A N M C C, 2018 T C: Mity Ational OOT Ourt Ompetition

AMITY NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2018 TABLE OF CONTENTS
T4P
17TH AMITY NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2018
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE REPUBLIC OF ENDOR
UNDER ARTICLE 32 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF ENDOR
IN THE MATTER OF:
BEN YODA FOUNDATION ...PETITIONER
VERSUS
REPUBLIC OF ENDOR … RESPONDENT
WRIT PETITION NO. ****/2018
Memorial on behalf of the Respondent
-1-
MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT
AMITY NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2018 TABLE OF CONTENTS
CONTENTS
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS .................................................................................................................. 3
INDEX OF AUTHORITIES ................................................................................................................... 5
STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION ........................................................................................................ 13
STATEMENTS OF FACTS.................................................................................................................. 14
ISSUES INVOLVED .......................................................................................................................... 16
SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS ............................................................................................................ 17
BODY OF ARGUMENTS ................................................................................................................... 19
[ISSUE1] THE VDR ACT DOES NOT VIOLATE ANY FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT AND IS
CONSTITUTIONAL....................................................................................................................... 19
[ISSUE 2] THE VDR SCHEME IS NECESSARY TO IMPLEMENT SOCIAL SECURITY MEASURES AND
NEITHER VDR ACT NOW PALANTIR ARE PRONE TO SURVEILLANCE AND PROFILING. THE WHOLE
SCHEME IS IN COMPLIANCE WITH INTERNATIONAL HUMAN RIGHTS PRINCIPLES....................... 34
[ISSUE 3] THE VDR ACT IS A MONEY BILL AND THE SAME CANNOT BE CHALLENGED. ............ 45
PRAYER.......................................................................................................................................... 48
-2-
AMITY NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2018 LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS
1. AIR - All India Reporter
2. ALL ER - All England Reporter
3. BINKS – Biometric Identification and National Knowledge System
4. CJI - Chief Justice of India
5. Co. - Company
6. Corp - Corporation
7. Cri LJ - Criminal Law Journal
8. Del - Delhi
9. Dr. - Doctor
10. Edn - Edition
11. Hon’ble - Honorable
12. i.e. - That is
13. Inc - Incorporated
14. In re - In matter of
15. IT - Information Technology
16. Jr. - Junior
17. Ltd - Limited
18. NGO - Non Government Organization
19. Ors. - Others
20. QB - Queen’s Bench
21. r/w - Read with
22. SLP - Special Leave Petition
23. SC - Supreme Court
24. SCC - Supreme Court Cases
25. SCR - Supreme Court Report
26. UP - Uttar Pradesh
27. USA - United States of America
28. V. - Versus
29. WB - West Bengal
-3-
AMITY NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2018 LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS
30. ¶ - Paragraph
31. & - And
-4-
AMITY NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2018 INDEX OF AUTHORITIES
INDEX OF AUTHORITIES
Cases
Air India Statutory Corp. v. United Labour Union, A.I.R. 1997 S.C. 645 ............................. 27, 30
Arunachala v. State of Madras, A.I.R. 1959 S.C. 300 .................................................................. 32
Associated Picture House v. Wednesbury Corporation, (1947) 2 A.l.l. E.R. 680 (C.A.), 682-683
................................................................................................................................................... 33
Atam Prakash v. State of Haryana, A.I.R. 1986 S.C. 859 ............................................................ 30
Basheshar Nath v. The Commissioner of Income Tax, Delhi & Rajasthan, A.I.R. 1959 S.C. 149
................................................................................................................................................... 33
Bihar Public Service Commission v. Saiyed Hussain Abbas Rizwi, (2012) 13 S.C.C. 61 .......... 22
Bijoe Emmanuel v. State of Kerala, A.I.R. 1987 S.C. 748 ........................................................... 27
Binoy Viswam v. Union of India, (2017) 4 S.C.C. 673 ................................................................ 28
Binoy Viswam v. Union of India, (2017) 4 S.C.C. 673. ............................................................... 21
Budhan Chaudhary v. State of Bihar, A.I.R. 1955 S.C. 191......................................................... 20
Budhan Chaudhary v. State of Bihar, A.I.R. 1955 S.C. 191......................................................... 19
Budhan Chaudhary v. State of Bihar, A.I.R. 1955 S.C. 191; Kedarnath Bajoria v. State of West
Bengal, A.I.R. 1953 S.C. 404. .................................................................................................. 19
Chandra Bhavan Boarding and Lodging, Bangalore v. State of Mysore, A.I.R. 1970 S.C. 2042 31
Coard et al. v. the United States, Case 10.951, Inter-Am. Comm’n H.R., Report No. 109/99, ¶37,
39, 41 and 43 (1999) ................................................................................................................. 41
Commissioner of Central Excise Jamshedpur v. Dabur (India) Ltd., (2005) 3 S.C.C. 646.......... 20
Council of Civil Service Unions v. Minister for the Civil Services, (1984) 3 A.l.l. E.R. 935 ..... 33
Dalmia Cement (Bharat) Ltd. v. Union of India, (1996) 10 S.C.C. 104 ....................................... 30
De Freitas v. Permanent Secretary of Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries, Land and Housing,
(1999) 1 A.C. 69, 80 ................................................................................................................. 32
Distt. Registrar & Collector v. Canara Bank, (2005) 1 S.C.C. 496 .............................................. 29
E.P. Royappa v. State of Tamil Nadu, A.I.R. 1974 S.C. 555 ....................................................... 23
Gobind v. State of Madhya Pradesh, (1975) 2 S.C.C. 148 ..................................................... 21, 26
-5-
Govind v. State of Madhya Pradesh, 1975 A.I.R. 1378................................................................ 22

Handyside v. The United Kingdom, no. 5493/72, 7 Dec. 1976, ¶48 and 49 ................................ 44
Harishankar Bagla v. State of Madhya Pradesh, A.I.R. 1954 S.C. 465 ........................................ 32
In re, Special Reference No. 1 of 1964, A.I.R. 1965 S.C. 745 ..................................................... 45
K. S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India, A.I.R. 2015 S.C. 3081....................................................... 23
K. S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India, A.I.R. 2015 S.C. 3081........................................................ 17
Kartar Singh v. State of Punjab, (1994) 3 S.C.C. 569 .................................................................. 21
Kasturi Lal Lakshmi Reddy v. State of J.&K., A.I.R 1980 S.C. 1992 ......................................... 33
Kathi Ranning Rawat v. State of Saurashtra , A.I.R. 1952 S.C. 123 ............................................ 20
Katz v. United States, 389 U.S. 347 (1967) .................................................................................. 28
Kedarnath Bajoria v. State of West Bengal, A.I.R. 1953 S.C. 404. ............................................. 20
Keshavananda Bharti v. State of Kerala, A.I.R. 1973 S.C. 1461 ........................................... 30, 31
Kharak Singh v. State of U.P., A.I.R. 1963 S.C. 1295 ................................................................. 23
Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India, A.I.R. 1978 S.C. 597 ...................................................... 24, 33
Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India, A.I.R. 1978 S.C. 597. ........................................................... 17
Mangalore Ganesh Beedi Works v. State of Mysore, A.I.R. 1963 S.C. 589 ................................ 46
Mihir Alias Bhikari Chauhan Sahu v. State, 1992 Cri. L.J. 488. .................................................. 20
Mohd. Saeed Siddiquiv. State of U.P., (2014) 11 S.C.C. 415 ................................................ 46, 47
Mr. X v. Hospital Z, (1998) 8 S.C.C. 296..................................................................................... 24
Mr.K.J.Doraisamy v. The Assistant General Manager, Writ Petition No.17761 Of 2006 ........... 23
Mukesh Kumar Ajmera v. State of Rajasthan, A.I.R. 1997 R.A.J. 250 ....................................... 22
Municipal Committee v. State of Punjab, (1969) S.C.C. 475 ....................................................... 32
Naraindas v. State of Madhya Pradesh, A.I.R. 1974 S.C. 1232 ................................................... 34
Olmstead v. United States, (1927) 277 U.S. 438 (471) ................................................................ 22
Om kumar v. Union of India, A.I.R. 2000 S.C. ...................................................................... 32, 33
Papanasam Labour Union v. Madura Coats Ltd., (1995) S.C.C. 1501 ......................................... 31
Pathumma v. State of Kerala, (1978) 2 S.C.C. 1 .................................................................... 30, 31
People’s Union for Civil Liberties v. Union of India, (2010) 5 S.C.C. 318 ................................. 28
R v. Director of Serious Fraud Office, Ex parte Smith, [1993] A.C. 1 ........................................ 23
Raja Ram Pal v. Lok Sabha, (2007) 3 S.C.C.184 ......................................................................... 46
Ram Jawaya v. State of Punjab, A.I.R. 1955 S.C. 549 ................................................................. 33
-6-
Ram Prasad v. State of Bihar, A.I.R. 1953 S.C. 215 .................................................................... 26

Sajjan Singh v. State of Rajasthan, A.I.R. 1965 S.C. 845 ............................................................ 31
Sanjeev Coke Mfg. Co. v. Bharat Coal Ltd., A.I.R. 1983 S.C. 239 ............................................. 31
Schmerber v. C.A., 384 U.S. 757 (1966) ...................................................................................... 28
Shankarlal Agarwalla v. State Bank of India, A.I.R. 1987 Calcutta 29........................................ 23
Sharda v. Dharampal, (2003) 4 S.C.C. 493. ................................................................................. 21
Sharda v. Dharmpal, (2003) 4 S.C.C. 493 .................................................................................... 22
Sharma Transport v. Govt. of A.P., A.I.R. 2002 S.C. 322 ............................................................ 33
Smith v. Maryland, 442 U.S. 735 (1979) ...................................................................................... 40
State of Bihar v. Kameshwar Singh, A.I.R. 1952 S.C. 252 .......................................................... 29
State of Gujrat v. Mirazpur Moti Kureshi Kassab Jamat, A.I.R. 2006 S.C. 212 .......................... 31
State of Karnatka v. Raghunath Reddy, A.I.R. 1978 S.C. 215 ..................................................... 27
State of Maharashtra v. Bharat Shanti Lal Shah, (2008) 13 S.C.C. 5 ........................................... 23
Suresh Kumar Koushal v. Naz Foundation, (2014) 1 S.C.C. 1 .................................................... 20
Thalappalam Service Cooperative Bank Limited v. State of Kerala, (2013) 16 S.C.C 82 ........... 27
United States v. Carolene Products, 304 U.S. 144 (1938) ............................................................ 23
Virendra v. State of Punjab, A.I.R. 1957 S.C. 896 ....................................................................... 32
Yogendra Kumar Jaiswal v. State of Bihar, (2016) 3 S.C.C. 183 ................................................ 47
Statutes
Social Security Act, 42 U.S.C. § 405 (1935) ................................................................................ 37

Aadhaar Act 2016 § 29(4)............................................................................................................. 21
Aadhaar Act, 2016 § 23 ................................................................................................................ 24
Aadhaar Act, 2016 § 25 ................................................................................................................ 25
Aadhaar Act, 2016 § 26 ................................................................................................................ 25
Aadhaar Act, 2016 § 28 ................................................................................................................ 25
Aadhaar Act, 2016 § 28(5)............................................................................................................ 42
Aadhaar Act, 2016 § 29(4)............................................................................................................ 42
Aadhaar Act, 2016 § 3 ............................................................................................................ 24, 42
Aadhaar Act, 2016 § 3(2).............................................................................................................. 42
Aadhaar Act, 2016 § 31(1)............................................................................................................ 42
-7-
Aadhaar Act, 2016 § 33 ................................................................................................................ 40

Aadhaar Act, 2016 § 5 .................................................................................................................. 42
Aadhaar Act, 2016 § 7 .................................................................................................................. 25
Aadhaar Act, 2016 § 8(1) & 8(2) .................................................................................................. 40
Aadhaar Act, 2016 § 8(4).............................................................................................................. 40
Aadhaar Act, 2016 No. 18, Acts of Parliament, 2016 (India) .................................... 34, 39, 40, 45
Aadhaar Act. 2016 § 32(3)............................................................................................................ 40
Aadhaar Act, 2016 § 3(2).............................................................................................................. 42
Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities art. 5 ....................................................... 42
European Convention on Human Rights, 1953 (Adopted on Sept. 3, 1953) art.8.............. 23,26,43
INDIA CONST. art. 110, cl. 1 ...................................................................................................... 47
INDIA CONST. art. 37 ................................................................................................................. 29
INDIA CONST. Part IV ............................................................................................................... 29
INDIA CONST. art. 14. ................................................................................................................ 19
INDIA CONST. art.19 .................................................................................................................. 26
INDIA CONST. art.47 .................................................................................................................. 30
International Convent on Civil and Political Rights, Apr. 12, 1979, 999 U.N.T.S. 171.
.................................................................................................................................... 24,34,41,43
Parliament Act (Ch. 13/1911) (U.K.)............................................................................................ 45
Parliament Act §1(2), (Ch. 13/1911) (U.K.) ................................................................................. 45
U.K. Human Rights Act, 2000 (Adopted on Oct. 2, 2000) art. 5(2) ............................................. 26
Other Authorities
U.N. GAOR, 36th Sess., Supp. No. 40, U.N. Doc. A/36/40, at annex. XIX ¶12.2 ....................... 41
U.N. High Commissioner for Human Rights, The Right To Privacy In The Digital Age Report Of
The Office, ¶27, U.N. Doc. A/H.R.C./27/37 (June 30, 2013) ................................................... 43
U.N. Human Rights Committee, Concluding observations on the fourth periodic report of the
United States of America ¶22, U.N. Doc. C.C.P.R. /C/U.S.A./C.O./4 (April 23, 2014) .......... 42
U.N. Human Rights Committee, Consideration Of Reports Submitted By States Parties Under
Article 40 Of The Covenant: Concluding observations of the Human Rights Committee ¶11,
U.N. Doc. CCPR/CO/78/ISR (Aug. 21, 2003) ......................................................................... 41
-8-
U.N. Doc. C.C.P.R./C.O./81/B.E.L. (Aug.12, 2004) ................................................................ 41
U.N. Doc. CCPR/CO/72/NET (Aug. 27, 2001) ........................................................................ 41
Article 40 Of The Covenant: Concluding observations of the Human Rights Committee on
France ¶22 U.N. Doc. CCPR/C/FRA/CO/4 (July 31, 2008) .................................................... 42
Article 40 Of The Covenant: Concluding observations of the Human Rights Committee on
Republic of Korea ¶17, U.N. Doc. C.C.P.R./C/79/ADD.114 (Nov. 1, 1999) .......................... 42
U.N. Special Rapporteur, The Promotion And Protection Of Human Rights And Fundamental
Freedoms While Countering Terrorism, ¶11, U.N. Doc. A/H.R.C./13/37 (Dec. 28, 2009) ..... 43
Books
1 ARTHUR R. MILLER, THE ASSAULT ON PRIVACY: COMPUTER, DATA BANKS, AND DOSSIERS 25
(Signet,1971). ............................................................................................................................ 22
3 D. D. BASU, COMMENTARY ON THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA 3138 (8th ed., Lexis Nexis
Butterworth Wadhwa Publications Nagpur, 2008) ................................................................... 30
JOHN ADLER, GENERAL PRINCIPLES OF CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW 385 (4th
ed., Palgrave Macmillan, Basingstoke United Kingdom ,2002)............................................... 32
JONATHAN FRAZEN, THE CORRECTIONS (Picador, 2012) .............................................................. 22
M P JAIN, INDIAN CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 917 (7th ed., Lexis-Nexis Butterworth Wadhwa
Nagpur, 2015). .......................................................................................................................... 20
SARAH JOSEPH & MELISSA CASTAN, THE INTERNATIONAL COVENANT ON CIVIL AND POLITICAL
RIGHTS: CASES, MATERIALS, AND COMMENTARY 561 (3d ed. 2013) ....................................... 42
TARUN KHANNA & KRISHNA G. PALEPU, THE NATURE OF INSTITUTIONAL VOID IN EMERGING
MARKETS 18 (Harvard Printing Press, 2010) ............................................................................ 35
Internet Sources
-9-
Alan Gelb & Julia Clark, Identification for Development: The Biometrics Revolution, CENTER
FOR GLOBAL DEVELOPMENT (Jan., 2013),
http://www.cgdev.org/content/publications/detail/1426862 ..................................................... 38
Bageshree, Biometric Identification for Ration Cards too, THE HINDU(Nov. 29, 2007),
http://www.thehindu.com/todays-paper/tp-national/tp-andhrapradesh/Biometric-identification-
for-ration-cards- too/article14884735.ece................................................................................. 28
Indrajit Gupta Committe, Indrajit Gupta Committee Report on State Funding of Elections,
Ministry Of Law, Justice And Company Affairs, NATIONAL INFORMATIC CENTRE (Dec., 1998),
http://lawmin.nic.in/ld/erreports/Indrajit%20Gupta%20Committee%20Report.pdf. ............... 28
Justice Wadhwa Committee, Public Distribution System Report on The State of Tamil Nadu,
NATIONAL INFORMATIC CENTRE (Feb. 7, 2015,), Pdscvc.nic.in/Tamilnadu%20reports.htm. .. 28
Lant Pritchett, Is India a Failing State? Detours on the Four Lane Highway to Modernization
,HARVARD KENNEDY SCHOOL (2004), https://dash.harvard.edu/handle/1/4449106 ................. 37
Planning commission, UIDAI Strategy Overview: Creating a Unique Identity Number for Every
Resident in India. Planning Commission, GOVERNMENT OF INDIA DOCUMENT (Apr.,2010),
http://www.prsindia.org/uploads/media/UID/UIDAI%20STRATEGY%20OVERVIEW.pdf. 36
Prabin Kalita, AADHAAR cards for Assam will be linked to National Register of Citizens, T.O.I.
