoubtedly, the issue that confronts us is of seminal importance. In
recent times, issues about the proprietary, significance, merits and demerits
have generated lots of debate among intelligentia. The Gov:emment
claims that this provision is introduced in the Statute to achieve laudable
objectives and it is in public interest. It is felt that this technology can E
solve many development challenges. The petitioners argue that the move
is impermissible as it violates their fundamental rights. It falls in the
category of, what Ronald Dworkin calls, "hard cases". Nevertheless,
the duty of the court is to decide such cases as well and give better
.decision. While undertaking this exercise ofjudicial review, let us first F
keep in mind the width and extent of power of judicial review of a
legislative action. The Court cannot question the wisdom of the
Legislature in enacting a particular law. It is required to ac.t within the
domain available to it.
Scope of Judicial Review of Legislative Act G
73. Under the Constitution, Supreme Court as well as High Courts
are vested with the power of judicial review of not only administrative
acts of the executive but legislative enactments passed by the legislature
as well. This power is given to the High Courts under Article 226 of the
35
489 U.S. 749 (1989)
H
78 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2017] 7 S.C.R.
A Constitution and to the Supreme Court under Article 32 as well as Article
136 of the Constitution. At the same time, the parameters on which the
power of judicial review of administrative act is to be undertaken are
different from the parameters on which validity oflegislative enactment
is to be examined. No doubt, in exercises of its power of judicial review
of legislative action, the Supreme Court, or for that matter, the High
B
Courts can declare law passed by the Parliament or the State Legislature
as invalid. However, the power to strike down primary legislation enacted
by the Union or the State Legislatures is on limited grounds. Courts can
strike down legislation either on the basis that it falls foul of federal
· distribution of powers or that it contravenes fundamental rights or other
C Constitutional rights/provisions of the Constitution oflndia. No doubt,
since the Supreme Court and the High Courts are treated as the 'ultimate
arbiter in all matters involving interpretation of the Constitution, it is the
Courts which have the final say on questions relating to rights and whether
such a right is violated or not. The basis of the aforesaid statement lies
D in Article 13(2) of the Constitution which proscribes the State ti-om making
'any law which takes away or ~bridges the right conferred by Part III',
enshrining fundamental rights. It,categorically s~ates that any law made
in contravention thereof, to the extent of the contravention, be void.
74. We can also take note ofArticle 372 of the Constitution at this
stage which applies to pre-constitutional laws. Article 372(1) reads as
E under:
"372. Continuance in force of existing laws and their adaptation.-
(!) Notwithstanding the repeal by this Constitution of the
enactments referred to in article 395 but subject to the other
F provisions of this Constitution, all the law in force in the territory
of India immediately before the commencement of this
Constitution shall continue in force therein until altered or repealed
or amended by a competent Legislature or other competent
authority."
G In the context ofjudicial review oflegislation, this provision gives
an indication that all laws enforced prior to the commencement of the
Constitution can be tested for compliance with the provisions of the
Constitution by Courts. -Such a power is recognised by this Court in
Union of India & Ors. v. Sic01'! Limited & Anr. 36 • In that judgment,
"(2009) 2 sec 121
H
·. BINOY VISWAM v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS. 79
[A. K SIKRI, J.]
it was also held that since the term 'laws', as per Article 372, includes A
common law the power of judicial review of legislation, which is a part
of common law ap{llicable in India before the Constitution came into
force, would continue to vest in the Indian courts.
75. With this, we advert to the discussion on the grounds ofjudicial
review that are available to adjudge the validity of a piece of legislation B
passed by the Legislature. We have already mentioned that a particular
law or a provision contained in a statute can be invalidated on two grounds,
namely: (i) it is not within the competence of the Legislature which passed
the law, and/or (ii) it is in contravention ofany of the fundamental rights
stipulated in Part III of the Constitution or any either right/ provision of
the Constitution. These contours of the judicial review are spelled out in C
the clear terms in case of Rakesh Kohli3 7, and particularly the following
paragraphs:
"16. The statute enacted by Parliament or a State Legislature
cannot be declared unconstitutional lightly. The court must be able
to hold beyond any iota of doubt that the violation of the D
constitutional provisions was so glaring that the legislative provision
under challenge cannot stand: Sans flagrant violation of the
constitutional provisions, the law made by Parliament or a State
Legislature is not declared'bad.
17. This Court has repeatedly stated that legislative enactment E
can be struck, down by court only on two grounds, namely (i) that
the appropriate legislature does not have the competence to make
the law, and (ii) that it does not (siC) take away or abridge any of
the fundamental rights enumerated in Part III of the Constitution
or .any other constitutional provisions. In McDowell and Co. while p
dealing with the challenge to an enactment based on Article 14,
this Court stated in para 43 of the Report as follows: (SCC pp.
737-38)
""43 .... A law made by Parliament or the legislature can be
struck dawn by courts on two grounds and two grounds alone G
viz. (1) lack oflegislative competence, and (2) violation ofany
of the fundamental rights guaranteed in Part III of th\:
Constitution or of any other constitutional provision. There is
no third ground .... if an enactment is challenged as violative
" Footnote 20 above
H
80 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2017] 7 S.C.R.
.·
A of Artie; le 14, it can be struck down only if it is found that it is
violative of the equality clause/equal p~otection clause enshrined
therein. Similarly, if an enactment is challenged as violative of
any of the fundamental rights guaranteed by sub-clauses (a)
to (g) of Article 19( 1), it can be struck down only if it is found
not saved by any of the clauses (2) to {6) of Article 19 and so
B
on; No enactment can be struck down by just saying that it is
arbitrary or unreasonable. Some or the other c9nstitutional
infirmity has to be found before ii:tvalidating an Act. An
enactment cannot be struck down on the ground that court
thinks it unjustified. Parliament and the legislatures, composed
c as they are of the representatives of the people, are supposed
to know and be aware of the needs of the people and what is
good and bad for them. The court cannot sit in judgment over
their wisdom:"
(emphasis supplied)
D 26. In Mohd. Hanif Quareshi, the Constitution Bench further · ·
observed that there was always a presumption in favour of
constitutionality of an enactment and the burden is upon him, who
attacks it, to sh9w tliat there flas been a clear violation of the
, constitutional principles. It stated in paraJ 5 of the Report as under:
E (AIR pp. 740-41)
""15 .... The courts, it is accepted, must presume that the
legislature understands and correctly appreciates the needs of
its own people, that its laws are directed to problems made
manifest by experience and that its ~iscriminations are based
F on adequate grounds. It must be borne in mind that the
legislature is free to recognise degrees ofharm and may confine
its restrictions to those case~ where the need is deemed to be
the clearest and finally that in order to sustain the presumption
of constitutionality the court may take into consideration matters
of common knowledge, matters of common report, the history
G of the times and may assume every state of facts which can
be conceived existing at the time of legislation."
27. The above legal position has been reiterated by a Constitution
Bench of this Court in Mahant Moti Das v. S.P. Sahi.
H
. BINOY VISWAM v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS. 81
[A. K. SIKRI, J.]
28. In Hamdard Dawakhana v. Union of India, inter alia, while A
referring to the earlier two decisions, namely, Bengal Immunity
Co. Ltd. and Mahant Moti Das, it was observed in para 8 of the
Report as follows: (Hamdard Dawakhana case, AIR p. 559):
'"'8. Therefore, when the constitutionality of an enactment is
challenged on the ground of violation of any of the articles in B
Part III of the Constitution, the ascertainment of its true nature
· and character becomes necessary i.e. its subject-matter, the
area in which it is intended to operate, it!l purport and intent
have to be determined. In order to do so it is legitimate to take
into consideration all the factofs such as history of the legislation, C
the purpose thereof, the surrounding circumstances and
conditions, the mischief which it intended to suppress, _the
remedy for the disease which the legislature resolved to cure
and the true reason for the remedy .... "
In Hamdard Dawakhana, the Court also followed the statement
of law in Mahant Moti Das and the two earlier decisions, D
namely, Charanjit Lal Chowdhury v. Union oflndia and State
of Bombay v. F.R Balsara and reiterated the principle that
presumption was always in favour of constitutionality of an
enactment.
xx xx xx E
30. A well-known principle that in the field of taxation, the
legislature enjoys a.greater latitude for classification, has been
noted l:iy this Court in a long line of cases. Some of these
decisions are Steelworth Ltd. v. State ofAssam; Gopal Narain
v. State of U.P.; Ganga Sugar Corpn. Ltd. v. State of F
U.P.; R.K. Garg v. Union of India; and Statt;: of
W.B. v. E.I.T.A. India Ltd."
76. Again inAshok Kumar Thakur v. Union of India & Ors. 38 ,
this Court made the following pertinent observations:
G
"219. A legislation passed by Parliament can be challenged only
on constitutionally recognised grounds. Ordinarily, grnunds of
attack of a legislation is whether the legislature has legislative
competence or whether the legislation is ultra vires the provisions
" (2008) 6 sec 1
H
82 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2017] 7 S.C.R.
A" of the Constitution. If any of the pro'visions of the legislation violat~s
fundamental rights or any other provisions of the Constitution, it
could certainly be a valid ground to set aside the legislation by
invoking the power ofjudicial review. A legislation could alsq be
challenged as unreasonable if it violates the principles of equality
adumbrated in our Constitution or it unreasonably restricts the
B
fundamental rights under Article 19 of the Constitution. A legislation
cannot be challenged simply on the ground of unreasonableness
because that by itself does not constitute a ground. The validity of
a constitutipnal amendment and the validity of plenary legislation
have to be decided purely as questions of constitutional law. This ·
c Court in State ofRajasthan v. Union ofIndia said: (SCC p. 660,
para 149)
"149 .... if a question brought before the court is purely a
political question not invl!llving determination of any legal or
constitutional right or obligation, the court would not entertain.
D it, since the court is concerned only with adjudication of legal
rights and liabilities." '
Therefore, the plea of the petitioner that the legislation itself was
intended to please a section of the community as part of the vote
catching mechanism is not a legally acceptable plea and it is only
E to be rejected."
77. Furthermore, it also needs to be specifically noted that this
Court emphasised that apart from the aforesaid two grounds no third
ground is available to invalidate any piece oflegislation. In this behalfit
would be apposite to reproduce the following observations from State of
F A.P. & Ors. v. McDowell & Co. & Or~. 39 , which is a judgment rendered
by a three Judge Bench of this Court;
"4:3; .. A law made by Parliament or the legislature can be struck
down by courts on two grounds and two grounds alone, viz., (1)
lack of legislative competence and (2) violation of any of the
G fundamental rights guaranteed in Part III of the Constitution or of
any other constitutional provisiqn. There is no third ground. We
do not wish to enter into a discussion of the concepts of procedural
unreasonableness and substantive unreasonableness - concepts
inspired by the decisions of United States Supreme Court. Even
" ( 1996) 3 sec 109
H
. BINOY VISWAM v. U:[\/10~ OF INDIA & 6RS. 83
. [A. K. SIKRI; J.] .
. . \A . . .
in U.S.A., these concepts and in ·particullr the concept of A
substantive due process have proved to be of unending controversy,
the latest thinking tending towards a severe curtailment of this
ground (substantive due process). The main criticism against the
ground of substantive due process being that it seeks to set up the
courts as arbiters of the wisdom of the legislature in enacting the B
particular piece of legislation. It is enough for us to say that by
whatever mime it is characterised, the ground of invalidation must
fall within the four comers of the two grounds mentioned above.
