Moot Proposition 11th Amity University National Moot Court

XI AMITY NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2018
AMITY LAW SCHOOL, LUCKNOW
MOOT PROPOSITION
Disclaimer: The contents of this moot problem are entirely fictional and do not in any
way aim to hurt the sentiments or degrade the values and ideologies of any group of
people, religion or individual. This problem is drafted for the purpose of National
Moot Court Competition to be held at the Amity Law School, Lucknow Campus of
Amity University Uttar Pradesh.
MOOT PROPOSITION
1. The Union of Indiana is located in the South Asian Region of Asia which is one of
the ancient nations in the world. It is a democratic country with a written
Constitution and having 29 States including the State of Uttam Pradesh and 7
Union Territories.
2. Earlier, in Indiana, various identity proofs were required for access to government
benefits, subsidies and services, such as a ration card, driving license or voter id.
However, as these proofs could be easily duplicated or forged, there was leakage
of benefits and subsidies to ineligible beneficiaries. The Janaadhaar project was
initiated in 2009 to address these problems. It was envisaged as a biometric-based
unique identity number that could help in identifying eligible citizens. It was
thought to be a more reliable identity proof, because it sought to authenticate a
citizen’s identity based on his unique biometrics, like fingerprints and iris scans.
3. In 2016, Parliament enacted the Janaadhaar Act, 2016 to provide legislative

backing to the project. This Act allowed Janaadhaar to be used for authentication
purposes by the central and state governments, as well as by private bodies and
citizens, it was also made mandatory for everyone to register himself under the
Act and possess Janaadhaar number. Under its provisions Janaadhaar was made
mandatory for government services and to avail benefits of various government
welfare schemes including LPG subsidies. In addition to it, Parliament has
recently passed the Finance Act to amend the Income Tax Act, 1961, and made
Janaadhaar mandatory for filing of income tax returns, and applying for PAN. The
main aim of this policy was to check the leakage in government schemes and to
prevent corruption happening in PDS and other subsidy providing schemes of the
government and diversion of public resources to those who are ineligible.
Basically, the philosophy behind this policy is ‘Zero Tolerance for Corruption’.
4. The process of collecting the information for identification, citizens of Indiana are
required to submit their biometric information (photograph, 10 fingerprints, scans
of both irises), and demographic information (name, date of birth, gender,
residential address) to the Unique Identification Authority of Indiana (UIDAI).
The Janaadhaar number, the demographic and biometric information (called
identity information) are stored together in the Central Identities Data Repository.
In addition, every time a citizen’s identity is authenticated using Janaadhaar,
information related to the authentication request is also recorded.
5. The UIDAI has been made responsible for the operation and maintenance of the
Janaadhaar database and for laying down the security protocols for its protection.
6. The Petitioner, Ms. Medha Singh, filed a PIL challenging the policy of mandatory
Janaadhaar cards in the High Court of Uttam Pradesh, on following grounds with
a request that it should be struck down as unconstitutional:
a) The collection of identity data without adequate safeguards interferes with the
fundamental right to privacy and personal liberty protected under Article 21 of
the Constitution which guarantees right to life and personal liberty. The data
collected by government is not safe and it can be leaked to private entities
very easily threatening the life and liberty of the citizens. Recently one
incident has been reported where data of 13 crore citizens has been leaked
from Janaadhaar database and now is in the hands of some private companies
and is being used for telemarketing.
b) Parliament enacted the Janaadhaar Act, 2016 and through various