Oct.28, 2012, 2 .......................................................................................................................... 37
The Economist, India's Identity Scheme - The Magic Number, THE ECONOMIST GROUP (Jan. 14,
2012), http://www.economist.com/node/21542763/print ......................................................... 37
Toonen v. Australia, Comm. No. 488/1992, Adoption of views, ¶8.3 (Mar. 31, 1994),
http://hrlibrary.umn.edu/undocs/html/vws488.htm. ................................................................. 45
U.N. Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, General Comment No. 19: The right
to social security (Art. 9 of the Covenant), O.H.C.H.R. (Feb.4, 2008),
http://www.refworld.org/docid/47b17b5b39c.html. ................................................................. 41
U.N. Human Rights Committee, C.C.P.R. General Comment No. 16: Article 17 (Right to
Privacy) The Right to Respect of Privacy, Family, Home and Correspondence, and Protection
of Honour and Reputation, O.H.C.H.R. (Apr. 8,
1988),http://www.refworld.org/docid/453883f922.html. ......................................................... 44
Privacy) The Right to Respect of Privacy, Family, Home and Correspondence, and Protection
-10-
of Honour and Reputation, O.H.C.H.R. (April 8,

1988),http://www.refworld.org/docid/453883f922.html. ......................................................... 42
Privacy), The Right to Respect of Privacy, Family, Home and Correspondence, and Protection
of Honour and Reputation, O.H.C.H.R. (Apr.8, 1988),
http://www.refworld.org/docid/453883f922.html. ................................................................... 41
U.N. Human Rights Committee, C.C.P.R. General Comment No. 27: Article 12 (Freedom of
Movement), O.H.C.H.R. (Nov. 2, 1999), http://www.refworld.org/docid/45139c394.html ... 43,
44
U.N. Human Rights Committee, C.C.P.R. General Comment No. 27: Article 12 (Freedom of
Movement), O.H.C.H.R. (Nov. 2, 1999), http://www.refworld.org/docid/45139c394.html. ... 43
U.N. Human Rights committee, Consideration Of Reports Submitted By States Parties Under
Article 40 Of The Covenant, O.H.C.H.R. (Nov. 19,
1997),http://www.refworld.org/docid/3ae6b0320.html. ........................................................... 44
U.N. Human Rights committee, Consideration of reports submitted by states parties under
article 40 of the covenant. O.H.C.H.R. (July26,
1995),http://tbinternet.ohchr.org/_layouts/treatybodyexternal/Download.aspx?symbolno=CCP
R%2FC%2F79%2FAdd.54&Lang=en. .................................................................................... 44
U.N. Human Rights Committee, General comment no. 31 [80], The nature of the general legal
obligation imposed on States Parties to the Covenant, O.H.C.H.R. (May 26,
2004), http://www.refworld.org/docid/478b26ae2.html. .......................................................... 41
U.N. Human Rights Committee, General comment No. 34 Article 19: Freedoms of opinion and
expression, O.H.C.H.R. (Sept. 12, 2011), http://www.refworld.org/docid/4ed34b562.html. .. 44
Vyjayanti T Desai, Making The Invisible Billion More Visible: The Power Of Digital
Identification, WORLD BANK (Feb.22,2016),http://blogs.worldbank.org/ic4d/making-invisible-
billion-more-visible-power-digital-identification ..................................................................... 35
World Bank, World Development Report 2004: Making Services Work for Poor People, WORLD
BANK (2004), http://hdl.handle.net/10986/5986 ....................................................................... 37
Journals
-11-
Gerard George et al., Innovation for Inclusive Growth: Towards a Theoretical Framework and a
Research Agenda, 49(4) JOURNAL OF MANAGEMENT STUDIES 661, 668 (2012) ...................... 36
Karthik Muralidharan et al., Building State Capacity: Evidence From Biometric Smartcards In
India, 106(10) AMERICAN ECONOMIC REVIEW 2895, 2898-2912 ............................................. 38
M.S. Sriram, Identity for Inclusion, 28 E.P.W. 148, 151 (2014) .................................................. 35
Pratik Datta et al., Judicial Review And Money Bills, 10 N.U.J.S. L. REV. 75, 92 (2017) ........... 45
Ritva Reinikka” & “Jakob Svensson, Local Capture: Evidence From a Central Government
Transfer Program in Uganda, 119 (2) QUARTERLY JOURNAL OF ECONOMICS 678, 679 ......... 38
Thomas Fujiwara, Voting Technology, Political Responsiveness, and Infant Health: Evidence
from Brazil ,83 (2) ECONOMETRICA 423, 425 (2015) ............................................................... 38
Vanita Yadav, Unique Identidication For 1.2 Billion People in India: Can it fill Institutional
Voids and Enable Inclusive Innovation?, 6(1) CONTEMPORARY READINGS IN LAW AND SOCIAL
JUSTICE 38, 39 (2014) ............................................................................................................... 36
Vijay Sathe, The World’s Most Ambitious ID Project, 6 M.I.T. P. J. 39, 62 (2011) .................... 35
-12-
AMITY NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2018 STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION
STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION
The counsel on behalf of the Respondent humbly submits this memorandum for a Writ Petition
filed before this Hon’ble court, which has been posted for final hearing by the Hon’ble court.
Writ Petition (Civil)
The Writ Petition is filed under Article 32 of the Constitution of Endor.
The present memorandum sets forth facts, contentions and arguments on the behalf of
respondent in the present case.
-13-
AMITY NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2018. STATEMENT OF FACTS
STATEMENTS OF FACTS
¶1. The Republic of Endor is a developing nation located in South Asia. It has a fast growing
economy and shares its borders with 7 countries. Endor has been striving to improve its GDP
with help of FDI and international trade. Having porous borders, Endor struggles with illegal
immigration and certain security threats throughout the year.
¶2. Endor has a large population but an inadequate infrastructure and Endorians struggle for
basic amenities and require State support. The state in order to help and to comply with
International Human Right principles, felt a need to identify the target group requiring the most
support.
¶3. The Imperial party, which had majority in both the Houses of Parliament, began to promote
the idea of a unique identification number for all Endorians. After consultation with certain think
tanks and expert panels, the Government of Endor decided to issue a Verifiable Data
Registration Card (VDR Card).
¶4. A VDR number was voluntary and could be issued to any resident of Endor, because of
which it was criticized by several NGOs as it was treating both foreign nationals and Endorians
equally. The Opposition Party criticized the scheme as a waste of national resources.
¶5. An executive order on February 2011 was issued making Biometric Identification and
National Knowledge System (BINKS) as an authority responsible for collecting data and keeping
it securely. Data collection would comprise of an individual’s biometric and demographic
information.
¶6. In 2012, the Government presented a VDR Bill was presented in the Lower House of
Parliament, which entitled every resident of Endor to obtain a VDR number. This was
thoroughly opposed by Leia Alliance on ground of breach of right of privacy and was supported
by the Standing Committee of the Parliament.
¶7. However, the bill was still debated and voted upon in the parliament, where it was passed
with a simple majority in both Houses in late 2012. A sum of BINKS Rs. 2,000/- Crore was
-14-
AMITY NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2018. STATEMENT OF FACTS
allotted to the BINKS to start the process. The voluntary nature of the scheme was also
repeatedly emphasized upon.
¶8. By 2015, over 90% of Endorians had been issued a VDR Card. There was a scattering of
media reports about a few careless leaks, certain cases involving inaccuracy of data and wrongful
denial of pensions and basic food rations. Infact in September 2015, a major national newspaper
published an investigative report detailing how it was able to obtain access to the Palantir upon
paying a measly sum of Rs. 500/- and access all VDR numbers as well as the information
associated with them. However, the biometric data was not accessed. BINKS, upon being
contacted about the same, accused the newspaper of a data breach and threatened to file a
criminal complaint for unauthorized access.
¶9. Shortly after the publication of the report, the Ben Yoda Foundation, a civil rights group
comprised of activists as well as lawyers, filed a writ petition in the Supreme Court of Endor,
challenging the VDR Act to be unconstitutional and being violative of Right to Privacy, even
restricting a citizen’s right to legal recourses.
¶10. The Attorney General of Endor claimed that as the Constitution of Endor does not grant a
fundamental right to privacy, the violation of the same couldn’t be claimed. She also reiterated
the necessity of the VDR scheme to implement social security measures, and cited various
countries that have a similar identification mechanism.
¶11. The matter was referred to a Constitutional Bench seeking clarity on Right to Privacy. In
2017, a 9 judge bench of the Supreme Court unanimously upheld right to privacy as a
fundamental right.
¶12. The government of Endor stands on the ground that VDR is not violative of Right to
Privacy and that VDR scheme being integral to its social functions, and has ensured that the
identification number has been linked to the holder’s tax returns, insurance policies, mobile
numbers and bank accounts.
-15-
AMITY NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2018. ISSUES INVOLVED
ISSUES INVOLVED
CONSTITUTIONAL.
[Issue 2] THE VDR SCHEME IS NECESSARY TO IMPLEMENT SOCIAL SECURITY MEASURES AND
NEITHER VDR ACT NOR PALANTIR ARE PRONE TO SURVEILLANCE AND PROFILING. THE
WHOLE SCHEME IS IN COMPLIANCE WITH INTERNATIONAL HUMAN RIGHTS PRINCIPLES.
[ISSUE 3] THE VDR ACT IS A MONEY BILL AND THE SAME CANNOT BE CHALLENGED.
-16-
AMITY NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2018. SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS
SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS
CONSTITUTIONAL.
It is humbly submitted before the Hon’ble Court that the VDR Act is constitutional in nature as it
is not violative of Article 14, 19 and 21 of the Constitution of Endor. Since right to privacy is not
an absolute right, personal liberty can be interfered with by fulfilling the Triple Test: (i) it must
prescribe a procedure, (ii) the procedure must withstand the test of one or more of the
fundamental rights conferred under Article 19 which may be applicable in a given situation; (iii)
it must withstand the equality test of Article 14. The VDR act is right, just, a fair and non-
arbitrary scheme. The VDR Act helps by providing and protecting the citizens’ identities and
providing them various benefits and protecting the state by ensuring to curb corruption.