In other wo_rds, say, ifan enactment is challenged as violative of
Article _14, it can be struck down only if it is found that it is violative
of the equality clause/equal protection clause enshrined therein. C
Similarly, if an enactment is challenged as ".iolative of any of the
fundamental rights guaranteed by clauses (a) to (g) of Article
19( 1), it can be struck down only if it is found not saved by any of
the clauses (2) to {6) of Article 19 and so on. No enactment can
be struck down by just saying that it is arbitrary or unreasonable. D
s·ome or other constitutional infirmity has to be found before
invalidating an Act. An enactment cannot be struck down on the ,.
ground that court thinks it unjustified. Parliament and the ·
legislatures, composed as they are of the representatives of the
people, are supposed to know and be aware of the needs of the
people and what is good and bad for them. The court cannot sit in E
judgment over their wisdom. In this connection, it should be
remembered that even in the case of administrative action, the
scope of judicial review is limited .to three grounds, viz., (i)
unreasonableness, which can more appropriately be called
irrationality, (ii) illegality and (iii) procedural impropriety
·(see Council of Civil Service Unions_ v. Minister for Civil F
Service [1985 AC 374: (1984) 3 All ER 935 : (1984) 3 WLR
1I74l which decision has been accepted by this Court as well).
The appllcabiiity of doctrine of proportfonaiity even in administrative
law sphere is yet a debatable issue. (See the opinions of Lords
Lowry and Ackner in R. v. Secy. of State for Home Deptt., ex p G
· Brind [1991 AC 696 : (1991) I All ER 720] AC at 766-67 and
· 762.) It would be rather odd if an enactment were to be struck
down by applying the said principle when its applicability even in
administrative law sphere is not fully and finally settled... " ··
. H
84 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2017] 7 S.C.R.
A 78. Another aspect in this context, which needs to be emphasized,
is that a legislation cannot be declared unconstitutional on the ground
that it is 'arbitrary' inasmuch as examining as to whether a particular
Act is arbitrary or not implies a value judgment and the courts do not
examine the wisdom of legislative choices and, therefore, cannot
undertake this exercise. This was so recognised in a recent judgment of
a this Court Rajbala & Ors. v. State of Haryana & Ors. 40 wherein this
Court held as under:
"
64. From the above extract from McDowell & Co. case it is clear
c that the courts in this country do not undertake the task of declaring
a piece of legislation unconstitutional on the ground that the
legislation is "arbitrary" since such an exercise implies a value
judgment and courts do not examine the wisdom of legislative
choices unless the legislation is otherwise violative of some speci fie
provision of the Constitution. To undertake such an examination
D would amount to virtually importing the doctrine of"substantive
due process" employed by the Amefican Supreme Court at an
earlier point of time while examining the constitutionality oflndian
legislation. As pointed out in the above extract, even in United
States the doctrine is currently of doubtful legitimacy. This Court
E Jong back· in A.S. Krishna v. State of Madras declared that the
doctrine of due process has no application under the Indian
Constitution As pointed out by Frankfurter, J., arbitrariness became
a mantra.
65. For the above reasons, we are of the opinion that it is not
F permissible for this Court to declare a statute unconstitutional on
the ground that it is 'arbitrary'."
79. Same sentiments were expressed earlier by this Court in K. T.
Plantation Private Limited & Anr. 41 in the following words:
"205. Plea of unreasonableness, arbitrariness, proportionality, etc.
G always raises an element of subjectivity on which a court cannot
strike down a statute or a statutory provision, especially when the
right to property is no more a fundamental right. Otherwise the
· court will be substituting its wisdom to that of the legislature, which
•• (2016) 2 sec 445
H 41 Footnote 19 above ..
BINOY VISWAM v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS. 85
[A. K. SIKRI, J.]
is impermissible in our constitutional democracy." A
A fortiorari, a law cannot be invalidated on the ground that the
Legislature did not apply its mind or it was prompted by some improper
motive.
80. It is, thus, clear that in exercise of power of judicial review,
Indian Courts are invested with powers to strike down primary_ legislation B
enacted by the Parliament or the State legislatures. However, while
undertaking this exercise of judicial review, the same is to be done at
three levels. In the first stage, the Court would examine as to whether
impugned provision in a legislation is compatible with the fundamental
rights or the Constitutional provisions (substantive judicial review) or it c
falls foul of the federal distribution of powers (procedural judicial review).
If it is not found to be so, no further exercise is needed as challenge
would fail.· On the other hand, if it is found that Legislature lacks
competence as the subject legislated was not within the powers assigned
in the .list in VII Schedule, no further enquiry is needed and such a law is
to be declared as ultravires the Constitution. However, while undertaking D
substantive judicial review, if it is found that the impugned provision
appears to be violative of fundamental rights or other Constitutional rights,
the Court reaches the second stage of review. At this second phase of
enquiry, the Court is supposed to undertake the exercise as to whether
the impugned provision can.still be saved by reading it down so as to E
bring it in conformity with the Constitutional provisions. If that is not
achievable then the enquiry enters the third stage. If the offending portion
of the statute is severable,. it is severed and the Court strikes down the
impugned provision declaring the same as unconstitutional.
81. Keeping in view the aforesaid parameters we, at this stage, F
we want to devote some time discussing the arguments of the petitioners
based on the concept of 'limited government'.
Concent of 'Limited Government' and its impact on powers
of Judicial Review
82. There cannot be any dispute about the manner in which Mr. G
Shyam Divan explained the concept of 'limited Government' in his
submissions. Undoubtedly, the Constitution oflndia, as an instrument of
governance of the State, delineates the functions and powers of 'fach
wing of the State, namely, the Legislature, the Judiciary and the Executive.
It also enshrines the principle pf separation of powers which mandates H
86 SUPREME COURT .REPORTS [2017] 7 S.C.R.
A that each wing of the State has to function.within its own domain and no
wing of the State is entitled to trample over the function assigned to the
other wing of the State. This fundamental docum.ent of governance also
contains principle offederalism wherein the Union is assigned certain
powers and likewise powers of the State are also prescribed. In this·
.context, the Union Legislature, i.e. the Parliament, as well as the State
B
Legislatures are given specific areas in respect of which they have power ..
to legislate. That is so stipulated in Schedule VII of the Constitution
wherein List I enumerates the subjects over which Parliament has the
dominion, List II spells out those areas where the State Legislatures
have the power to make laws while List III is the Concurrent List which
c is accessible both to the Union as well as the State Governments. The
Scheme pertaining to making laws by the Parliament as well as by the
Legislatures of the State is primarily contained in Articles 245 to 254 of ·
the Constitution.· Therefore, it cannot be disputed that each wing of the
·State to act within the sphere delineated for it u~der the Constitution. It
is correct that crossing these limits would render the action of the State
D
ultra vires the Constitution~ When it comes to power of taxation;
undoubtedly, power to tax is treated as sovereign power of any State.
However, there are constitutional limitations briefly described above. In
a nine Judge Bench decision of this Court in Jindal Stainless Ltd. &
Anr. v. State of Haryana & Ors. 42 discussion on these constitutional
E limitations are as follows: ·
"20. Exercise of sovereign power is, however, subject to
Constitutional limitations especially in a. federal system like ours
where the States also to the extent permissible exercise the power
to make laws includirig laws that levy taxes, duties and fees. That .
F the power to levy taxes is subject to constitutional limitations is no
longer res-integra. A Constitution Bench of this Court has
ii) Synthetics and Chemicals Ltd. v. State of UP. ( 1990) 1 SCC
I 09 recognised t.hat in India the Centre andthe States both enjoy
the exercise of sovereign power, to the extent the Constitution
confers upon them that power. This Court declared: .
G
"56 ... We would not like, however, to embark upon any theory
of police power because the Indian Constitution does not
recognise police power as such. But we must recognise the
exercise of Sovereign power which gives the State sufficient
"(2016) 11 Scale I
H
BINOY VISWAM v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS. 87
[A. K. SIKRI, J.] .
authority to enact any law subject to the limitations of the A
Constitution to discharge its functions. Hence, the Indian
Constitution as a sovereign State has power to legislate on all
branches except to the limitation as to the division of powers
between the Centre and the States and also subject to the
fundamental rights guaranteed under the Constitution. The B
Indian States, between the Centre.and the States, has sovereign
power. The sovereign power is plenary and inherent in every
sovereign State to do all things which promote the health, peace,
morals, education and good order of the people. Sovereignty is
difficult to define. This power of sovereignty is, however,
subject to constitutional limitations. "This power, according to C .
some constitutional authorities, is to the public what necessity
is to the individual. Right to tax or levy impost must be in.
accordance with the provisions of the Constitution."
.
. . .
. 21. What then are the Constitutional limitations on the power of
· the State legislatures to levy taxes or for that matter enact D
legislations in the field reser¥ed for them under the relevant entries
of List II and III of the Seventh Schedule. The first and the
. . . .
·
foremost of these limitations appears in Article 13 of the
Constitution of India which declares that all laws in force in the
territory oflndia immediately before the commencement of the "E
Constitution are void to the extent they are inconsistent with the
provisions ofPart mdealing with the fundamental rights guaranteed
to the citizens. It forbids the States from making any law which
takes away or abridges, any provision of Part UL Any law made
in contravention of the said rights shall to the extent of contravention
be void. There is no gain saying that the power to enact laws has F ·
been conferred upon the Parliament subject to the above
Constitutional limitation. So also in terms of Article 248, the
residuary power to impose a tax not otherwise mentioned in the
Co~current List or the State List has been vested In the Parliament
to the exclusion of the State legislatures, and the States' power to
levy taxes limited to what is specifically reserved in their favour G
and no more.
22. Article 249 similarly e!Tlpowers the Parliament to legislate with
·respect to a matter in the State List for national interest provided
the Council of States has declared by a resolution supported by
H
88 SUPREME COURT REPORTS
.
[2017] 7 S.C.R.
A not less than two-thirds of the members present and voting that it
is necessary or expedient in national interest to do so. The power
is available till such time any resolution remains in force in terms
of Article 249(2) and the proviso thereunder.
23. Article 250 is yet another provision which empowers the
B Parliament to legislate with respect to any matter in the State List
when there is a proclamation of emergency. In the event of an
inconsistency between laws made by Parliament under Articles
249 and 250, and laws made by legislature of the States, the law
made by Parliament shall, to the extent of the inconsistency, prevail
over the.law made by the State in terms of Article 251.
c
24. The power of Parliament to .legislate for two or more States
by consent, in regard to matters not otherwise within the power
of the Parliament is regulated by Article 252, while Article 253
starting with a non-obstante clause empowers Parliament to make
any law for the whole country or l),ny part of the territory oflildia
D for implementing any treaty, agreement or convention with any
other country or countries or any decision made at any international
conference, association or other body."
83. Mr. Divan, however, made an earnest endeavour to further.
broaden this concept of 'limited Government' by giving an altogether
E different slant. He submitted that there are certain things that the States
simply cannot do because the action fundamentally alters the relationship
between the citizens and the State. In this hue, he submitted that it was
impermissible for the State to undertake the exercise of collection of
bio-metric data, including fingerprints and storing at a central depository
F as it puts the State in an extremely dominant position in relation to the
individual citizens. He also submitted that it will put the State in a position
to target an individual and engage in surveillance thereby depriving or
withholding the enjoyment of his rights and entitlements, which is totally
impermissible in a country where governance of the State offounded on
the concept of 'limited Government'. Again, this concept of limited
G government is.woven around Article 21 of the Constitution.
84. Undoubtedly, we are in the era of liberalised democracy. In a
democratic society governed by the Constitution, there is a strong trend
towards the Constitutionalisation of democratic politics, wh\:fe the actions ·
of democratic elected GovernmenJ are judged in the light of the
H
BINOY ViSWAM v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS. 89
[A. K. SIKRI, J.]
Constitution. In this context, judiciary assumes the role of protector of f
the Constitution and democracy, being the ultimate arbi terin all matters
involving the interpretation of the Constitution.
85. Having said so, when it comes to exercising the power of
judicial review of a legislation, the scope of such a power has to be kept
in mind and the power is to be exercised within the limited sphere assigned B
to the judiciary to undertake the judicial review. This has already been
mentioned above. Therefore, unless the petitioner demonstrates that
the Parliament, in enacting the impugned provision, has exceeded its •
power prescribed in the Constitution or this provision violates any of the
provision, the argument predicated on 'limited governance' will not
succeed. One of the aforesaid ingredients needs lo be established by c
the petitioners in order to succeed.
86. Even in the case of Thakur Bharath Singh 43 relied upon by .
Mr. Divan, wherein executive order wa·s passed imposing certain
restrictions requiring the respondent therein to reside at a particular place
as specified in the order, which was passed in exercise of powers D
contained under Section 3(l)(b) of the M.P. Public Security Act, 1959,
the Court struck down and quashed the order only after it found that
restrictions contained therein were unreasonable and violative of
fundamental freedom guaranteed under Article 19(l)(d) and (e) of the
Constitution of India. E
87. With this, we proceed to consider the arguments on which
vires of the impugned provisions are questioned:
Argument of Legislative Competence
88. It is not denied by the petitioners that having regard to the F
provisions of Article 246 of the Constitution and Entries 82 and 97 of
List I, the Parliament has requisite competence to enact the impugned
legislation. However, the submission of the petitioners was that the
impugned legislative provision was made as per which enrolment under
Aadhaar had become mandatory for the income tax assessees, whereas
this Court has passed various orders repeatedly emphasising that G
enrolment for Aadhaar card hag to be voluntary. On this basis, the·
argument is that the Legislature lacked the authority to pass a law contrary
to the judgments of this Court, without removing the basis of those
judgments. It was also argued that evenAadhaar Act was voluntary in
43
Footnote 9 above
H
90 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2017] 7 S.C.R.
A nature and the basis of the judgments of this Court could be taken away
only by making enrolment under the Aadhaar Act compulsory, which
was not done.
89. Before proceeding to discuss this argument, one aspect of the
matter needs clarification. There was a debate as to whether Aadhaar
B Act is voluntary or even that Act makes .:nrolment under Aadhaar
mandatory.
90. First thing that is to be kept in mind is that the Aadhaar Act is
enacted to enable the Government to identify individuals for delivery of
benefits, subsidies and services unde~ various welfare schemes. This is
c so mentioned in Section 7 of the Aadhaar Act which states that proof of
Aadhaar number is necessary for receipt of such subsidies, .benefits and
services. At the same time, it cannot be disputed that once a person
enrols himself and obtainsAadhaar number as mentioned in Section 3 of
the Aadhaar Act,· such Aadhaar number. can be used for many other
purposes. In fact, this Aadhaar nutnber becpmes the Unique Identity
D (UID) of that person. Having said that, it is clear that there is no provision
in Aadhaar Act which makes enrolment compulsory. May be for the
purpose of obtaining benefits, proof ofAadhaar card is necessary as per
Section 7 of the Act. Proviso to Section 7 stipulates that 'if an Aadhaar
number is not assigned to enable an individual, he shall be offered
E alternate and viable means ofidentification for delivery of the subsidy,
benefit 'or service. According to the petitioners, this proviso, with
acknowledges alternate and viable means of identification, and therefore
makes Aadhaar optional and voluntary and the enrolment is not necessary
even for the purpose of receiving subsidies, benefits and services under
various schemes of the Government. The respondents, however, interpret
F the proviso differently and there plea is that the words 'if an Aadhaar
number is not assigned to an individual; deal with only that situation
where application for Aadhaar has been made but for certain reasons _
Aadhaar number has not been assigned as it may take some time to give
Aadhaar card. Therefore, this proviso is 011ly by way of an interim
G measure till Aadhaar number is assigned; which is otherwise compulsory
for obtaining certain benefits as stated in Section 7 of the Aadhaar Act.
Fact remains that as per the Government and UIDAI itself, the
requirement of obtaining Aadhaar number is voluntary. It has been so
claimed by UIDAI on its website and clarification to this effect has also
been issued by UIDAI.
H
BINOY VISWAM v. UNION o·F INpIA & ORS. 91
[A. K. SIKRI, J.]
91. Thus, enrolment under Aadhaar is voluntary. However, it is a A
moot question as to whether for obtaining benefits as prescribed under
Section 7 of the Aadhaar Act, it i.s mandatory to give Aadhaar number or
not is a debatable issue which we are not addressing as this very issue is
squarely raised which is the subject matter of other writ petition filed
and pending in this Court.
B
92. On the one hand, enrollment under Aadhaar card is voluntary,
however, for the purposes oflncorrie Tax Ad, Section l 39AA makes it
compulsory for the assessees to give Aadhaar number which means
insofar as income tax assessees are concerned, they have to necessarily
entoll themselves under the Aadhaar Act and obtiiin Aadhaar number
· which will be their- identification number as .that has become the c
requirement under the Income Tax Act:· .The contention that since
enrollment under Aadhaar Act is voluntary, it cannot be compulsory under
the Income Tax Act, cannot be countenanced. As already mentioned
·above, purpose for enrollment under the Aadhaar Act is to avail benefits
of various welfare schemes etc. as stipulated in Section 7 oftheAadhaar D
Act. Purpose behind Income Tax Act, on the other hand, is entirely
different which has already been discussed in detail above. For achieving
the said purpose, viz., to curb blackimongy, money laundering and tax
evasion etc., ifthe Parliament chooses to make the provision mandatory
under the Income Tax Act, the competence of the Parliament cannot be
questioned on the ground that it is impermissible only because under E
Aadhaar Act, the provision is directory in nature. It is the prerogative of
the Parliament to make a particular provision directory in one statute
and mandatory/compulsory in other. That by itself cannot be a ground
to question the competence of the legislature. After all, Aadhaar Act is
not a mother Act. Two laws, i.e., Aadhaar Act, on the one hand, and F
law in the form of Section 139AA of the Income Tax Act, on the other
hand, are two different stand alone provisions{laws and validity of one
cannot b.e examined in the light ofprovisions of other Acts. In Municipal
Corporation ofDelhi v. Shiv Shanket'14, if the objects of two statutory
provisions are different and language of each statute is· restricted to its
own objects or subject, then they are generally intended to run in parallel G
lines without meeting and there would be no real conflict though apparently
it may appear to be so on the .surface. We reproduce hereunder the
discussion to the aforesaid aspect contained in the said judgment:
"(1971) 1 sec 442
H
·•
92 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2017] 7 S.C.R.
A "5 .... It is only when a consistent body oflaw cannot- be maintained
without abrogation of the previous law that the plea of implied
repeal should be sustained. To determine if a later statutory
provision repeals by implication an earlier one it is accordingly
necessary to closely scrutinise and consider the true meaning and
effect both of the earlier and the later statute. Until this is done it
B
cannot be satisfactorily ascertained if any fatal inconsistency exists
between them. The meaning, scope and effect of the two statutes,
as discovered on scrutiny, determirtes the legislative intent as to
whether the earlier law shall cease or shall only be supplemented.
If the objects of the two statutory provisions are different and the
c . language of each statute is restricted to its own objects or subject,
then they are generally intended to run in parallel lines without
meeting and there would be no real conflict though apparently it
may appear to be so on the surface. Statutes in pari materia
although in apparent conflict, should also, so far as reasonably
possible, be construed to be in harmony with each other and it is
D
only when there is an irreconcilable conflict between the new
provision and the prior statilte relating to the same subfect-matter,
that the former, being the later expression of the legislature, may
be held to prevail, the prior~aw yielding to the extent of the conflict.
The same rule ofirreconcilable repugnancy controls implied repeal
E of a general by a special statute. The subsequent provision treating
a phase of the same general subject-matter.in a more minute way
may be intended to imply repeal protanto of the repugnant general
provision with which it cannot reasonably co-exist. When there is
no inconsistency between the general and the special statutethe
later may well be construed as supplementary."
F
93. In view or'the above, we are riot impressed by the contention
6f the petitioners that the two enactments are contradictory with each
other. A harmonious reading of the two enactments would clearly
suggests that whereas enrollment ofAadhaaar is voluntary when it comes
to taking benefits of various welfare schemes even if it is presumed that
G requirement of Section 7 of Aadhaar Act that it is necessary to provide
Aadhaar number to avail the benefits of schemes and services, it is upto
a person to avail those benefits or not. On the other hand, purpose ·
behind enacting Section' I 39AA is to check a menace ofblack money as
well as money laundering and also to widen the income tax net so as to
H
BINOY VISWAM v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS. 93
{A. K. SIKRI, J.]
cover those persons who are evading the payment of tax. A
94. Main emphasis, however, is on the plea that Parliament or any
State legislature cannot pass a law that overrules a judgment thereby
nullifying the said decision, that too without removing the basis of the
decision. This argument appears to be attractive inasmuch as few orders
are passed by this Court in pending writ petitions which are.to the effect B
that the enrollment of Aadhaar would be voluntary. However, it needs
to be kept in mind that the orders have been passed in the petitions
where Aadhaar scheme floated as an executive/administrative measure
has been challenged. In those cases, the said orders are not passed in a
case where the Court was dealing with a statute passed by the
Parliament. Further, these an: interim orders as the Court was of the C
opinion that till the matter is decided finally in the context of Right to
Privacy issue, the implementation of the said Aadhaar scheme would
remain voluntary. In fact, the main issue as to whether Aadhaar card
scheme whereby biometrjc data of an individual is collected violates
Right to Privacy and, therefore, is offensive of Article 21 of the D
Constitution or not is yet to be decided. In the process; the Constitution
Bench is also called upon to decide as to whether Right to Privacy is a
· part of Article 21 of the Constitution at all. Therefore, no final decision
has been taken. In a situation like this, it cannot be said that Parliament
is precluded from or it is rendered incompetent to pass such a law. That
apart, the argumept of the petitioners is that the basis on which the E
aforesaid orders are passed has to be removed, which is not done.
According to the petitioners, it could be done only by making Aadhaar
Act compulsory. It is difficult to accept this contention for two.reasons:
first, when the orders passed by this Court which are relied upon by the
petitioners were passed when· Aadhaar Act was not even enacted. . F
Secondly, as already discussed in detail above, Aadhaar Act and the 1aw
contained in Section l 39AA of the Income Tax Act deal with two different
situations and operate in different fields. This argument oflegislature
inc~mpetence also, therefore, has fails.
