This article exists as part of the online archive for HuffPost India, which closed in 2020. Some features are no longer enabled. If you have questions or concerns about this article, please contact

'I Can Change My Password. I Cannot Change My Fingerprints': Advocate Shyam Divan Continues Compelling Argument Against Aadhaar In SC

"It even coerces children," he said.
Bloomberg via Getty Images

Even as the Supreme Court continued to hear petitions against making it mandatory to connect Aadhaar to PAN cards and hence compulsory in filing taxes, advocate and litigation expert Shyam Divan on Friday continued his exposition against the move.

As tweeted by lawyer Gautam Bhatia, Divan continued his argument against the move by the Centre saying an individual citizen of the country had the right to limit what they were putting out in this world. He also argued that Aadhaar coerced children, even before they reached the age of consent.

Divan also told the court that informational self-determination was essential for the free development of the individual and for a free democratic society.

Pointing out that 34,000 enrollers had been blacklisted, Divan told the apex court there was no quality control when it came to third parties and the government had no contact with them whatsoever.

He said that the registrar's control over biometric data of individuals created a laughable situation.

Arguing agains the legislative competence of Aadhaar, Divan said, "The Union has no competence to nationalise my fingerprints. Eminent domain is confined to land. Not to the body of the individual."

He added, "Consequently, you can do this only in narrowly tailored circumstances. If the State can have control over your body to this extent - taking your data and centralising it - that reduces us to vassals. At best, the State can act as a trustee or a fiduciary over this data, which is our personal property. "

Warning against the consequences of personal data being present online, he said:

Citing Humpty Dumpty's quote from Alice In Wonderland from Lord Atkins' immortal dissent in Liversidge vs Anderson, 1942 AC 206, he said, "Please do not allow the govt to canvas a Humpty Dumpty interpretation. when we say it's voluntary, it means compulsory. The only authority for that is Humpty Dumpty."

To which the bench said:

Appearing before a bench of Justices A K Sikri and Ashok Bhushan, Divan then went on to point out how Aadhaar even coerces children:

The Union of India, which is being represented by Attorney General Mukul Rohatgi, will reply to the court regarding this matter on Tuesday.

Divan, in his arguments on Thursday had said "the Aadhaar project alters the relationship between the State and the individual. It is an issue of civil liberty."

"How can you engraft a provision into the Income Tax Act making it mandatory when the Aadhaar Act itself makes Aadhaar purely voluntary," he asked.

On bodily integrity, he argued:"My fingerprints and iris are mine and my own. As far as I am concerned, the State cannot take away my body. This imperils my life. As long as my body is concerned, the State cannot expropriate it without consent, and for a limited purpose."

The Centre, had made it mandatory for quoting of Aadhaar or enrolment ID of Aadhaar application form for filing of I-T returns and making application for allotment of PAN with effect from July 1, 2017, through Section 139AA of the the Finance Act, 2017.

Earlier in the week, apex court had asked why lawmakers did not object to make Aadhaar mandatory. "542 persons are sitting in Parliament, why do they not object to it? If they are not objecting, why should we go into it... They cannot be bound by it. It cannot preclude Parliament from enacting a statutory provision," the bench had said.

Also In HuffPost India

Vinod Khanna: A Style Icon

This article exists as part of the online archive for HuffPost India, which closed in 2020. Some features are no longer enabled. If you have questions or concerns about this article, please contact