Counsel for the petitioner said the plea raised an important question – whether under the Aadhaar Act, there can be a mandatory direction that one must have Aadhaar cards to avail the benefits of the NFSA.
The Bench replied saying, “Our understanding of the Supreme Court judgment in Puttaswamy and Aadhar act is that if you wish to avail any beneficial scheme that you could be required to have Aadhar cards … Parliament has enacted both the acts and they have said you will get the benefits in certain conditions.”
The counsel then argued that Aadhaar could have been made mandatory only if the scheme’s benefits amounted to a dole.
“It is not a dole. The right given under the NFSA is not a dole. It is a right. My point is if it is a fundamental right or legal right then there is a distinction,” it was submitted.
The Bench, however, disagreed.
“The Supreme Court does not say legal right, you say that … How do you say it is not a dole? It is a dole,” the Court remarked.
Advocate Zoheb Hossain appearing for the Central government submitted that the purpose of PILs have outrun their course.
“The intention may be well earlier but now it is has run its course. The entire scheme and interplay of NFSA and Aadhaar has been examined,” he said.
The petitioner’s counsel submitted that once someone is given a right, they cannot be deprived of it.
“It is not an ex-gratia thing that is being given” it was argued.
“Is parliament authorised to take it back? Can it be repealed,” the Bench queried.
“If you are wasting our time, we will come out with cost,” the Court warned.
Counsel for the petitioners said that while their interpretation may be wrong., they were arguing in public interest.
“I am not arguing to prove myself right. If you do not agree with me then you may pass any order,” it was submitted.
The Bench then proceeded to dismiss the petition.
Source: Barandbench