[Issue 2] THE VDR SCHEME IS NECESSARY TO IMPLEMENT SOCIAL SECURITY MEASURES AND
NEITHER VDR ACT NOR PALANTIR ARE PRONE TO SURVEILLANCE AND PROFILING. THE
It is humbly submitted before the bench that in becoming a single source of identity verification,
VDR enables the easier roll-out of wide number of services such as bank accounts, passports,
LPG connections etc. and having a formally recognized form of identity provides the poor and
vulnerable with the opportunity to climb out of poverty. Building a secure payments
infrastructure can be seen as an investment in state capacity that could improve the
implementation of existing anti-poverty programs, here, biometric technology is especially
promising where high illiteracy rates constrain financial inclusion by precluding the universal
deployment of traditional forms of authentication, such as passwords or PIN numbers. The VDR
act also doesn’t support surveillance as any answer to a query is answered by a positive or
negative. Further any information sought by a requesting entity is to be disclosed to the
individual. The VDR act places no restrictions on non-nationals but rather opens its doors to the
residents. This notion and objective to include residents in the socio economic opportunities of
the state is also evident from International Human Rights Principles.
-17-
AMITY NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2018. SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS
It is submitted before the court that the framers of the Indian Constitution deliberately avoided
the possibility of judicial review of the Speaker's decision in India. Also, the current legal
position in India is that the certification of a bill as 'money bill' by the Speaker is beyond the
judicial review powers of the Supreme Court and therefore cannot be challenged in a court.
However, notwithstanding the above statement, even if it can be challenged, the VDR act
satisfies the conditions lay down in article 110(1) of the constitution, which they exhaustible are.
-18-
AMITY NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2018. BODY OF ARGUMENTS
BODY OF ARGUMENTS
CONSTITUTIONAL.
¶1. It is humbly submitted that The VDR Act is constitutional in nature and it does not violate
any fundamental right guaranteed to us under Article 14, 19 and 21. Since right to privacy is not
an absolute right, personal liberty can be interfered with by fulfilling the Triple Test: (i) it must
prescribe a procedure, (ii) the procedure must withstand the test of one or more of the
fundamental rights conferred under Article 19 which may be applicable in a given situation; (iii)
it must withstand the equality test of Article 14.
1.1 The VDR Act, 2012 brought by the Government does not violate Article 14 of the
Constitution of Endor.
¶2. The VDR Act, 2012 brought by the state, enables the government to identify all the people;
their economic condition, health, educational classification, inter alia in the country and thereby,
make a reasonable classification of people based on intelligible differentia as per Art.14 1 of
Constitution of Endor for successful implementation of welfare schemes.
1.1.1 The VDR Act satisfies the test of reasonable classification
¶3. It is humbly submitted that while Art. 14 forbids class legislation, it does not forbid
reasonable classification for the purposes of legislation.2 The test of reasonable classification was
laid down by Hon’ble court in Budhan Chaudhary v. State of Bihar3, which provides that-
1. The classification proposed in the legislation must be founded on intelligible differentia.

2. There must be close nexus between the classification and the object of the Act.
i. Principle of Intelligible Differentia -
1
INDIA CONST. art. 14.
2
Budhan Chaudhary v. State of Bihar, A.I.R. 1955 S.C. 191; Kedarnath Bajoria v. State of West Bengal, A.I.R.
1953 S.C. 404.
3
Budhan Chaudhary v. State of Bihar, A.I.R. 1955 S.C. 191.
-19-
The expression intelligible differentia means difference capable of being understood and should
be reasonable and not arbitrary. The VDR Act, 2012 aim at classifying people based on their
needs for instance health disorders, financial issues etc. and implement welfare schemes based
on such reasonable classification.
ii. There is Rational Nexus between Classification and Objective Sought -
It is contended that the law can make and set apart the classes according to the needs and
exigencies of the society. 4 If the legislative policy is clear and definite and as an effective
method of carrying out that policy a discretion is vested by the statute upon a body of
administrators or officers to make selective application of the law to certain classes or groups of
persons, the statute itself cannot be condemned as a piece of discriminatory legislation.5
iii. Possibility of Abuse of Power does not render a Legislation Arbitrary -
Arbitrariness on the possibility that a power may be abused, despite the guidelines, in the
provisions providing for such power cannot be held to be arbitrary and unreasonable. 6 The
underlying principle of Art.14 is not that the same rules of law should be applicable to all
persons within the territory or that the same remedies should be made available to them
irrespective of differences of circumstance.7
1.1.2 The VDR Act satisfies the test of Arbitrariness.
¶4. The council would like to submit further than the purpose of The VDR Act,2012 is to
reasonably classify people based on intelligible differentia and is therefore, not arbitrary and
unreasonable. There is a close nexus between the object and the classification and there are
proper guidelines given for the implementation of the provisions of the Act8 like in Section 29(4)
4
Suresh Kumar Koushal v. Naz Foundation, (2014) 1 S.C.C. 1; Mihir Alias Bhikari Chauhan Sahu v. State, 1992
Cri. L.J. 488.
5
M P JAIN, INDIAN CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 917 (7d ed., Lexis-Nexis Butterworth Wadhwa Nagpur, 2015).
6
Commissioner of Central Excise Jamshedpur v. Dabur (India) Ltd., (2005) 3 S.C.C. 646; Budhan Chaudhary v.
State of Bihar, A.I.R. 1955 S.C. 191.
7
Suresh Kumar Koushal v. Naz Foundation, (2014) 1 S.C.C. 1; Mihir Alias Bhikari Chauhan Sahu v. State, 1992
Cri. L.J. 488.
8
Kathi Ranning Rawat v. State of Saurashtra, A.I.R. 1952 S.C. 123; Kedarnath Bajoria v. State of West Bengal,
A.I.R. 1953 S.C. 404.
-20-
of The VDR Act9 that violates the publication of VDR number in any manner and therefore is
not arbitrary and unreasonable
¶5. In the recent case of Binky Viswam, the SC has observed that Section 139AA of the IT Act,
which requires the linking of Aadhaar Card with PAN, is not arbitrary and not violative of right
to equality of the people, and therefore held it to be constitutional.10
1.2. The VDR Act, 2012 is not violative of Article 21 of the Constitution of Endor.
¶6. It is submitted that the VDR Act serves as a unique identifier for the citizens and residents of
Endor. It was introduced with the objective to check leakages in government schemes and
prevent corruption and is not in violation of Article 21 of the Constitution of Endor. It is further
submitted that a court cannot strike down a statute or a statutory provision just because of an
element of subjectivity that rises because of the plea of unreasonableness or arbitrariness.
Otherwise, the court will be substituting its wisdom to that of the legislature, which is
impermissible in our constitutional democracy.
¶7. It is further submitted that in the present case the VDR number was a unique identification
for all the Endorians, in order to promote social justice and equality. It was made to ensure that
welfare schemes reach deserving persons and no misuse takes place. 11 Hence, the plea of
unreasonableness, arbitrariness, proportionality cannot make the court to strike down the VDR
Act.
1.2.1 Right to Privacy is not absolute and is not violated by the VDR Act.
¶8. Exercise of right to privacy guaranteed under Article 21 of Constitution of Endor is not
absolute, 12 and the government can impose reasonable restrictions as and when the situation
arises in the interest of the community.13 It is essential for the Government of Endor to impose
reasonable restrictions on the exercise of Right to Privacy of its people, in view of larger public
interest14, of providing state support for their socio-economic development and opportunities.15
9
Aadhaar Act, 2016 § 29(4).
10
Binoy Viswam v. Union of India, (2017) 4 S.C.C. 673.
11
Moot Proposition, ¶4.
12
Sharda v. Dharampal, (2003) 4 S.C.C. 493.
13
Gobind v. State of Madhya Pradesh, (1975) 2 S.C.C. 148; Kartar Singh v. State of Punjab, (1994) 3 S.C.C. 569.
14
Bihar Public Service Commission v. Saiyed Hussain Abbas Rizwi, (2012) 13 S.C.C. 61.
-21-
¶9. Legal scholar Arthur Miller16 has declared that privacy is “difficult to define because it is
exasperatingly vague and evanescent.” “On closer examination,” author Jonathan Franzen 17
observes, “privacy proves to be the Cheshire cat of values: not much substance, but a very
winning smile.”
¶10. The Hon’ble Court has held in the case of Mukesh Kumar Ajmera v. State of Rajasthan18
that Right to Privacy is not absolute and a law imposing reasonable restrictions on it for
compelling interest of state must be held valid. In the present case, VDR Act is for the interest of
the state to improve the conditions of the target group and to keep a check on residents19 thus, it
cannot be held that Right to Privacy is violated by the VDR Act. 2016.
¶11. In Sharda v. Dharmpal20 the Court held that a matrimonial court has the power to order a
person to undergo medical test. Passing of such an order by the court would not be in violation
of the right to personal liberty under Article 21 of the Indian Constitution. Thus, whenever there
is a necessity, the state can put certain restriction on the rights guaranteed to the citizens
therefore, Right to Privacy cannot be said to be an absolute right.
¶12. In Govind v. State of Madhya Pradesh 21, Mathew, J. stated that, however, the 'right to
privacy was not absolute' and that the makers of our Constitution wanted to ensure conditions
favorable to the pursuit of happiness as explained in Olmstead v. United States22; Mathew, J.
speaking for himself, Krishna Iyer and Goswami, JJ, said that the right to privacy should be
denied only when in an event when countervailing interest is proven to be superior to the right.
Thus, the ambit of privacy is too broad and it deals with an individual therefore, it comes under
the ambit of liberty, there are serious problems of defining the essence and scope of the right.
¶13. European Convention on Human Rights also recognizes that right to privacy is not absolute
and lays down certain circumstances which include national security, public safety and the
economic well-being of the country, protection of health, rights and freedoms of others, inter
15
Moot Proposition, ¶3
16
1 ARTHUR R. MILLER, THE ASSAULT ON PRIVACY: COMPUTER, DATA BANKS, AND DOSSIERS 25 (Signet,1971).
17
JONATHAN FRAZEN, THE CORRECTIONS (Picador, 2012).
18
Mukesh Kumar Ajmera v. State of Rajasthan, A.I.R. 1997 RAJ. 250.
19
20
Sharda v. Dharmpal, (2003) 4 S.C.C. 493.
21
Gobind v. State of Madhya Pradesh, 1975 A.I.R. 1378.
22
Olmstead v. United States, (1927) 277 U.S. 438 (471).
-22-
alia under which the right can be interfered with, by the state. 23 Though right to privacy is an
inalienable right; its curtailment is necessary for stability of the society.24
¶14. In Mr. K.J. Doraisamy v. The Assistant General Manager 25 , the case of Shankarlal
Agarwalla v. State Bank of India26 was referred where it was observed that an individual’s right
to privacy is not absolute and even in cases of fiduciary relationships like the bank and its
customers, larger public interest will supersede the duty to maintain secrecy. Following these
principles, interception of telephone calls to prevent organized crimes in accordance with the
provisions of MOCCA has also been held to be constitutionally valid by SC.27
¶15. It was also observed in Kharak Singh v. UOI28 that the right of privacy is not a guaranteed
right under our Constitution and therefore the attempt to ascertain the movement of an individual
which is merely a manner in which privacy is invaded is not an infringement of a fundamental
right guaranteed by Part III.
¶16. To begin with, the options canvassed for limiting the right to privacy includes Art.14 type
of reasonableness enquiry29; limitation as per the express provisions of Art.19; a just, fair and
reasonable basis for limitation per Art.21; and finally, a just, fair and reasonable standard per
Art.21 plus the amorphous standard of ‘compelling state interest’. The last of these four options
is the highest standard of scrutiny30 that a court can adopt. It is from this menu that a standard of
review for limiting the right of privacy needs to be chosen.31
1.2.2. The VDR Act, 2012 brought by the Government is in accordance with, Procedure
established by law provided under Article 21 of the Constitution of Endor.
¶17. Right to Privacy has been culled from Art.21 32 of the Constitution of Endor. Right to
Privacy is a part of Right to life and Personal Liberty and it can be curtailed only in accordance
23
European Convention on Human Rights, 1953 (Adopted on Sept. 3, 1953) art.8.
24
R v. Director of Serious Fraud Office, Ex parte Smith, [1993] A.C. 1.
25
Mr. K. J. Doraisamy v. The Assistant General Manager, Writ Petition No.17761 of 2006.
26
Shankarlal Agarwalla v. State Bank of India, A.I.R. 1987 Calcutta 29.
27
State of Maharashtra v. Bharat Shanti Lal Shah, (2008) 13 S.C.C. 5.
28
Kharak Singh v. State of U.P., A.I.R. 1963 S.C. 1295.
29
E. P. Royappa v. State of Tamil Nadu, A.I.R. 1974 S.C. 555.
30
United States v. Carolene Products, 304 U.S. 144 (1938).
31
K. S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India, A.I.R. 2015 S.C. 3081.
32
Mr. X v. Hospital Z, (1998) 8 S.C.C. 296.
-23-
with the Procedure established by Law, as provided under Art. 21. International Convention on
Civil and Political Rights also provides that liberty of the people can be restricted, in accordance
with such procedure as are established by law.33
¶18. It is humbly submitted that in the present, there is an entire procedure laid down about how
the VDR Act comes in force and how it functions with clear rules and regulations being
mentioned. Also, the government of Endor guarantees it to be right, just and a fair and non-
arbitrary scheme. The act in fact is specifically advantageous for the public as it is providing
them the various benefits, being offered by the government.
¶19. The Hon’ble Court in Maneka Gandhi v. UOI34 has laid down a triple test for any law to be
considered to be in accordance with the ‘Procedure established by law’:
(1) The law must prescribe a procedure.
(2) The procedure must satisfy the requirements of Arts.14 and 19.
(3) It should be just, fair and reasonable.
¶20. It is humbly submitted before this Hon’ble Court that as per Chapter II of the VDR Act
which deals with Enrolment of citizens under act in which Section 3 talks about the procedure
and the enrolling agency35 which shows that the information collected is through the process as
specified to the enrolling agencies and the manner is also specified.
¶21. It is further submitted that the ‘Enrolling Agency’ means an agency appointed by the
Authority or a Registrar, as the case may be, for collecting demographic and biometric
information of individuals is selected through a process as prescribed under Section 23 36 of this
Act. Thus, the private entities are appointed by the Authority and are certified agencies as
prescribed. This shows that the Agencies appointed to collect data are regulated by the National
Unique Identification Authority and cannot disclose, misuse, publish the data collected from the
citizens.
¶22. It is further submitted that Section 23(9) of the VDR Act, 2012 states that “the enrolling
agencies shall at all times abide by the Code of Conduct for service providers as specified in
Schedule V of these regulations.”Hence the Code of conduct clearly states the way in which the
33
International Convent on Civil and Political Rights art. 9, Apr. 12, 1979, 999 U.N.T.S. 171.
34
Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India, A.I.R. 1978 S.C. 597.
35
Aadhaar Act, 2016 § 3.
36
-24-
information shall be taken and sent to the authority and there is proper manner in which data is
transferred and is secured with the authorities.
¶23. It is humbly submitted before this Hon’ble Court that under notification of The VDR Act
Section 2537 Testing and certification of staff appointed for enrolment which clearly state that
operators, supervisors, and other enrolment staff employed or engaged by it are duly certified for
carrying out enrolment.
¶24. It is humbly submitted that as per Section 738 of The VDR Act the Biometric Data collected
is as per the processes and specifications laid down by the Authority through secured,
authenticated devices and cannot be used for any purpose other than specified by the Act.
¶25. It is humbly submitted that as per Section 9 of the Act where it clearly shows that data
collected (herein biometric or demographic information) shall be immediately packed and
encrypt so that it is only available to authority.
¶26. It is humbly as per Section 26 39 which deals with Storage and Maintenance of
Authentication Transaction Data. The data is stored with the authority is saved and properly
maintained. As per section 29 of the Act no core information collected shall be shared. The
information collected for identification cannot be used for any other purpose other than specified
by the VDR Act; no information collected can be published, displayed or posted publically
¶27. It is humbly submitted that as per Section 28 40 which deals with the Security and
confidentiality of information states that, the Authority shall take all necessary measures to
ensure that the information which is stored in the Central Identities Data Repository is secured
and protected against access, use or disclosure other than specified for the purpose of the Act.
¶28. It is humbly submitted that Chapter VII of The VDR Act, 2016 entitled ‘Offences And
Penalties’ deals with various acts which have been declared as offence and various penalties for
the said offence have been stipulated in the said chapter. Specifically Sections 37-40 of the said
Act deals with Penalty for disclosing identity information, Penalty for unauthorized access to the
Central Identities Data Repository, Penalty for tampering with data in Central Identities Data
Repository and Penalty for unauthorized use by requesting entity respectively. The aforesaid
provisions clearly shows that if the data collected is misused or used for the purpose other than
37
38
39
40
-25-
specified by the Act then such misconducts would be considered as the offence and various
penalties has been imposed over such offences. Thus even if the private entities appointed by
authority to collect data, misuses the data collected then such act of the private entities shall be
punishable with imprisonment which may extend to three years or with a fine which may extend
to ten thousand rupees or, in the case of a company, with a fine which may extend to One Lakh
rupees or with both and this creates a reason for security to protect the privacy of individuals
from disclosure of data.
1.2.3. The VDR Act is in the view of the compelling State Interest.
¶29. The test of Compelling state interest laid down in Gobind v. State of Madhya Pradesh41
provides that right to privacy of the people can be compromised in view of compelling state
interest. Threat to the security of the state, high level of corruption, and are all in the nature of
compelling state interest.
1.2.4. The VDR Act is protected as it is for National Security.
¶24. Several International Conventions 42 as well as legal provisions in other countries 43
recognize that fundamental rights of the people can be restricted in the interest of the security of
the state. Art.19(2)44 of the Constitution of India provide that restrictions can be imposed on
rights guaranteed under Art.19(1)(a), if there exists a threat to the security of the state. In Gobind
v. State of Madhya Pradesh,45 the Court has held that the right to privacy can be restricted if
there is a compelling state interest to be served and recognized threat to national security in the
nature of compelling state interest.
¶25. The case of Ram Prasad v. State of Bihar,46 the government brought a legislation to cancel
the lease of a particular individual, even though the legislation did not satisfy the test of
reasonable classification, to maintain public peace and order.
1.2.5. Right to remain Silent.
¶26. Art. 19(2) provide that for the purposes of the security of the State the State can impose
reasonable restrictions on the exercise of Art. 19(1) (a). Right to remain silent is implied in the
41
Gobind v. State of Madhya Pradesh & Anr., (1975) 2 S.C.C. 148.
42
Universal Declaration of Human Rights, G.A. Res. 217(III) A. U.N. Doc. A/RES/217(III) (Dec. 10, 1948).
43
U.K. Human Rights Act, 2000 (Adopted on Oct. 2, 2000) art. 5(2).
44
INDIA CONST. art.19.
45
Gobind v. State of Madhya Pradesh, (1975) 2 S.C.C. 148.
46
Ram Prasad v. State of Bihar, A.I.R. 1953 S.C. 215.
-26-
freedom of speech and expression under Art. 19(1) (a), 47 and therefore, the restrictions
mentioned under Art. 19(2) will apply on right to remain silent as well and a citizen can be asked
to part with information about oneself in the interest of the security of the state.
¶27. People are exempted from disclosure of personal information which has no relationship to
any public activity or interest, or which would cause “unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the
individual” unless the authority is satisfied that the larger public interest justifies its disclosure.48
1.2.6. VDR Card prevents Corruption and Duplicity of Identities.
¶28. The main objective of the State is to check the leakage in the government schemes and to
prevent corruption. Corruption is required to be mitigated to ensure that the deprived sections of
the society are able to benefit from various social welfare schemes of the government, which will
help in establishing socialist state, which has been held to be one of the goals of our
constitution49 and is necessary for the ‘common good ‘of the people of the country. Socialism
aims at distribution of material resources of the community in such a way as to sub serve the
common good.50
¶29. The remarkable success of Andhra Pradesh government in curbing corruption by mandatory
issuing of biometric cards should be taken into consideration here. The State government
collected a range of biometric data including iris scan, photographs and fingerprints in a period
of 4 years after collecting the relevant data, the state government began a structured programmed
to sort out duplicate cards on the basis of biometric information. This was done by comparing
fingerprints and iris scans, initially at the district level and ultimately at state level. In the
process, the state government reportedly weeded out 1.1 crore duplicate ration cards. According
to the reported statistics, biometric ration cards have proven to be a great success in the state
government’s efforts to streamline its PDS Network and perhaps reduce corruption and
pilferage.51
47
Bijoe Emmanuel v. State of Kerala, A.I.R. 1987 S.C. 748.
48
Thalappalam Service Cooperative Bank Limited v. State of Kerala, (2013) 16 S.C.C 82.
49
Air India Statutory Corp. v. United Labour Union, A.I.R. 1997 S.C. 645.
50
State of Karnatka v. Raghunath Reddy, A.I.R. 1978 S.C. 215.
51
Bageshree, Biometric Identification for Ration Cards Too, THE HINDU (Nov. 29, 2007),
http://www.thehindu.com/todays-paper/tp-national/tp-andhrapradesh/Biometric-identification-for-ration-cards-
too/article14884735.ece.
-27-
¶30. The system of bio-metric identification of homeless persons will help in supply of benefits
like food and kerosene oil to persons who are the correct beneficiaries. 52 It is also submitted that
the petitioner have placed reliance over the existing norms of privacy, but have failed in
analyzing that many findings of the U.S. Court have implied that the use of biometrics does not
invade an individual’s civil liberties or privacy.53 The Justice Wadhwa review has suggested a
computer based information system as well as the use of biometric smart cards to reduce
leakage.54
¶31. Duplicity of identities poses a huge threat to the democratic structure of the country as it
challenges the system of free and fair elections, which is the basic pillar of our country. The
Project will help in ensuring free and fair elections.55
¶32. Also, this linking of bank accounts will help in increasing the tax collection by the
government. Linking of VDR Cards with PAN, will increase the tax returns of the government
by minimizing corruption. In the recent case of Binoy Viswam, 56 the government has held
linking of Aadhaar Cards with PAN constitutional.
1.2.7. There is no Reasonable expectancy of Privacy on part of citizens.
¶33. The theory of reasonable expectancy of privacy has been recognized under the U.S and
English law. This test was first laid down in Katz v. United States, 57which provides-
1).The person must exhibit an actual expectation of privacy.
2).The expectation must be recognized as reasonable by the society.
¶34. The Hon’ble court has expressed in Canara Bank case58 that the reasonable expectation is
allied to the purpose for which information is provided; while, legitimate aims of the state, such
as the protection of the revenue may intervene to permit a disclosure to the state, the state must
take care to ensure that the information is not accessed by a private entity. The information asked
by the respondent; blood group, spouse and children detail, religion, caste, etc. have been
52
People’s Union for Civil Liberties v. Union of India & Ors., (2010) 5 S.C.C. 318.
53
Schmerber v. C.A., 384 U.S. 757 (1966).
54
Justice Wadhwa Committee, Public Distribution System Report on The State of Tamil Nadu, NATIONAL
INFORMATIC CENTRE (Feb. 7, 2015,), Pdscvc.nic.in/Tamilnadu%20reports.htm.
55
Indrajit Gupta Committe, Indrajit Gupta Committee Report on State Funding of Elections, Ministry Of Law,
Justice And Company Affairs, NATIONAL INFORMATIC CENTRE (Dec., 1998),
http://lawmin.nic.in/ld/erreports/Indrajit%20Gupta%20Committee%20Report.pdf.
56
Binoy Viswam v. Union of India, (2017) 4 S.C.C. 673.
57
Katz v. United States, 389 U.S. 347 (1967).
58
Distt. Registrar & Collector v. Canara Bank, (2005) 1 S.C.C. 496.
-28-
provided by the people during census as well. Reasonable expectation of Privacy does not arise
out of parting with information about oneself including core biometric information, for making
of Unique Identity Cards by the government rather from the security of the BINKS database, or
in other words not to use the information so collected under the project for any other purpose
than making of cards and subsequent reasonable classification of people, not to disclose the
information to private entities of which the government has taken care of, under Section 29 of
the VDR Act.
1.3. The VDR Act, 2012 has been brought to give effect to Directive Principles of State
Policy guaranteed under Part IV of the Constitution of Endor.
¶35. The counsel humbly submits that the VDR Act has been brought to give effect give effect to
directive principles of state policy contained in Part IV of the Constitution of Endor 59. Art. 37 of
the Constitution of Endor60 provides that though the directive principles of state policy are not
enforceable in a court of law, they are fundamental in the governance of the country and it is the
duty of the state to enact laws in accordance with the principles.
1.3.1. Establishment of Socialist Welfare State.
¶36. The object in Art.38 is to establish a state which must constantly strive to promote welfare
of the people by securing and making as effectively as it may be a social order in which social,
economic and political justice shall inform all the institutions of national life61and to minimize
inequalities in income and Endeavour to eliminate inequalities in status, facilities, opportunities
amongst individuals and groups of people residing in different areas or engaged in different
avocations.62 Art. 38 reaffirms what has been declared in the preamble to the Constitution, viz.,
the function of the Republic is to secure inter alia, social, economic and political justice.63
¶37. The Directive Principles of State Policy supplement the Preamble, which comprises the
basic structure of the constitution.64 These principles have been characterized as basic to our
social order, as they seek to build a socially just society. Courts must strive to give such an
59
INDIA CONST. Part IV.
60
INDIA CONST. art. 37.
61
State of Bihar v. Kameshwar Singh, A.I.R. 1952 S.C. 252.
62
Dalmia Cement (Bharat) Ltd. v. Union of India, (1996) 10 S.C.C. 104.
63
64
Keshavananda Bharti v. State of Kerala, A.I.R. 1973 S.C. 1461.
-29-
interpretation as will promote the match and the progress towards a Socialist Democratic State.65
Many rights have been compromised and diluted from time to time to enforce these
principles.66The Government of Endor felt that a national ID scheme could have its benefits
towards accessing healthcare, education, security, etc.67
i. Social and Economic Justice-
The VDR Act will not only help in successful implementation of welfare schemes, it will also
help in increasing the tax base, which will increase the revenue of the government and it will be
possible for the government to sub serve more welfare schemes for the social and economic
upliftment of the target groups 68 . Directive Principles of State Policy provide for social and
economic rights and its purpose is to fix certain socio-economic goals for immediate attainment
by bringing about a non-violent social revolution.69The Courts have raised social and economic
justice to the level of fundamental right. 70 All state action should be such as to make socio-
economic democracy with liberty, equality and fraternity, a reality to all the people through
democratic socialism under the rule of law.
ii. Maintenance of Public Health -
Art. 47 talks about raising the level of nutrition and the standard of living of its people and the
improvement of public health as its primary duties. 71 The VDR Act, 2012 brought by the
government aim at keeping record of biometrics of residents and thus helping the target group in
getting welfare schemes.
1.3.2. Reasonable Restrictions can be imposed on Fundamental Rights to give effect to

Directive Principles of State Policy.
65
Atam Prakash v. State of Haryana, A.I.R. 1986 S.C. 859.
66
3 D. D. BASU, COMMENTARY ON THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA 3138 (8d ed., Lexis Nexis Butterworth Wadhwa
Publications Nagpur 2008).
67
68
69
Pathumma v. State of Kerala, (1978) 2 S.C.C. 1.
70
71
INDIA CONST. art.47.
-30-
¶38. Part III and Part IV of the Constitution of India are complementary and supplementary to
each other;72 the former provides for civil and political rights while the latter provides for social
and economic rights and one cannot have primacy over the other.73 The Directive Principles of
State Policy is in order to promote the broader egalitarian principle. 74 Government can impose
reasonable restrictions on fundamental rights, for promoting or effectuating a directive principle
in public interest.75
¶39. Though, these principles are not justifiable but these are not merely moral principles, these
are fundamental in the governance of the country. They are relevant in considering reasonable
restrictions that can be imposed on fundamental rights.76
¶40. Two rules of construction laid down, viz., in case of conflict between the right of the
individual and the laws aiming to implement socio-economic policies in pursuance of Directive
Principles, weight age should be given to the latter and every legislation enacted in pursuance of
Directive Principles should be construed as one purporting to be in ‘public interest’ or as a
reasonable restriction on the Fundamental Rights.77
¶41. Both the Directive Principles and the Fundamental Rights are equally fundamental. The
principles embody a commitment which was imposed by the Constitution-makers on the state
To bring about ‘economic and social regeneration teaming millions’; meaning that the interest
of an individual however important is secondary to the interest of the community.78
1.4. The mere possibility of abuse of Legislation is no test of its Reasonableness.
¶42. The question whether the provisions of the Act provide reasonable safeguards against the
abuse of the power given to the executive authority to administer the law is not relevant for the
true interpretation of the clause.79 Where the vesting of discretionary power by the Legislature is
justified, the mere possibility of abuse of power by the Executive is no test for determining the
72
Chandra Bhavan Boarding and Lodging, Bangalore v. State of Mysore, A.I.R. 1970 S.C. 2042.
73
Pathumma v. State of Kerala, (1978) 2 S.C.C. 1.
74
Sanjeev Coke Mfg. Co. v. Bharat Coal Ltd., A.I.R. 1983 S.C. 239.
75
Papanasam Labour Union v. Madura Coats Ltd., (1995) S.C.C. 1501.
76
State of Gujrat v. Mirazpur Moti Kureshi Kassab Jamat, A.I.R. 2006 S.C. 212.
77
Sajjan Singh v. State of Rajasthan, A.I.R. 1965 S.C. 845.
78
Keshavananda Bharti v. State of Kerala, A.I.R. 1973 S.C. 1461.
79
Arunachala v. State of Madras, A.I.R. 1959 S.C. 300.
-31-
reasonableness of the restriction imposed by the law. 80 If, however, the statutory power or
discretion is shown to have been abused by the authorities, the person aggrieved shall have his
remedy against the illegal order81, but that would be no ground for invalidating the Statute itself.
82
In Municipal Committee v. State of Punjab, it was held that a law cannot be struck down as in
violation of a Fundamental Right merely “on the ground that it is vague.”83
43. In arguendo, the establishment of BINKS is valid even in absence of statutory support as it
paases the test of principle of proportionality and also Wednesbury unreasonableness as it is a
result of objective administrative discretion.
The VDR Scheme passes the test of Proportionality.
¶44. Administrative action in India allegedly affecting fundamental freedoms has always been
tested on the anvil of proportionality. 84 Proportionality broadly requires that government
action must be no more intrusive than is necessary to meet an important public
purpose.85A decision is proportionate if (a) the executive objective is sufficiently important to
justify limiting a fundamental right, (b) the measures designed to meet the executive objective
are rationally connected to it and (c) the means used to impair the rights are no more than
necessary to accomplish the objective.86
The VDR Act passes the test of Wednesbury Unreasonableness.
¶45. When an administrative action is questioned as arbitrary, the principle of Wednesbury

Unreasonableness comes into operation.87 It is a principle that applies to a decision which is so
outrageous in its defiance of logic or of accepted moral standards that no sensible person who
applied his mind to the question to be decided could have arrived at it.88 It, therefore, means that
80
Virendra v. State of Punjab, A.I.R. 1957 S.C. 896.
81
Virendra v. State of Punjab, A.I.R. 1957 S.C. 896.
82
Harishankar Bagla v. State of Madhya Pradesh, A.I.R. 1954 S.C. 465.
83
Municipal Committee v. State of Punjab, (1969) S.C.C. 475.
84
Om kumar v. Union of India, A.I.R. 2000 S.C..
85
JOHN ADLER, GENERAL PRINCIPLES OF CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW 385 (4th ed., Palgrave
Macmillan, Basingstoke United Kingdom 2002).
86
De Freitas v. Permanent Secretary of Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries, Land and Housing, (1999) 1 A.C. 69,
80.
87
Om kumar v. Union of India, A.I.R. 2000 S.C..
88
Council of Civil Service Unions v. Minister for the Civil Services, (1984) 3 Al. E.R. 935.
-32-
administrative discretion should be exercised reasonably and matters irrelevant to the subject
must be excluded from consideration.89
i. The VDR Scheme was not arbitrary.
‘Arbitrarily’ means in an unreasonable manner, as fixed or done capriciously or at pleasure,

without adequate determining principle, not founded in nature of things, non- rational, not done
or acting according to reason or judgment, depending on will alone. 90 Since Maneka Gandhi’s
case, 91 the Courts have adopted the Wednesbury principle that if the classification was an
arbitrary act of the State under Art. 12 of the Constitution, Art. 14 would strike it down.92 Art. 14
protect us from both legislative and executive tyranny by way of discrimination.93
ii. The executive can make policies without statutory support
The administrative organ in India does not always need a statutory power to act and execute a
policy.94 The executive function includes the determination as well as carrying out of policy and
therefore, has within its ambit initiation of legislation, maintenance of order and promotion of
social and economic welfare.95
¶46. The executive can take administrative action without a specific statutory sanction over the
entire area falling within legislative competence of the concerned legislature, if it does not
infringe the legal right of any person.96
89
Associated Picture House v. Wednesbury Corporation, (1947) 2 All E.R. 680 (C.A.), 682-683.
90
Sharma Transport v. Govt. of A.P., A.I.R. 2002 S.C. 322.
91
Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India, A.I.R. 1978 S.C. 597.
92
Kasturi Lal Lakshmi Reddy v. State of J.&K., A.I.R 1980 S.C. 1992.
93
Basheshar Nath v. The Commissioner of Income Tax, Delhi & Rajasthan, A.I.R. 1959 S.C. 149.
94
Ram Jawaya v. State of Punjab, A.I.R. 1955 S.C. 549.
95
Id.
96
Naraindas v. State of Madhya Pradesh, A.I.R. 1974 S.C. 1232.
-33-
[ISSUE 2] THE VDR SCHEME IS NECESSARY TO IMPLEMENT SOCIAL SECURITY MEASURES AND
NEITHER VDR ACT NOW PALANTIR ARE PRONE TO SURVEILLANCE AND PROFILING. THE
¶47. It is humbly submitted that the VDR number provided is an enabler – a number that helps
governments design better welfare programmes, enables residents to access resources more
easily wherever they live. Profiling of individuals is not possible in the BINKS system; Section
2(k)97 clearly states that the definition of demographic data the UIDAI will collect cannot be
expanded to include any profiling information, such as on race, religion, caste, tribe, ethnicity,
language, income or health. The VDR act complies with International Human Rights Principles 98
by extending the socio-economic opportunities to all the residents in their territories.99
2.1 The need for a National ID scheme.
¶48. It is humbly stated before the bench that that the moment a customer deals with a formal
institution, it is imperative that an identity marker is to be established. These markers could be a
photograph, a specimen signature and an address, a mechanism through which recourse is
available. However, when the state offers several of its schemes based on “inclusion” of certain
categories of people (poor, underprivileged, women, households belonging to certain castes, etc)
the imperative is not only to establish the identity, but also classification into an eligible
category. Here, identity assumes a larger significance because a misclassification would deny or
confer benefits on someone to whom it is not intended.
¶49. Apart from dispensing benefits, another need for establishing identity emanates out of
revenue and security concerns. The traceability of financial transactions routed through the
formal financial systems is largely focused on the amounts, but it was increasingly felt that the
identity of the persons in situations involved were also to be traced. This was to ensure that there
was no money laundering activities or activities that eventually posed a threat to the security of
the country or transactions that resulted in a leakage of revenue to the exchequer through evasion
of taxes.100 In becoming a single source of identity verification, VDR enables the easier roll-out
97
Aadhaar Act, 2016 No. 18, Acts of Parliament, 2016 (India).
98
Universal Declaration of Human Rights, G.A. Res. 217(III) A. U.N. Doc. A/RES/217(III) (Dec. 10, 1948);
99
Moot proposition, ¶5.
100
M.S. Sriram, Identity for Inclusion, 28 E.P.W. 148, 151 (2014).
-34-
of wide number of services such as bank accounts, passports, driving licenses, and LPG
connections. Having a formally recognized form of identity provides the poor and vulnerable
with the opportunity to climb out of poverty.101 Proof of identity and greater financial inclusion
could lay the basis for checking fraud and corruption, avoiding duplication and targeting
intended beneficiaries in a range of programmes.102
¶50. It is submitted that the VDR number provided is an enabler – a number that helps
governments design better welfare programmes, enables residents to access resources more
easily wherever they live, and allows agencies to deliver benefits and services effectively and
transparently. The number will thus be an identity infrastructure, and the foundation over which
multiple services and applications can be built for the resident.