notifications made thereunder Janaadhaar has been made mandatory for
availing benefits of various government schemes and services, which citizens
are entitled to under law, and this makes it questionable. Seriousness of the
situation can be understood by the fact that in such a short span of time many
malpractices involving huge amount of money with regard to LPG subsidies
of ignorant citizens in blatant violation of UIDAI norms are coming into light.
c) In 2017, Janaadhaar was made mandatory for filing of tax returns and
applying for PAN under the Income Tax Act, 1961 and required that if a
citizens failed to link his/her PAN with the Janaadhaar number by a date
notified by the central government, his/her PAN will be invalidated. As per
the justification of the government this will decrease the problem of multiple
PAN cards obtained under fictitious names and consequent tax fraud and tax
evasion, because Janaadhaar will ensure proper identification. However, this
may interfere with a citizen’s fundamental right to equality and their right to
practice any profession, trade or business which is enshrined in Articles 14
and 19(1)(g) respectively.
d) The Janaadhaar Act was passed as a Money Bill. A Money Bill only needs to
be passed by Lok Sabha, while Rajya Sabha may make non-binding
recommendations on it. In case of the Janaadhaar Act, Rajya Sabha made
some recommendations that were rejected by Lok Sabha. Questions have been
raised that Janaadhaar Act does not meet the constitutional requirements of
Money Bill mentioned in Article 110, because it contains provisions unrelated
to government taxation and expenditure. Hence, the manner in which it has
been passed attaches voice of unconstitutionality.
7. Matter was heard by the High Court of Uttam Pradesh and it was held that
Janaadhaar scheme and Act are invalid on the touchstone of constitutional
provisions and ultimately gave the verdict in favour of the petitioner stating that
through linking up of Janaadhaar with bank accounts, mobile connections and
other day to day transactions will certainly improve transparency but on the other
hand there is no effective machinery to keep a close and strict check to prevent the
hacking and misuse of information given by the public.
8. The government moved to the Supreme Court challenging the Judgment of the
High Court of Uttam Pradesh. In the meanwhile, Nalin Mishra, a journalist
associated with News Network 24, conducted a sting operation on UIDAI in
which he claimed that it was possible to obtain two separate Janaadhaar
enrollment numbers or even the Janaadhaar cards with the same set of biometrics,
questioning the authenticity of security system of UIDAI.
9. The report claimed that the system can be breached easily and ended with the
statement that it was not safe to link anything with Janaadhaar. UIDAI has served
a defamation notice on the aforesaid news agency stating the sting operation to be
fake and also claimed that it was a trail by media when the matter was already in
the court. The agency on the other hand is arguing that it only wanted the public to
be aware and was doing their duty. The highest standard of protection of data and
secrecy has not been put in place to ensure that there is no leakage. It is a matter
of great concern which many citizens and civil society groups have expressed.
10. While all this was going on, two students of Indiana University, Aman Srivastava
and Tanya Kumari hacked the UIDAI server and pulled out data from it for their
own app. They gained access to the data through the Digital India e-hospital
initiative of the Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology. FIR was
lodged against them and during investigation it was found that they hacked into
the server of e-hospital system and used to send verification requests to the UIDAI
database for their own app. The UIDAI system gave permission to access because
the authentication requests were coming from the e-hospital system.
11. A case of cybercrime under the Information Technology Act was filed against
them for leaking the private data of more than 50,000 individuals. The students
argued that the data was not protected and was easily accessible and they did it
just to prove that the UIDAI servers are not fully equipped with security system to
protect its data. There was outrage for such easy leak of data in the public against
the government and its policy of Janaadhaar as, after the introduction of their
scheme, the Janaadhaar related fraud cases have increased manifold.
12. The Supreme Court sensing the urgency of the matter suo moto took cognizance
of all the cases and clubbed them together and posted for a hearing on 23rd
March, 2018.
NOTE: All the Laws of Union of Indiana are same as that of India. The
participants can raise any other issue relevant and mandatory to this issue of
Janaadhaar cards of Indiana in the light of Aadhar cards in India.

Moot Proposition 11th Amity University National Moot Court

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Moot Proposition 11th Amity University National Moot Court

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Moot Proposition 11th Amity University National Moot Court

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

XI AMITY NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2018

AMITY LAW SCHOOL, LUCKNOW

3. In 2016, Parliament enacted the Janaadhaar Act, 2016 to provide legislative

b) Parliament enacted the Janaadhaar Act, 2016 and through various

You might also like