Whether Section 139AA of the Act is discriminatory and G
· offends Article 14 of the Constitution of India?. •
Article 14, which enshrines the principle of equality as a
fundamental right mandates that th.e State shall not deny to any person
equality before the law or the equal protection of the laws within the
territory of India.. It, thus, gives the right to equal tre.atment in similar H
94 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2017) 7 S..C.R.
A circumstances, both in privileges conferred and in the liabilities imposed.
In Sri Srinavasa Theatre & Ors. v. Government of Tamil Nadu &
Ors. 45 , this Court explained that the two expressions. 'equality before
law' and 'eqii!ll protection of law' do not mean the same thing even if
there may be much in common between them. "Equality before law" is
· a dynamic concept having many facets. One facet is that there shall be
B no privileged person pr class and that one shall be above law. Another
facet is "the obligation upon the State to bring about, through the machinery
oflaw, a more eq\1al society... For, equality before law can be predicated
meaningfully only in an equal society... ". The Court further observed
that Article 14 prescribes equality before law. ·But the fact remains that
C all persons are not equal by nature, attainment or circumstances, and,
therefore, a mechanical equality before the law may result in injustice.
Thus, the guarantee against the denial of equal protection of the law
does not mean that identically the same mies of law should be made
applicable to all persons in spite of difference in circumstances or
D conditions {See C!tiranjit Lal Clrowdlmriv. Union ofIndia & Ors. 46 }.
95. The ·varying needs of different classes or sections of people
require differential and separate treatment. The Legislature is required
to deal with diverse problems arising out of an infiniti: variety of human
relations. It must, therefore, necessarily have the power of making laws
to attain particular objects and, for that purpose, of distinguishing, selecting
E . and classifying persons. and things upon which its laws are to operate.
The principle ofequality oflaw, thus, means not that the same law should
apply to everyone but that a law should deal alike with all in one class;
that there should be an equality of treatment under equal circumstances.
It means "that equals should not be treated unlike and unlikes should not
F be treated alike. Likes should be treated alike. · ~-
96. What follows is that Article 14 forbids class legislation; it does
not forbid reasonable classification of persons, objects and transactions
by the Legislature for the purpose of achieving specific ends.
Classification to be reasonable should fulfil the following two tests:
G ( 1) It should not be arbitrary, artificial or evasive. It should be
based on an intelligible differentia, some real and substantial
distinction, which distinguishes persons or things grouped
. together in the class from others left out of it.
4
' (1992) 2 $CC 643
46
H 1950 SCR 869
BINOY VISWAM v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS. 95
[A. K. SIKRI, J.]
(2) The differentia adopted as the basis of classification must A
have a rational or reasonable nexus with the object sought to
be achieved by the statute in question.
Thus, Article 14 in its ambit and sweep involves two facets, viz., it
permits reasonable classification which is founded on intelligible differentia
and accommodates the practical needs of the society and the differential B
must have a rational relation to the objects sought to be achieved. Further,
it does not allow any kind of arbitrariness and ensures fairness and
equality of treatment. It is the fonjuris of our Constitution, the
fountainhead of justice. Differential treatment does not per se amount
to violation ofArticle 14 of the Constitution and it violates Article 14 only
when there is no reasonable basis and there are several tests to decide c
whether a classification is reasonable or not and one_ofthe tests will be
as to whether it is conducive to the functioning of modern society.
97. Insofar as the impugned provision is concerned, Mr. Datar
had conceded that fi'rst_:test that of reasonable classification had been
satisfied as he conceded that individual assesses form a separate class D
and the impugned provision which targeted only individual assesses would
not be discriminatory on this ground. His whole emphasis was that
Section 139AA did not satisfy the second limb of the twin tests of
classification as, according to him, this provision had no rational nexus
with the object sought to be achieved. E
98. In this behalf, his submission was that if the purpose of the
provision was to curb circulation of black money, such an object was not
achievable by seeing PAN with Aadhaar inasmuch as Aadhaar is only
for individuals. His submission was that it is only the individuals who are
responsible for generating black money or money laundering. This was F
the basis for Mr. Datar's submission. We find it somewhat difficult to
accept such a submission.
99. Unearthing black money or checking money laundering is to
be achieved to whatever extent possible. Various measures can be
taken in this behalf. If one of the measures is introduction of Aadhaar
G
into the tax regime, it cannot be denounced only because of the reason
that the purpose would not be achieved fully. Such kind of menace,
which is deep rooted, needs to be tackled by taking multiple actions and
those actions may be initiated at the same time. It is 'the combined
effect of these actions which may yield results and each individual action
H
96 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2017] 7 S.C.R.
A considered in isolation may not be sufficient. Therefore, rationality of a
particular measure cannot be challenged on the ground that it has no
nexus with the objecti_\Te to be achieved. Of course, there is a definite
objective. For this purpose alone, individual measure cannot be ridiculed.
We have already taken note of the recommendations of SIT on black
money headed by Justice M.B. Shah. We have also reproduced the
B
measures suggested by the committee headed by Chairman, CBDT on
'Measures to tackle black money in India and Abroad'. They have, in
no uncertain terms, suggested that one singular proof of identity of a
person for entering into finance/business transactions etc may go a long
way in curbing this foul practice. That apart, even if solitary purpose of
c de-duplication of PAN cards is taken into consideration, that may be
sufficient to meet the second test of Article 14. It has come on record
that 11.3-5 lakhs cases of duplicate PAN or fraudulent PAN cards have
already been detected and out of this 10,52 lakh cases pertain to individual
assessees. Seeding of Aadhaar with PAN has certain benefits which
have already been enumerated. Furthermore, even when we address
D
the issue of shell companies, fact remains that companies are after all
floated by individuals and these individuals have to produce documents
to show their identity. It was sought to be argued that persons found
with duplicate/bogus PAN cards are hardly 0.4% and, therefore, there
was no need to have such a provision. We cannot go by percentage
E figures. The absolute number of such cases is 10.52 lakh, which figure,
by no means, can be termed as miniscule, to harm the economy and
create adverse effect on the nation. Respondents have argued that
Aadhaar will ensure that there is no duplication of identity as bio-metric
will not allow that and, therefore, it may check the growth of shell
companies as well.
F
100. Having regard to the aforesaid factors, it cannot be said that
there is no nexus with the objective. sought to be achieved.
l 01. Another argument predicated on Article 14 advanced by Mr.
Divan was that it was discriminatory in nature as i't created two classes;
G one class of those who volunteered to enrol themselves under Aadhaar
scheme and other class of those who did not want it to be so. It was
further submitted that in this manner this provision had the effect of
creating an artificial class of those who object to Aadhaar scheme as
selfconscious persons. This is a fallacious argument.
H
BINOY VISWAM v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS. 97
[A. K. SIKRI, J.]
102. Validity of a legislative act cannot be challenged by creating A
artificial classes by those who are objecting to the said provision and
predicating the argument of discrimination on that basis. When a law is
made, all those who are covered by that law are supposed to follow the
same. No doubt, it is the right of a citizen to approach the Court and
question the constitutional validity of a particular law enacted by the
B
Legislature. However, merely because a section of persons opposes
the law, would not mean that it has become a separate class by itself.
Two classes, cannot be created on this basis, namely, one of those who
want to be covered by the scheme, and others who do not want to be
covered thereby. If such a proposition is accepted, every legislation
would be prone to challenge on the ground of discrimination. As far as c
plea of discrimination is concerned, it has to be raised by showing that
the impugned law creates two classes without any reasonable
classification and treats them differently.
103. The principle of equality does not mean that every law must
have universal application for all persons who are not by nature, D
attainment or circumstances, in the same position, as the varying needs
of different classes of persons often require separate treatment. It is
permissible for the State to classify persons for legitimate purposes.
The Legislature is also competent to exercise its discretion and make
classification. In the present scenario the impugned legislation has created
two classes, i.e. one class of those persons who are assessees and other E
class of those persons who are income tax assessees. It is because of
the reason that the impugned provision is applicable only to those who
are filing income tax returns: Therefore, the only question would be as
to whether this classification is reasonable or not. There catmot be any
dispute that there is a reasonable basis for differentiation and, therefore, ·F
equal protection clause enshrii:ied in Article 14 is not attracted: What
Article 14 prohibits is class legislation and not reasonable classification
for the purpose of legislation. All income tax asessees constitute one
class and they are treated alike by the impugned provision.
104. It may also be pointed out that the counsel for the respondents G
had argued that doctrine of proportionality cannot be read into Article 14
of the Constitution and in support reliance has been placed on the
judgment of this Court in E.P. Royappa v. State of Tamil Nadu &
Anr. 47 • This aspect need not be considered in detail inasmuch as
"(1974) 4 sec 3
H
98 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2017] 7 S.C.R.
A Mr. Datar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, had conceded at
the Bar that he had invoked the doctrine of proportionality only in the
context of Article 19( 1)(g).
105. We, therefore, reject the argument founded on Article 14 of
the Constitution.
B Whether impugned provision is violative of Article 19(1)(g)
106. lnvocation of provisions ofArticle l 9(l)(g) of the Constitution
. by the petitioners was in the context of proviso to sub-section (2) of
Section J39AA of the Act which contains the consequences of the failure
to intimate theAadhaarnumber to such authority in such form and manner
C as may be prescribed and reads as under:
"(2) Every person who has been allotted permanent account
number as on the l '' day of July, 2017, and who is eligible to
obtain Aadhaar number, shall intimate his Aadhaar number to such
authority in such form and manner as may be prescribed, on or
D before a date to be notified by the Central Government in the
Official Gazette:
Provided that in case of failure to intimate the Aadhaar
number, the permanent account number allotted to the
person shall be deemed to be invalid and the other
E provisions of this Act shall apply, as if the person had not
applied for allotment of permanent account number."
107. The submission was that the aforesaid penal consequence
was draconian in nature and totally disproportionate to the non-compliance
of provisions contained in Section 139AA. It was pointed out that persons
F effected by Section 139AA are only individuals, i.e. natural persons and
not legal/artificial personalities like companies, trusts, partnership firms,
etc. Thus, individuals who are professionals like lawyers, doctors,
architects and lakhs of businessmen having small or micro enterprises
are going to suffer such a serious consequence for failure to intimate
G Aadhaar number to the designated authority. According to him,
consequence of not having a PAN card results in a virtual 'civil death'
as one example given was that under Rule 1148 of the Rules, it will not
be possible to operate bank accounts with transaction above Rs.50,000/
- or to use credit/debit cards or purchase motor vehicles or property etc.
I 08. St:ction l 39A deals with PAN. Sub-section (I) thereof
H
BINOY VISWAM v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS. 99
[A. K. SIKRI, J.]
requires four classes of persons to have the PAN allotted. It reads as A
under:
"139A. Permanent account number. - (1) Every person, -
(i) if his total income or the total income of any other person in
respect of which he is assessable under this Act during any previous
year exceeded the maximum amount which is not chargeable to · 8
income-tax; or
(ii) carrying on any business or profession wh0se total sales,
turnover or gross receipts are or is likely to exceed five lakh rupees
in any previous year; or
c
(iii) who is required to furnish a return ofincome under sub-section
(4A) of section 139; or
(iv) being an employer, who is required to furnish a return of fringe
benefits under section l lSWD.
and who has not been allotted a permanent account number shall, D
within such time, as may be prescribed, apply to the Assessing
Officer for the allotment of a permanent account number."
