Extension of Aadhaar linking deadlines: What's the catch?

Earlier this month on December 14, a five-judge Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court (SC) of India heard arguments for interim relief from a batch of 28 petitions (led by K S Puttaswamy v. Union of Indiai) that challenge the overall validity of the Aadhaar scheme on various grounds. The Bench comprised Chief Justice of India Dipak Misra and Justices A.K. Sikri, A.M. Khanwilkar, D.Y. Chandrachud and Ashok Bhushan.

Summary Report: Celebrating the Right to be Let Alone [Sep 02, 2017; New Delhi]

On Sep 2, 2017, SFLC.in organized a discussion titled “Celebrating the Right To Be Let Alone” to commemorate the recent recognition of right to privacy as a fundamental right, discuss the privacy judgment, its key takeaways, the impact it will have on pending Aadhaar litigations, how it will affect various aspects of policy making and the way forward from here. The speakers for the discussion included Prasanna S. (Advocate), Vickram Crishna (Technologist & Human Rights Activist), Dr.

Supreme Court hears the Aadhaar-PAN case; updates from Day 1

The cases for linking Aadhaar to PAN and making it mandatory for Income Tax returns were heard before a bench of Justices A.K. Sikri and Alok Bhushan in the Supreme Court on 26th April, 2017. Senior Counsels Arvind Datar, and Shyam Divan were representing the petitioners in these cases, Binoy Viswam v. Union of India (W.P.(C)247/2017), S.G. Vombatkere & Anr. v. Union of India (W.P.(C) 277/2017) respectively, whilst the Union of India was represented by the Attorney General, Mukul Rohatgi.

Supreme Court hears the Aadhaar-PAN case; updates from Day 2

The Supreme Court today continued the hearing on cases filed against linking Aadhar to PAN and making it mandatory for filing income tax returns [Binoy Viswam v. Union of India, W.P.(C) No. 247/2017 & S G Vombatkere and Anr. v. Union of India, W.P.(C) No. 277/2017 – see our coverage of arguments from day 1 here]. Mr. Shyam Divan, Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners in the latter case, resumed his arguments from day 1, and made the following points: