Supreme Court says Pension cannot be linked to Aadhaar

Must Read

Madras High Court Observes Unexplained Delay in Procedural Safeguards, Quashes Detention Through Writ Petition

A Writ Petition was filed under Article 226 to issue a writ of Habeas Corpus. The petitioner P. Lakshmi,...

UK Court of Appeal Rules Home Department’s Deportation Policy of Immigrants Unlawful

Britain’s Court of Appeal quashed the Home Department’s deportation policy, declaring it unlawful; criticizing it for being too stringent...

Inordinate and Unexplained Delay in Considering Representation by Government Renders Detention Order Illegal: Madras High Court

A Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution was filed in the Madras High Court to declare the detention...

Privy Council Clarifies Approach To Winding up in “Deadlock” Cases in the Case of Chu v. Lau

The Judicial Committee of the Privy Council clarified several aspects of the law concerning just and equitable winding-up petitions,...

Madras High Court Directs Hospital To Submit Necessary Medical Reports to Authorization Committee for Approval of Kidney Transplant

A Writ Petition was filed under Article 226 to issue a Writ of Mandamus to K.G. Hospital, Coimbatore by...

Punjab Woman Evokes Petition for Protection Fearing Honour Killing

In the case of Divya Mattu and another vs State of Punjab and others, the petitioner, Divya, fearing honour...

Follow us

Facts

The Supreme Court on March 21 raised an important question on the mandatory linking of Aadhaar card for drawing pension by retired government employees.

The top court has rightly observed that pension is “not a subsidy but an entitlement of a person for years of service he/she has rendered to the government in the discharge of official duties“.

Bench

The five-judge bench comprising CJI Dipak Misra justices AK Sikri, AM Khanwilkar, DY Chandrachud and Ashok Bhushan is hearing a bunch of petitions challenging the constitutional validity of Aadhaar Act on the premise of the citizen’s fundamental right to privacy.

The pension is an entitlement under the respective central or states civil and defense service rules (as applicable) and not a benefit under any of the social schemes. Therefore, there seems to be no basis for its inclusion under Section 7 of the Aadhaar Act, 2016.

There are some practical problems which must be taken into consideration. Whether one wants to admit it or not, due to the fast-crumbling joint family system, a majority of the pensioners are leading independent and lonely lives for decades now. Then, there are many more cases where their children have relocated to distant cities away from them within India and even overseas in search of gainful vocations.

It would definitely amount to undue stress and pressure on such pensioners if they are deprived of their pension because of Aadhaar card. That would not just be unfair but criminal.

The situation for women drawing widow pension and other dependent beneficiaries of such pensions is even worse. Senior citizens suddenly asked to prove their identity for the pension through an Aadhaar card may really be at a loss if for years they had led a dignified life without such an identity.

And all this when all retired central or state government pensioners have the pension payment booklets or service books – as applicable from state to state duly certifying all of their personal details, including the pictures of both the spouses (in case married) and even those of any legally accepted dependent member of the pensioner.

It is also a known fact that the biometrics do undergo a change with advancing years, and in many cases, fingerprints may no longer remain readable or match perfectly.

The SC has, therefore, rightly suggested that the government needs to come out with less invasive ways of confirming the identity of a person. The bench has rightly raised the issue of retired persons settled abroad, highlighting that as per rules, only Indians can enroll for Aadhaar or else only if they spend a minimum stipulated period of continuous stay back in India in a year. This calls for ensuring that any non-resident Indian can also get his/her pensionary dues as they are debarred from applying for Aadhaar. The central government alone has nearly 55 lakh pensioners enjoying this entitlement and the numbers in all states put together are much larger.

It may be recalled here that the apex court has already ruled twice in October and December 2015 that citizens cannot be forced to produce their Aadhaar to avail government’s welfare schemes and benefits. Though the change and switch over to Aadhaar as a single source of identity seems good in the longer run, considering the multiplicity of various benefit-specific IDs created from time to time covering our huge population, it has to be prudently paced to match its success with good governance.

The SC rightly questioned the central government “if Aadhaar was an instrument of establishing the identity of a person, then what was the need for storing data in a centralized repository and linking the unique identification with everything“.

“Why you want to store data when you want the identity of a person to be established in Singapore, everyone has a unique identification card and all information is stored in a chip card and is not with the state,” said justice AK Sikri

Judgment

The top court said that the govt.should come with less invasive ways of confirming the identity of the person. SC said linking Aadhaar with the pension should not be mandatory. The bench raised the issue of retired persons settled abroad, pointing out that as per rules, only Indians can enroll for Aadhaar. In this case govt. must ensure that non-resident Indians can also get the pensionary benefits as they cannot apply for Aadhaar.

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Latest News

Madras High Court Observes Unexplained Delay in Procedural Safeguards, Quashes Detention Through Writ Petition

A Writ Petition was filed under Article 226 to issue a writ of Habeas Corpus. The petitioner P. Lakshmi, called for records of the...

UK Court of Appeal Rules Home Department’s Deportation Policy of Immigrants Unlawful

Britain’s Court of Appeal quashed the Home Department’s deportation policy, declaring it unlawful; criticizing it for being too stringent on immigrants to comply with. Background The...

Inordinate and Unexplained Delay in Considering Representation by Government Renders Detention Order Illegal: Madras High Court

A Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution was filed in the Madras High Court to declare the detention order of the husband of...

Privy Council Clarifies Approach To Winding up in “Deadlock” Cases in the Case of Chu v. Lau

The Judicial Committee of the Privy Council clarified several aspects of the law concerning just and equitable winding-up petitions, as well as shareholder disputes...

Madras High Court Directs Hospital To Submit Necessary Medical Reports to Authorization Committee for Approval of Kidney Transplant

A Writ Petition was filed under Article 226 to issue a Writ of Mandamus to K.G. Hospital, Coimbatore by P. Sankar & V. Sobana....

Punjab Woman Evokes Petition for Protection Fearing Honour Killing

In the case of Divya Mattu and another vs State of Punjab and others, the petitioner, Divya, fearing honour killing against her by her...

Punjab Woman Accuses Punjab Police of Keeping Husband in Illegal Custody and Framing Him in a False Case

In the case of Geeta v the State of Punjab, the petitioner evoked a writ petition of habeas corpus as she claimed that her...

Addition of Words as Prefixes or Suffixes Is an Infringement of a Registered Trademark: Delhi High Court

Justice Jayanth Nath allowed the Times Group to use its registered trademark “Newshour”, in the case of Bennett Coleman and Co. Ltd v. ARG Outlier...

Just Because the Deceased Did Not Have License, Does Not Imply He Was Negligent: Chhattisgarh High Court

In the case of Hemlal & Others v. Dayaram & Others, a Single Bench of Chhattisgarh High Court consisting of Justice Sanjay S. Agrawal annunciated various...

Hoardings Are Movable Property Under Section 2(3) of DMC Act Subject To the Twin Test: Delhi High Court

Delhi High Court in the case of Delhi International Airport v South Delhi Metropolitan Corporation discussed in detail the provision under Section 2(3) of the DMC...

More Articles Like This

- Advertisement -