109 .. This PAN number has to be mentioned/quoted in number of
eventualities specified under sub-section (S), (SA), (SB), (SC), S(D) and
sub-section (6) of Section 139A. These provisions read as under: E
"S. Every person shall -
(a) quote such number in all his returns to, or correspondence
with, any income-tax authority;
(b) quote such number in all challans for the payment ofany sum F
due under this Act;
(c) quote such number in all documents pertaining to such
transactions as may be prescribed by the Board in the interests
of the revenue, and entered into by him:
Provided that the Board may prescribe different dates for different G
transactions or class of transactions or for different class of
persons:
Provided further that a person shall quote General Index Register
Number till such time Permanent Account Number is allotted to
H
100 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2017] 7 S.C.R.
A such person;
(d) intimate the Assessing Officer any change in his address or in
the name and nature of his business on the basis of which the
permanent account number was allotted to him.
(SA) Every person receiving any sum or income or amount from
B which tax has been deducted under the provisions of Chapter
XVIIB, shall intimate his permanent account number to the person
responsible for deducting such tax under that Chapter:
Provided further that a person referred to in this sub-section, shall
intimate the General Index Register Number till such time
c permanent account number Is allotted to such person.
(SB) Where any sum or income or amount has been paid after
deducting tax under Chapter XVIIB, every person deducting tax
under that Chapter shall quote the permanent account number of
the person to whom such sum or income or amount has been paid
D by him-
( i) in the statement furnished in accordance with the provisions of
sub-section (2C) of section 192;
(ii) in all certificates furnished in accordance with the provisions
of section 203;
E
(iii) in all returns prepared and delivered or caused to be delivered
in accordance with the provisions of section 206 to any income-
tax authority;
(iv) in all statements prepared and delivered or caused to be
F delivered in accordance with the provisions of sub-section (3)
cf section 200:
Provided that the Central Government may, by notification in the
Official Gazette, specify different dates from which the provisions
of this sub-section shall apply in respect of any class or classes of
G persons:
Provided further that nothing contained in sub-sections (SA) and
(SB) shall apply in case _of a person whose total income is not
chargeable to income-tax or who is not required to obtain
permanent account numberunder any provision of this Act if such
H
BINOY VISWAM v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS. 101
[A. K. SIKRI, J.]
person furnishes to the person responsible for deducting tax a A
declaration referred to in section 197 A in the form and manner
prescribed thereunder to the effect that the tax on his estimated
total income of the previous year in which such income is to be
included in computing his total income will be nil.
(SC) Every buyer or licensee or lessee referred to in section B
206C shall intimate his permanent account number to the person
responsible for collecting tax referred to in that section.
(SD) Every person collecting tax in accordance with the provisions
of sectfon 206C shall quote the permanent account number of
every buyer or licensee or lessee referred to in that section - c
(i) in all certificates furnished in accordance with the provisions
of sub-section (S) of section 206C;
(ii) in all n:turns prepared and delivered or caused to be delivered
in accordance with the provisions of sub-section (SA) or sub-
section (SB) of section 206C to an income-tax authority; D
(iii) in all statements prepared and delivered or caused to be
delivered in accordance with the provisions of sub-section (3)
of section 206C.
(6) Every person receiving any document relating to a transaction E
prescribed under clause (c) of sub-section (S) shall ensure that
the Permanent Account Number ~r the General Index Register
Number has been duly quoted in the document."
110. Sub-section (8) empowers the Board to make Rules, inter
alia, prescribing the categories of transactions in relation to which PAN
F
is to be quoted. Rule 114B of the Rules lists the nature of transaction in
sub-rule (a) to (r) thereof where PAN number is to be given.
111. According to the petitioners, it amounts to violating their
fundamental right to carry on.business/profession etc. as enshrined under
Article 19( 1)(g) of the Constitution which stands infringed and, therefore,
it was for the State to show that the restriction is reasonable and in the G
interest of pubic under Article 19(6) of the Constitution. It is in this
context, principle of proportionality has been invoked by the petitioners
with their submission that restriction is unreasonable as it is utterly
disproportionate for committing breach of Section 139AA of the Act.
H
102 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2017] 7 S.C.R.
A 112. As noted above, Mr. Datar had relied upon the judgment of
this Court in Modern Dental College & Research Ce11tre48 and
submitted that while applying the test of proportionality, the respondents
were specifically required to demonstrate the that measures undertaken
are necessary in that there are no alternative measures that may similarly
achieve that same purpose with a lesser degree of limitation (narrow
B
tailoring) and also that there was proper relation between the importance
of achieving the proper purpose and the social importance of preventing
the limitation on the constitutional right, (balancing two competing
interests).
113. In order to consider the aforesaid submissions we may
c bifurcate Section l39AA in two parts, as follows:
(i) That portion of the provision which requires quoting of AaJhaar
number (sub:section(l)) and requirement of intimating Aadhaar
number to the prescribed authorities by these who are PAN
holders (sub-section (2)).
D
(ii) Consequences of failure to intimate Aadhaar number to the
prescribed authority by specified date.
114. Insofar as first limb of Section I 39AA of the Act is concerned,
we have already held that it was within the competence of the Parliament
E to make a provision of this nature and further that it is not offensive of
Article 14 of the Constitution. This requirement; per se, does not find
foul with Article 19( I )(g) of the Constitution either, inasmuch as, quoting
the Aadhaar number for purposes mentioned in sub-section (I) or
intimating the Aadhaar number to the prescribed authority as per the
requirement of sub-section (2) does not, by itself, impinge upon the right
F to carry. on profession or trade, e\c. Therefore, it is not violati~e of
Article 19(1 )(g) of the Constitution either. In fact, that is not even the
argument of the petitioners. Entire emphasis of the petitioners
submissions, while addressing "the arguments predicated on Article
19(1 )(g) of the Constitution, is on the consequences that ensue in terms
G of proviso to sub-section (2) inasmuch as.it is argued, as recorded above,
that the consequences provided will have the effect of paralysing the
right to carry on J?l\siness/profession. Therefore, thrust is on the second
part of Section
.
l 39AA
. . of the Act, which we proceed to deal with, now.
115. At the outset, it may be mentioned that though PAN is issued
48
Footnote 7 above
H
BINOY VISWAM v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS. 103
[A. K. SIKRI, J.]
under the provisions of the Act (Section 139A), its function is not limited A
to giving this number in the income-tax returns or for other acts to be
performed under the Act, as mentioned in sub-sections (S), (SA), (SB),
S(C), S(D) and 6 of Section 139A. Rule l 14B of the Rules mandates
quoting of this PAN in val'ious other documents pertaining to different
kinds of transactions listed therein. It is for sale and purchase of B
immovable property valued at Rs.S lakhs or more; sale or purchase of
motor vehicle etc., while opening deposit account with a sum exceeding
Rs.S0,000/- with a banking company;. while making deposit of more than
Rs.S0,000/- in any account with Post Office, savings bank; a contract of
a value exceeding Rs. I lakh for sale or purchase of securities as defined
under the Securities Contract (Regulation) Act, l 9S6; while opening an C
account with a banking company; making an application for installation
of a telephone connection; making payment to hotels and restaurants
when such payment exceeds Rs.2S,OOO/- at any one time; while
purchasing bank drafts or pay orders for an amount aggregating
Rs.S0,000/- or more during any one day, when payment in cash; payment D
in cash in connection with travel to any foreign country of an amount
exceeding Rs.2S,OOO/- at any one time; while making payment of an
amount ofRs.S0,000/- or more to a mutual fund for purchase of its units
or for acquiring shares or debentures/bonds in a company or bonds issued
by the Reserve Bank of India; or when the transaction of purchase of
bullion or jewellery is made by making payment in cash to a dealer above E
a specified amount, etc. This shows that for doing many activities of
day to day nature, including in the course of business, PAN is to be
given. Pithily put, in the absence of PAN, it will not be possible to
un.dertake any of the aforesaid activities though this requirement is aimed
at curbing the tax evasion. Thus, ifthe PAN ofa person is withdrawn or
F
is nullified, it definitely amounts to placing restrictions on the right to do
business as a business under Article 19(l)(g) of the.Act. The question
would be as to whether these restrictions are reasonable and, therefore,
meet the requirement of clause (6) of Article 19. In this context, when
'balancing' is to be done, doctrine of proportionality can be applied, which
was explained in the case of Modern Dental College & Resea;ch G
Centre'9, in th~ following manner:
"Doctrine of proportionality explained and applied
S9. Undoubtedly, the right to establish and manage the educational
49
Footnote 7 above
H
104 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2017] 7 S.C.R.
A institutions is a-fundamental right recognised under Article 19(1 )(g)
of the Act. It also cannot be denied that this right is not "absolute"
and is subject to limitations i.e. "reasonable restrictions" that can
be imposed by law on the exercise of the rights that are conferred
under clause ( 1) of Article 19. Those restrictions, however, have
to be reasonable. Further, such restrictions should be "in the interest
B
of general public", which conditions are stipulated in clause (6) of
Article 19, as under:
"19. (6) Nothing in sub-clause (g) of the said clause shall affect
the operation of any existing law insofar as it imposes, or prevent
the State from making any law imposing, in the interests of the
c general public, reasonable restrictions on the exercise of the
right conferred by the said sub-clause, and, in particular, nothing
in the said sub-clause shall affect the operation of any existing
law insofar as it relates to, or prevent the State from making
any law relating to---
D. (i) the professional or technical qualifications necessa&y for
practising any profession or carrying on any occupation, trade
or business, or
(ii) the carrying on by the State, or by a corporation owned or
controlled by the State, of any trade, business, industry or
E service, whether to the exclusion, complete or partial, of citizens
or otherwise."
60. Another significant feature which can be noticed from the
reading of the aforesaid clause is that the State is empowered to
make any law relating to the professional or technical qualifications
F necessary for practising any profession or carrying on any
occupation or trade or business. Thus, while examining as to
whether the impugned provisions of the statute and rules amount
to reasonable restrictions and are brought out in the interest of the
general public, the exercise that is required to be undertaken is
G the balancing of fundamental right to carry on occupation on the
one hand and the restrictions imposed on the other hand. This is
what is known as "doctrine ofproportionality". Jurisprudentially,
"proportionality" can be defined as the set of rules determining
the necessary and sufficient conditions for !,imitation of a
constitutionally protected right by a, law to be constitutionally
H
BINOY VISWAM v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS. 105
[A. K. SIKRI, J.]
permissible. According to Aharon Barak (former Chief Justice, A
Supreme Court of Israel), there are four sub-components of
proportionality which need to be satisfied [ Aharon
Barak, Proportionality: Constitutional Rights and Their
Limitation(Cambridge University Press 2012).], a limitation ofa
constitutional right will be constitutionally permissible if:
B
(i) it is designated for a proper purpose;
(ii) the measures undertaken to effectuate such a limitation are
rationally connected to the fulfilment of that purpose;.
(iii) the measures undertaken are necessary in that there are no
alternative measures that may similarly achieve that same purpose c
with a lesser degree of limitation; and finally
(iv) there needs to be a proper relation ("proportionality stricto
sensu" or "balancing") between the importance of achieving
the proper purpose and the social importance of preventing the
limitation on the constitutional right. D
61. Modern theory of constitutional rights draws a fundamental
distinction between the scope of the constitutional rights, and the
extent of its protection. Insofar as the scope of constitutional rights
is concerned, it marks the outer boundaries of the said rights and
defines its contents. The extent of its protection prescribes the E
limitations on the exercises of the rights within its scope. In that
sense, it defines the justification for limitations that can be imposed
on such a right.
62. It is now almost accepted that there are no absolute
constitutional rights and all such rights are related. As per the F ·
analysis of Aharon Barak, two key elements in developing the
modern constitutional theory of recognising positive constitutional
rights along with its limitations are the notions of democracy and
the rule oflaw. Thus, the requirement of proportional limitations
of constitutional rights by a sub-constitutional law i.e. the statute, . G
is derived from an interpretation of the notion of democracy itself.
Insofar as the Indian Constitution is concerned, democracy is
treated as the basic feature of the Constitution and is specifically
accorded a constitutional status that is recognised in the Preamble
of the Constitution itself. It is also unerringly accepted that this
H
106 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2017] 7 S.C.R.
A notion of democracy includes human rights which is the
cornerstone of Indian democracy~ Once we accept the aforesaid
theory (and there cannot be any denial thereof), as a fortiori, it
has also to be accepted that democracy is based on a balance
between constitutional rights and the public interests. In fact, such
a provision in Article 19 itself on the one hand guarantees some
B
certain freedoms in clause (I) of Article 19 and at the same time
empowers the State to impose reasonable restrictions on those
freedoms in public interest. This notion accepts the modern
constitutional theory that the constitutional rights are related. This
relativity means that a constitutional licence to limit those rights is
c granted where such a limitation wil 1be justified to protect public
interest or the rights of others. This phenomenon-{Jf both the
right and its limitation in the Constitution-exemplifies the inherent
tension between democracy's two fundamental elements. On the
one hand is the right's element, which constitutes a fundamental
component of substantive democracy; on the other hand is the
D
people element, limiting those very rights through their
representatives. These two constitute a fundamental component
of the notion of democracy, though this time in its formal aspect.
f!ow can this tension be resolved? The answer is that this tension
is not resolved by eliminating the "losing" facet from the
E Constitution. Rather, the tension is resolved by way of a proper
balancing of the competing principles. This is one of the expressions
of the multi-faceted nature of democracy, Indeed, the inherent
tension between democracy's different facets is a "constrnctive
tension". It enables each facet to develop while harmoniously
coexisting with the others. The best way to achieve this peaceful
F
coexistence is through balancing between the competing interests.
Such balancing enables each facet to develop alongside the other
facets,.not in their place. This tension between the two
fundamental aspects-rights on the one hand and its limitation oti
the other hand~is to be resolved by balancing the two so that
G they harmoniously coexist with.each other. This balancing is to be
. done keeping in mind the relative social values of each competitive
asp~cts when considered in proper context.
63. In this direction, the next question that arises is as to what
criteria is to be adopted for a proper balance between the two
H
BINOY VISWAM v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS. 107
[A. K. SIKRI, J.]
facets viz. the rights and limitations imposed upon it by a statute. A
Here comes the concept of "proportionality", which is a proper
criterion. To put it pithily, when a law limits a constitutional right,
such a limitation is constitutional if it is proportional. The law
imposing restrictions will be treated as proportional if it is meant
to achieve a proper purpose, and ifthe measures taken to achieve
B
such a purpose are rationally connected to the purpose, and such
measures are necessary. Thi~ essence of doctrine of proportionality
is beautifully captured by Dickson, C.J. of Canada in R. v. Oakes,
in the following words (at p. 138):
"To establish that a limit is reasonable and demonstrably justified
in a free and democratic society, two central criteria must be
c
satisfied. First, the objective, which the measures, responsible
for a limit on a Charter right or freedom are designed to serve,
must be "of' sufficient importance to warrant overriding a
constitutional protected right or freedom ... Second ... the party
invoking Section 1 must show that the means chosen are D
reasonable and demonstrably justified. This involves "a form
of proportionality test. .. " Although the nature of the
proportionality test will vary depending on the circumstances,
in each case courts will be required to balance the interests of
society with those of individuals and groups. There are, in my
view, three important components ofa proportionality test. First, E
the measures adopted must be ... rationally connected to the
objective. Second, the means ... should impair "as little as
possible" the right or freedom in question ... Third, there must
be a proportionality between the effects of the measures which
are responsible for limiting the Charter right or freedom, and F
the objective which has been identified as of "sufficient
importance". The more severe the deleterious effects of a
· measure, the more important the objective must be if the
measure is to be reasonable and demonstrably justified in a
free and democratic society."
G
64. The exercise which, therefore, is to be taken is to find out as
to whether the limitation of constitutional rights is for a purpose
that is reasonable and necessary in a democratic society and such
an exercise involves the weighing up of competitive values, and
ultimately an assessment based on proportionality i.e. balancing
H
108 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2017] 7 S.C.R.
A of different interests.
65. We may unhesitatingly remark that this doctrine of
proportionality, explained hereinabove in brief, is enshrined in Article
19 itself when we read clause (I) along with clause (6) thereof.
While defining as to what constitutes a reasonable restriction, this
B Court in a plethora of judgments has held that the expression
"reasonable restriction" seeks to strike a balance between the
freedom guaranteed by any of the sub-clauses of clause ( 1) of
Article 19 and the social control permitted by any of the clauses
(2) to (6). It is held that the expression "reasonable" connotes
that the limitation imposed on a person in the enjoyment of the
c right should not be arbitrary or of an excessive nature beyond
what is required in the interests of public. Further, in order to be
reasonable, the restriction must have a reasonable relation to the
object which the legislation seeks to achieve, and must not go in
excess of that object (see P.P. Enterprises v. Union ofindia [P.P.
D Enterprises v. Union of India, (1982) 2 SCC 33). At the same
time, reasonableness of a restriction has to be determined in an
objective manner and from the standpoint of the interests of the
general public and not from the point of view of the persons upon
whom the restrictions are imposed or upon abstract considerations
(see Mohd. Hanif Quareshi v. State ofBihar AIR 1958 SC 731 ).
E In M.R.F. Ltd. v. State ofKerala, (1998) 8 SCC 227, this Court
held that in examining the reasonableness of a statutory provision
one has to keep in mind the following factors:
(1) The directive principles of State policy.
F (2) Restrictions must not be arbitrary or of an excessive nature so
as to go beyond the requirement of the interest of the general
public.
(3) In order to judge the reasonableness of the restrictions, no
abstract or general pattern or a fixed principle can be laid down
G so as to be of universal application and the same will vary from
case to case as also with regard to changing conditions, values of
human life, social philosophy of the Constitution, prevailing
conditions and the surrounding circumstances.
(4) A just balance has to be struck between the restrictions imposed
and the social control envisaged by Article 19(6).
H
BINOY VISWAM v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS. 109
[A. K. SIKRI, J.]
( 5) Prevailing social values as also social needs which are intended A
to be satisfied by the restrictions.
(6) There must be a direct and proximate nexus or reasonable
connection between the resfyictions imposed and the object sought
to be achieved. If there is a direct nexus between the restrictions,
and the object of the Act, then a strong presumption in favour of B
the constitutionality of the Act will naturally arise."
116. Keeping in view the aforesaid parameters and principles in
mind, we proceed to discuss as to whether the 'restrictions' which would
result in terms of proviso to sub-section (2) of Section 139AA of the Act
are reasonable or not. C
117. Let us revisit the objectives of Aadhaar, and in the process,
that of Section 139AA in particular.
118. By making use of the technology, a method is sought to be
devised, in the form of Aadhaar, whereby identity of a person is
ascertained in a flawless manner without giving any leeway to any D
individual to resort to dubious practices of showing multiple identities or
fictitious identities .. That is why it is given the nomenclature 'unique
identity'. It is aimed at securing advantages on different levels some of
which are described, in brief, below:
(i) In the first instance, as a welfare and democratic State, it E
becomes the duty cf any responsible Government to come out
with welfare schemes for the upliftment of poverty stricken and
marginalised sections of the society. This is even the ethos of
Indian Constitution which casts a duty on the State, in the form of
· 'Directive Principles of State Policy', to take adequate and F
effective steps for betterment of such underprivileged classes.
State is bound to take adequate measures to provide education,
health care, employment and even cultUral opportunities and social
standing to these deprived and underprivileged classes. It is not
that Government has not taken steps in this direction from time to
time. At the same time, however, harsh reality is that benefits of G
these schemes have not reached those persons for whom that
are actually meant.
India has achieved· significant economic growth since
independence. In particular, rapid economic gro.wth has been achieved
H
110 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2017] 7 S.C.R.
A in the last 25 years, after the country adopted the policy of liberalisation
and entered the era of, what is known as, globalisation. Economic growth
in the last decade has been phenomenal and for many years, the Indian
economy grew at highest rate in the world. At the same time, it is also
a fact that in spite of significant political and economic success which
has proved to be sound and sustainable, the benefits thereof have not
B
percolated down to the poor and the poorest. In fact, such benefits are
reaped primarily by rich and upper middle classes, resulting into widening
the gap between the rich and the poor. Jean Dreze & Amartya Sen
eithly narrate the position as under50 :
"Since India's recent record of fast economic growth is often
c celebrated, with good reason, it is extremely important to point to
the fact that the societal reach of economic progress in India has
been remarkably limited. It is not only that the income distribution
has been getting more unequal in recent years (a characteristic
that India shares with China), but also that the rapid rise in real
D wages in China from which the working classes have benefited
greatly is not matched at all by India's relatively stagnant real
wages. No less importantly, the public revenue generated by rapid
economic growth has not been used to expand the social and
physical infrastructure in a determined and well-planned way (in
this India is left far behind by China). There is also a continued
E lack of essential social services (from schooling and health care
to the provision of safe water and drainage) for a huge part of the
population. As we will presently discuss, while India has been
overtaking other countries in the progress of its real income, it has
been overtaken in terms of social indicators by many of these
F countries, even within the region of South Asia itself(we go into
this question more fully in Chapter 3, 'India in Comparative
Perspective').
To point to just one contrast, even though India has significantly
caught up with China in terms of GDP growth, its progress has
G been very much slower than China's in indicators such as longevity,
literacy, child undernourishment and maternal mortality. In South
Asia itself, the much poorer economy of Bangladesh has caught
up with and overtaken India in terms of many social indicators
(including life expectancy, immunization of children, infant mortality,
'°An Uncertain Glory : India and its Contradictions
H
BINOY VISWAM v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS. 111
[A. K. SIKRI, J.]
child undernourishment and girls' schooling). Even Nepal has A
been catching up, to the extent that it now has many social
indicators similar to India's, in spite of its per capita GDP being
just about one third. Whereas twenty years ago India generally
had the second-best social indicators among the six South Asia
countries (India, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Sri Lanka, Nepal and
B
Bhutan), it now looks second worst (ahead only of problem-ridden
Pakistan). India has been climbing up the ladder of per capita
income while slipping down the slope of social indicators."
It is in this context that not only sustainable development is needed
which takes care ofintegrating growth and development, thereby ensuring
that the benefit of economic growth is reaped by every citizen of this
c
country, it also becomes the duty of the Government in a welfare State
to come out with various welfare schemes which not only take care of
immediate needs of the deprived class but also ensure that adequate
opportunities are provided to such persons to enable them to make their
lives better, economically as well as socially. As mentioned above, various D
welfare schemes are, in fact, devised and floated from time to time by
the Government, keeping aside substantial amount of money earmarked
for spending on socially and economically backward classes. However,
for various reasons including corruption, actual benefit does not reach
those who are supposed to receive such benefits. One of the main
reasons is failure to identify these persons for lack of means by which E
identity could be established of such genuine needy class. Resultantly,
lots of ghosts and ·duplicate beneficiaries are able to take undue and
impermissible benefits. A former Prime Minister of this country 51 has
gone to record fo say that out of one rupee spent by the Government for
welfare of the downtrodden, only 15 paisa thereof actually reaches those F
persons for whom it is meant. It cannot be doubted that with UID/
Aadhaar much of the malaise in this field can be taken care of.
(ii) Menace of com1ption and black money has reached alarming
proportion in this country. It is eating into the economic progress
which the country is otherwise achieving. It is not necessary to G
go into the various reasons for this menace. However, it would
be pertinent to comment that even as per the observations of the
Special Investigation Team (SIT) on black money headed by
Justice M.B. Shah, one of the reasons is that persons have the
1
' Late Shri Raj iv Gandhi
H
112 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2017] 7 S.C.R.
A option to quote their PAN or UID or passport number or driving
licence or any other proof of identity while entering into financial/
business transactions. Because of this multiple methods of giving
. proofs of identity, there is no mechanism/system at present to
collect the data available with each of the independent proofs of
ID. For this reason, even SIT suggested that these databases be
B
interconnected. To the same effect is the recommendation of the
Committee headed by Chairman, CBDT on measures to tackle
black money in India and abroad which also discusses the problem
of money-laundering being done to evade taxes under the garb of
shell companies by the persons who hold multiple bogus PAN
c numbers under different names or variations of their names. That
can be possible if one uniform proof of identity, namely, UID is
adopted. It may go a long way to check and minimise the said
malaise.
(iii) Thirdly, Aadhaar or UID, which has come to be known as
D most advanced and sophisticated infrastructure, may facilitate law
enforcement agencies to take care of problem -of terrorism to
• some extent and may also be helpful in checking the crime and
also help investigating agencies in cracking the crimes. No doubt,
going by aforesaid, and may be some other similarly valid
considerations, it is the intention of the Government to give phillip
E- to Aadhaar movement and encourage the people of this country
to enroll themselves under the Aadhaar scheme.
I 19. Wether such a scheme should remain voluntary or it can be
made mandatory imposing compulsiveness on the people to be
covered by Aadhaar is _a different question which shall be
F addressed at the appropriate stage. At this juncture, it is only
emphasised that malafides cannot be attributed to this scheme.
In any case, we are concerned with the vires of Section 139 AA
of the Income Tax Act. 1961 which is a statutory provision. This
Court is, thus, dealing with the aspect of judicial review of
G legislation. Insofar as this provision is concerned, the explanation
of the respondents in the counter affidavit, which has already
been reproduced above, is that the primary pm'pose of introducing
this provision was to take care of the problem of multiple PAN
cards obtained in fictitious names. Such multiple cards in fictitious
names are obtained with the motive of indulging into money
H
...
BINOY VISWAM v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS. 113
[A. K. SIKRI, J.]
laundering, tax evasion, creation and channelising of black money. A
It is mentioned that in a de-duplication exercises, 11.35 lakhs cases
of duplicate PANs/fr'audulent PANs have been detected. Out of
these, around 10.52 lakhs pertain to individual assessees.
Parliament in its wisdom thought that one PAN to one person can
be ensured by adopting Aadhaar for allottment of PAN to B
individuals. As of today, that is the only method available i.e. by
seeding of existing PAN with Aadhaar. It is perceived as the best
method, and the only robust method of de-duplication of PAN
database. It is claimed by the respondents that the instance of
duplicate Aadhaar is almost non-existent. It is also claimed that
seeding of PAN with Aadhaar may contribute to widening of the c
tax case as well, by checking the tax evasions and bringing in to
tax hold those persons who are liable to pay tax but deliberately
avoid doing so. It would be apposite to quote the following
discussion by the Comptroller and Auditor General in its report
for the year 2011 :
D
"Widening of Tax Base
The assessee base grew over the last five years from 297.9 lakh
taxpayers in 2005-06 to 340.9 lakh taxpayers in 2009-10 at the
rate .of 14.4 per cent.
The Department has different mechanisms available to enhance E
the assessee base which include inspection and survey, information
sharing with other tax departments and third party information
available in annual information returns. Automation also facilitates
greater cross linking .. Most of these mechanisms are available at
the level of assessing officers. The Department needs to F
holistically harness these mechanisms at macro level to analyse
the gaps in the assessee base. Permanent Account Numbers
(PANs) issued upto March 2009 and March 2010 were 807.9 ·
lakh and 958 lakh respectively. The returns filled in 2008-09 and
2009-10 were 326.5 lakh and 340.9 lakh respectively. The gap
between PANs and the number ofreturns filed was 617. l lakh in G
2009-10. The Board needs to identify the reasons for the gap and
use this information for appropriately enhancing the assessee base.
The gap may be due to issuance of duplicate PAN cards
and death of some PAN card holders. The Department
needs to put in place appropriate controls to weed out the H
114 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2017] 7 S.C.R.
A duplicate PANs and also update the position in respect of
deceased assessee. It is significant to note that the number
of PAN card holders has increased by 117.7 per cent
between 2005-06 to 2009-10 whereas the number of returns
filed in the same period has increased by 14.4 per cent only.
B (emphasis supplied)
The total direct tax collection has increased by 128.8 per cent
during the period 2005-06 to 2009-10. The increase in the tax
collection was around nine times.as compared to increase in the
assessee base. It should be the constant endeavour of the
c Department to ensure that the entire assessee base, once correctly
identified is duly meeting the entire tax iiability. However, ho
assurance could be obtained that the tax liability on the assessee
is being assessed and collected properly. This comment is
corroborated in para 2.4.1 of Chapter 2 of this report where we
have mentioned about our detection of under charge of tax
D amouting to Rs. 12,842.7 crore in 19,230 cases audited during
2008-09. However, given the fact that ours is a test audit,
Department needs to take firm steps towards strengthening the
controls available on the existing statutes towards deriving an
assurance on the tax collections."
E 120. Likewise, the Finance Minister in his Budget speech in
February, 2013 described the extent of.tax evasion and offering lesser
income tax than what is actually due thereby labelling India as tax known
compliance, with the following figures:
"India's tax to GDP ratio is very law, and the proportion of direct
F tax to indirect tax is not optional from the view point of social
justice. I place before you certain data to indicate that our direct
tax collection is not commensurate with the .income and
consumption pattern of Indian economy. As against estimated 4.2
crore persons engaged in organized sector employment, the number
G of individuals filing return for salary income are only 1. 74 crore.
As against 5. 6 crore informal sector individual enterprises and
firms doing small business in India, the number of returns filed by
this category are only 1.81 crore. Out of the 13.94 lakh companies
registered in India up to 31th March, 2014, 5.97 lakh companies
have filed their returns for Assessment Year 2016-17. Of the 5.97
H
BINOY VISWAM v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS. 115
[A. K. SIKRI, J.]
lakh companies which have filed their returns for Assessment A
Year 2016-17 so far, as many as 2.76 lakh companies have shown
losses or zero income. 2.85 lakh companies have shown profit
. before tax of less than Rs. I crore. 28,667 companies have shown
profit between Rs. 1 crore to Rs. 10 crore, and only 7781
companies have profit before tax of more than Rs. I 0 crores.
B
Among the 3 .7 crore individuals who filed the tax returns in 2015-
16, 99 lakh show income below the exemption limit of Rs. 2.5
Lakh p.a. 1.95 crore show income between Rs. 2.5 to Rs. 5 lakh,
52 lakh show income between Rs. 5 to Rs. 10 lakhs and only 24
Jakh people show income above Rs. I 0 lakhs. Of the 76 lakhs
individual assesses who declare income above Rs. 5 lakhs, 56 c
lakhs are in the salaried class. The number of people showing
income more than 50 lakhs in the entire country is only 1.72 lakh.
We can contrast this with the fact that in the last five years, more
than 1.25 crore cars have been sold, and number oflndian citizens
who flew abroad, either for business or tourism, is 2 crore in the
D
year 2015. From all these figures we can conclude that we are
largely a tax non-compliant society. The predominance of the cash
in the economy makes it possible for the people to evade their
taxes. When too many people evade the taxes, the burden of their
share falls on those who are honest and complaint."
121. The respondents have also claimed that linking of Aadhaar E
· with PAN is consistent with India's international obligations and goals.
In this behalf, it is pointed out that India has signed the Inter-Governmental
Agreement (IGA) with the USA on July 9, 2015, for Improving
International Tax Compliance and implementing the Foreign Account
Tax Compliance Act (FATCA). India has also signed a multilateral F
agreement on June 3, 2015, to automatically exchange information based
on Article 6 of the Convention on Mutual Administrative Assistance in
Tax Matters under the Common Reporting Scheme (CRS), formally
referred to as the Standard for Automatic Exchange of Financial Account
Information (AEoI). As part oflndia's commitment under FATCA and
CRS, financial sector entities capture the. details about the customers G
using the PAN. In case the PAN or submitted details are found to be
incorrect or fictitious, it will create major embarrassment for the country.
Under Non-filers Monitoring System (NMS), Income Tax Department
identifies non-filers with potential tax liabilities. Data analysis is carried
H
116 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2017] 7 S.C.R.
A out to identify non-filers about whom specific information was available
in AIR, CIB data and TDS/TCS Returns. Email/SMS and letters are
sent to the identified non-filers communicating the information summary
and seeking to know the submission details of Income tax return. In a
large number of cases (more than I 0 lac PAN every year) it is seen that
the PAN holder neither submits the response and in many cases the
B
letters are return unserved. Field verification by fields formations have
found that in a large number of cases, the PAN holder is untraceable. In
many cases, the PAN holder mentions that the transaction does not
relate to them. There is a need to strengthen PAN by linking it with
Aadhaar/biometric information to prevent use of wrong PAN for high
c value transactions.
122. While considering the aforesaid submission of the petitioners,
one has to keep in mind the aforesaid purpose of the impugned provision
and what it seeks to achieve. The provision is aimed at seeding Aadhaar
with PAN. We have already held, while considering the submission
D based on Article 14 of the Constitution, that the provision is based on
reasonable classification and that has nexus with the objective sought to
be achieved. One of the main objectives is to de-duplicate PAN cards
and to bring a situation where one person is not having more than one
PAN card or a person is not able to get PAN cards in assumed/fictitious
names. In such a scenario, if those persons who violate Section 139AA
E of the Act without any consequence, the provision shall be rendered
toothless. It is the prerogative of the Legislature to make penal provisions
for violation of any law made by it. In the instant case, requirement of
giving Aadhaar enrolment number to the designated authority or stating
this number in the income tax returns is directly connected with the
F issue of duplicate/fake PANs.
123. At this juncture, we will also like to quote the following
passages from the nine Judge Bench judgment of this Court in Jindal
Stainless Ltd.51, which discussion though is in different context, will
have some relevance to the issue at hand as well:
G "109. It was next argued on behalf of the dealers that an
unreasonably high rate of tax could by itself constitute a restriction
offensive to Article 301 of the Constitution. This was according
to learned counsel for the dealers acknowledged even in the
minority judgment delivered by Sinha, CJ in Atiabari 's
H " Footnote 40 above
BINOY VISWAM v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS. 117
[A. K. SIKRI, J.]
case (supra). If that be so, the only way such a. restriction could A
meet the constitutional requirements would be through the medium
of the proviso to Article 304(b) of the Constitution. There is, in
our opinion, no merit in that contention either and we say so for
two precise reasons. Firstly, because taxes whether high or low
do not constitute restrictions on the freedom of trac;le and B
commerce. We have held so in the previous paragraphs of the
judgment based on our textual understanding of the provisions of
Part XIII which is matched by the contextual interpretation. That
being so the mere fact that a tax casts a heavy burden is no
reason for holding that it is a restriction on the freedom of trade
and commerce. Any such excessive tax burden may be opert to · C
challenge under Part III of the Constitution but the extent of burden
would not by itself justify the levy being struck down as a
restriction contrary to Article 301 of the Constitution.
110. Secondly because, levy of taxes is both an attribute of
sovereignty and an unavoidable necessity. No responsible D
government can do without levying and collecting taxes for it is
only through taxes that governments are run and objectives of
general public good achieved. The conceptual or juristic basis
underlying the need for taxation h~s not, therefore, been disputed
by learned counsel for the dealers and, in our opinion, rightly so.
That taxation is essential for fulfilling the needs of the government E
is even otherwise well-settled. A reference to "A Treatise on the
Constitutional Limitatiops" (81h Edn. 1927 - Vol. ll Page 986) by
Thomas M Cooley brings home the point with commendable
clarity. Dealing with power of taxation Cooley says:
"Taxes are defined to be burdens or charges imposed by the F
legislative power upon persons or property, to raise money for
public purposes. The power to tax rests upon necessity, and is
inherent in every .sovereignty. The legislature of every free ..
State will possess it under the general grant oflegislative power,
whether particularly specified in the. constitution among the G
powers to be exercised by it or not. No constitutional
government can exist without it, and no arbitrary government
without regular and steady taxation could be anything but an
oppressive and vexatious despotism, since the only alternative
to taxation would be a forced extortion for the needs of
H
118 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2017] 7 S.C.R.
A government from such persons or objects as the men in power
might select as victims."
111. Reference may also be made to the following passage
appearing in McCulloch v. Maryland, 17 US 316 ( 1819) where
Chief Justice MarshaU recognized the power of taxation and
B pointed out that the only security against the abuse of such power
lies in the structure of the government itself.The court said:
"43. ..It is admitted that the power of taxing the people and
their property is essential to the very existence of government,
and may be legitimately exercised on the objects to which it is
c applicable to the utmost extent to which the government may
choose to carry it. The only security against the abuse of this
power is found in the stmcture of the government itself. In
imposing a tax, the legislature acts upon its constituents. This
is, in general, a sufficient security against erroneous and
oppressive taxation. ·
D
44. The people of a State, therefore, give to their government
a right of taxing themselves and their property; and as the
exigencies of the government cannot be limited, they prescribe .
no limits to the exercise of this right, resting confidently on the
interest of the legislator, and on the influence of the constituents
E over their representative, to guard them against its abuse."
112. To the same effect is the decision of this Court in State of
Madras v. N.K. Nataraja Mudaliar (AIR 1969 SC 147) where
this Court recognized that political and economic forces would
operate against the levy of an unduly high rate of tax. The Court
F said:
"16 .... Again, in a democratic constitution political forces would
operate against the levy of an unduly high rate of tax. The rate
. of tax on sales of a commodity may not ordinarily be based on
arbitrary considerations, but in the light of the facility of trade
G in a particular commodity, the market conditions internal and
external - and the likelihood of consumers not being scared
away by the price which includes a high rate of tax. Attention
must also be directed sub-Section (5) of Section 8 which
authorizes the State Government, notwithstanding anything
contained in Section 8, in the public interest to waive tax or
H
BINOY VISWAM v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS. 119
[A. K. SIKRI, J.]
impose tax on sales at a lower rate o'n inter-State trade or A
commerce. It is clear that the legislature has contemplated
that elasticity of rates consistent with economic forces is clearly
intended to be maintained."
124. Therefore, it cannot be denied that there has to be some
provision stating the consequences for not complying with the B
requirements of Section I 39AA of the Act, more particularly when these
requirements are found as not violative of Articles 14 and 19 (of course,
eschewing the discussion on Article 21 herein for the reasons already
given). If Aadhar number is not given, the aforesaid exercise may not
be possible.
c
125. Having said so, it becomes clear from the aforesaid discussion
that those who are not PAN holders, while applying for PAN, they are
reqµired to give Aadhaar number. This is the stipulation of sub-section
(1) of Section 139AA, which we have already upheld. At the same
time, as far as existing PAN holders are concerned, since the impugned
provisions are yet to be considered on the touchstone ofArticle 21 of the D
Constitution, including on the debate around Right to Privacy and human
dignity, etc. as limbs of Article 21, we are of the opinion that till the
aforesaid aspect of Art~cle 21 is decided by the Constitution Bench a
partial stay of the aforesaid proviso is necessary. Those who have
alr~ady enrolled themselves under Aadhaar scheme would comply with E
the requirement of sub-section (2) of Section I 39AA of the Act. Those
who still want to enrol are free to do so. However, those assessees who
are not Aadhaar card holders and do not comply with the provision of
Section 139(2), their PAN cards be not treated as invalid for the time
being. It is only to facilitate other transactions which are mentioned in
Rule 114B of the Rules. We are adopting this course ofaction for more F
than one reason. We are saying so because of very severe consequences
that entail in not adhering to the requirement of sub-section (2) of Section
139AA of the Act. A person who is holder of PAN and if his PAN is
invalidated, he is bound to suffer immensely in his day to day dealings,
which situation should be avoided till the Constitution Bench authoritatively G
determines the argument of Article 21 of the Constitution .. Since we are
adopting this course of action, in the interregnum, it would be permissible
for the Parliament to consider as· to whether there is a need to tone
down the effect of the said proviso by limiting the consequences ..
126. However, at the same time, we find that proviso to Section H
120 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2017] 7 S.C.R.
A 139AA(2) cannot be read retrospectively. If failure to intimate the
Aadhaar number renders PAN void ab initio with the deeming provision
that the PAN allotted would be invalid as ifthe person had not applied
for allotment of PAN would have rippling effect of unsettling settled
rights of the parties. It has the effect of undoing all the acts done by a
person on the basis of such a PAN. It may have even the effect of
B
incurring other penal consequences under the Act for earlier period on
the ground that there was no PAN registration by a particular assessee.
The rights which are already accrued to a person in law cannot be taken
away. Therefore, this provision needs to be read down by making it
clear that it would operate prospectively.
c 127. Before we part with, few comments are needed, as we feel
that these are absolutely essential:
(i) Validity of Aadhaar, whether it is under the Aadhaar scheme
or the Aadhaar Act, is already under challenge on the touchstone
of Article 21 of the Constitution. Various facets of Article 21 are
D pressed into service. First and foremost is that it violates Right to
Privacy and Right to Privacy is part of Article 21 of the
Constitution. Secondly, it is also argued that it violates human
dignity which is another aspect of Article 21 of the Constitution.
Since the said matter has already'been referred to the Constitution
E Bench, we have consciously avoided discussion, though
submissions in this behalf have been taken note of. We feel that
all the aspect ofArticle 21 needs to be dealt with by the Constitution
Bench. That is a reason we have deliberately refrained from
entering into the said arena.
F (ii) It was submitted by the counsel for the petitioners themselves
that they would be confining their challenge to the impugned
provision on Articles 14 and 19 of the Constitution as well as
eompetence of the Legislature, while addressing the arguments,
other facets of Article 21 of the Constitution were also touched
upon. Since we are holding that Section 139AA of the Income
G Tax Act is not violative of Articles 14 and l 9(1)(g) of the
Constitution and also that there was no impediment in the way of
Parliament to insert such a statutory provision (subject to reading
down the proviso to sub-section (2) of Section 139AA of the Act
as given above), we make it clear that the impugned provision has
H . passed the muster of Articles 14 and 19(1 )(g) of the Constitution.
BINOY VISWAM v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS. 121
[A. K. SIKRl, J.]
However, more stringent test as to whether this statutory provision A
violates Article 21 or not is yet to be qualified. Therefore, we
make it clear that Constitutional validity of this provision is upheld
subject to the outcome of batch of petitions referred to the
Constitution Bench where the said issue is to be examined.
(iii) It is also necessary to highlight that a large section of citizens B
feel concerned about possible data leak, even when many of those
support linkage of PAN with Aadhaar. This is a concern which
needs to be addressed by the Government. It is important that
the aforesaid apprehensions are assuaged by taking proper
measures so that confidence is instilled among the public at large
that there is no chance of unauthorised leakage of data whether it C
is done by tightening the operations of the contractors who are
given the job of enrollment, they being private persons or by
prescribing severe penalties to those who are found guilty of leaking
the details, is the outlook of the Government. However, we
emphasise that measures in this behalf are absolutely essential D
and it would be in the fitness of.things that proper scheme in this
behalf is devised at the earliest.
128. Subject to the aforesaid, these writ petitions are disposed of
in the following manner:
(i) We hold that the Parliament was fully competent to enact Section E
139AA of the Act and its authority to make this law was not diluted by
the orders of this Court.
(ii) We do not find any conflict between the provisions ofAadhaar
Act and Section 139AA of the Income Tax Act inasmuch as when
interpreted harmoniously, they operate in distinct fields. F·
(iii) $ection l 39AA of the Act is not discriminatory nor it offends
equality clause enshrined in Article 14 of the Constitution.
(iv) Section 139AA is also not violative of Article 19(1 )(g) of the
Constitution insofar as it mandates giving of Aadhaar enrollment number G
for applying PAN cards in the income tax returns or notified Aadhaar
enrollment number to the designated authorities. Further, proviso to sub-
section (2) thereof has to be read down to mean that it would operate
only prospective.
(v) The validity of the provision upheld in the aforesaid manner is
H
122 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2017] 7 S.C.R.
A subject to passing the muster of Article 21 of the Constitution, which is
the issue before the Constitution Bench in Writ Petition (Civil) No. 494
of 2012 and other connected matters. Till then, there shall remain a
partial stay on the operation of proviso to sub-section (2) of Section
139AA of the Act, as described above.
B No costs.
Devika Gujral Writ Petitions disposed of.
Search Indian case law
Ask in plain English, not just keywords. 25,000 AI words free, no card.
Try "Aadhaar"Sign in to search