¶51. The existing identity and address proofs have varying documentation costs. An important
question is: can a person, who can barely afford a single mea a day, pay for the identification
costs? In many developing economies formal institutional arrangements that support markets are
absent, weak, or fail to achieve stated goals.103 The absence of these institutions does not suggest
that an institutional vacuum exists. Rather, an institutional void exists, which implies that there is
absence of formal institutions that support markets in contexts that have other informal
institutional arrangements. In such a scenario, an institutional void impedes market
participation.104 Institutional voids have been reported in transition economies like China and
Russia. Slow development of efficient and legitimate formal institutions in Russia and China
result in institutional voids.105
¶52. It is submitted before the bench that the biggest challenge for developing economies is to
enable participation of poor in markets. Inclusive innovation is an evolving construct and deals
with innovative business models that enable participation of poor in markets.106 The participation
101
Vyjayanti T Desai, Making The Invisible Billion More Visible: The Power Of Digital Identification, WORLD
BANK (Feb.22,2016),http://blogs.worldbank.org/ic4d/making-invisible-billion-more-visible-power-digital-
identification.
102
Vijay Sathe, The World’s Most Ambitious ID Project, 6 M.I.T. P. J. 39, 62 (2011).
103
TARUN KHANNA & KRISHNA G. PALEPU, THE NATURE OF INSTITUTIONAL VOID IN EMERGING MARKETS 18
(Harvard Printing Press, 2010).
104
Id.
105
Vanita Yadav, Unique Identidication For 1.2 Billion People in India: Can it fill Institutional Voids and Enable
Inclusive Innovation?, 6(1) CONTEMPORARY READINGS IN LAW AND SOCIAL JUSTICE 38, 39 (2014).
106
Id.
-35-
of poor in markets can be in the form of ownership (for example becoming an entrepreneur),
managerial control, employment, consumption or involvement in supply chain activities. 107
Inclusive innovation has the potential to create new services, which can empower the poor and
enable their participation.
¶53. Though, there is various documentation that involves collecting information and filling out
forms for an individual. They are more likely to be duplication efforts because different service
providers have different documentation requirements for identification proofs. As a result,
"identity silos" come into existence with increased costs of identification.
¶54. In Endor, the VDR project is trying to fill the institutional voids by creating a formal
mechanism for inclusion of the poor. Some of the potential services that can be built around
VDR authentication are listed as follows108:
i.Government Welfare Programs and Public Distribution System: the poor will have direct
access to the services offered by the government for example: issue of food grains, subsidies
in cash, employment wages, education, health benefits, or LPG (cooking fuel) distribution.
The role of middlemen can be eliminated and activities like fraud and theft in government
distribution system can be prevented.
ii. Financial Inclusion and Electronic Payments: UID enabled authentication will enable
access to services offered by banks, insurance companies and securities market. The poor will
be able to open bank accounts and will get included in the modern economy. This also opens
up new business and employment opportunities in the form of Micro ATMs and Business
Correspondents (sub-agents of banks in remote rural locations).
iii.Passports and National Register of Citizens: To deal with the issue of illegal migrants VDR
can be linked to the national register of citizens (database of citizens). This is being currently
implemented in the state of Assam in India.109
107
Gerard George et al., Innovation for Inclusive Growth: Towards a Theoretical Framework and a Research
Agenda, 49(4) JOURNAL OF MANAGEMENT STUDIES 661, 668 (2012).
108
Planning commission, UIDAI Strategy Overview: Creating a Unique Identity Number for Every Resident in
India. Planning Commission, GOVERNMENT OF INDIA DOCUMENT (Apr.,2010),
http://www.prsindia.org/uploads/media/UID/UIDAI%20STRATEGY%20OVERVIEW.pdf.
109
Prabin Kalita, AADHAAR cards for Assam will be linked to National Register of Citizens, T.O.I. Oct.28, 2012, at
2.
-36-
iv.New Entrepreneurial Opportunities: VDR's open API platform and cloud based
authentication could enable banks, insurance companies, telecom companies, hospitals,
educational institutions, government and nongovernment organizations and new
entrepreneurial firms to offer multitude of services to 1.3 billion people in Endor. It offers
potential to become an underlying foundation or infrastructure of Endor commercial
services.110
¶55. The VDR will fill a significant gap that has existed in our regulatory infrastructure. Similar
Identification infrastructure to deliver welfare services is in place in countries around the world.
(The United States (SSN), the United Kingdom and European countries deliver social services to
residents through similar identification numbers, such as the National Insurance Number.)111
2.2 The need for the use of Biometrics.
¶56. It is humbly submitted that developing countries spend billions of dollars annually on
antipoverty programs, but the delivery of these programs is often poor and plagued by high
levels of corruption. 112 One key constraint in the effective implementation of anti-poverty
programs is the lack of a secure payments infrastructure to make transfers to intended
beneficiaries. Often, money meant for the poor is simply stolen by officials along the way, with
case studies estimating “leakage” of funds as high as 70 to 85 percent. 113 Thus, building a secure
payments infrastructure can be seen as an investment in state capacity that could improve the
implementation of existing anti-poverty programs, and also expand the state’s long-term policy
choice set, for instance, the ability to securely transfer income to poor households may make it
more feasible for governments to replace distortionary commodity subsidies with equivalent
income transfers.
110
The Economist, India's Identity Scheme - The Magic Number, THE ECONOMIST GROUP (Jan. 14, 2012),
http://www.economist.com/node/21542763/print.
111
Social Security Act, 42 U.S.C. § 405 (1935).
112
World Bank, World Development Report 2004: Making Services Work for Poor People, WORLD BANK (2004),
http://hdl.handle.net/10986/5986; Lant Pritchett, Is India a Failing State? Detours on the Four Lane Highway to
Modernization , HARVARD KENNEDY SCHOOL (2004), https://dash.harvard.edu/handle/1/4449106.
113
Ritva Reinikka &Jakob Svensson, Local Capture: Evidence From a Central Government Transfer Program in
Uganda, 119 (2) QUARTERLY JOURNAL OF ECONOMICS 678, 679.
-37-
¶57. Biometric technology is especially promising in developing country settings where high
illiteracy rates constrain financial inclusion by precluding the universal deployment of traditional
forms of authentication, such as passwords or PIN numbers.114 The potential for such payment
systems to improve the performance of public welfare programs (and also provide financial
inclusion for the poor) has generated enormous interest around the world, with a recent survey
documenting the existence of 230 programs in over 80 countries that are deploying biometric
identification and payment systems.115
¶58. A study by University of California 116 based on a large-scale experiment conducted in

collaboration with the state government of Andhra Pradesh involving the randomized rollout of a
smartcard-enabled payment system [Note that a truly “smart” card was not required or always
issued: one Bank chose to issue paper cards with digital photographs and bar codes while storing
biometric data in the Point-of-Service device (as opposed to on the card), authentication in this
system was otherwise the same] for pensions and the rural jobs guarantee scheme across 158
sub-districts of the state and involving 19 million people. The experiment thus provides an
opportunity to learn about the likely impacts of Endor’s massive VDR initiative, as well as
scaled-up deployments of biometric payments infrastructure more generally.
¶59. The study found that those employed under the rural jobs guarantee scheme received
payments through smartcards spent 21 minutes less on collecting each payment, and earned 23%
more on average compared with those who did not receive smartcards. Since local officials
found it difficult to siphon off funds or overstate work done, it led to a 12.2 percentage point
reduction in leakage.117
¶60. These results suggest that the introduction of biometric authentication made it more difficult
for officials to over-report the amount of work done (and siphon off the extra wages unknown to
the beneficiary), and that the optimal response for officials was to ensure that more actual work
114
Thomas Fujiwara, Voting Technology, Political Responsiveness, and Infant Health: Evidence from Brazil, 83(2)
ECONOMETRICA 423, 425 (2015).
115
Alan Gelb & Julia Clark, Identification for Development: The Biometrics Revolution, CENTER FOR GLOBAL
DEVELOPMENT (Jan., 2013), http://www.cgdev.org/content/publications/detail/1426862.
116
Karthik Muralidharan et al., Building State Capacity: Evidence From Biometric Smartcards In India, 106(10)
AMERICAN ECONOMIC REVIEW 2895, 2898-2912.
117
Id.
-38-
was done against the claimed wages, with a corresponding increase in payments made to
workers.
¶61. Organizational changes associated with the new payment system (especially moving the
point of payment to the village) drove improvements in the payments process, while biometric
authentication was a key to reducing fraud. Overall, the data suggest that smartcards improved
beneficiary experiences in collecting payments, increased payments received by program
participants, reduced corruption, broadened access to program benefits, and achieved these
without substantially altering fiscal burdens on the state.
¶62. The cost benefit data shows that the reduced delays in payments after introduction of
smartcards and the savings in time for beneficiaries exceeded the government’s cost of
programme implementation and operation ($4.44 million in time savings compared with $4.25
million cost of implementation). For instance, the leakage reduction of $38.7 million per annum
in the jobs scheme alone is nine times the cost of implementation.
2.3 That Profiling and Surveillance is not possible on BINKS.
¶63. It is humbly submitted before the bench that profiling of individuals is not possible in
BINKS. Section 2(k)118 clearly states that the definition of demographic data the UIDAI will
collect cannot be expanded to include any profiling information, such as on race, religion, caste,
tribe, ethnicity, language, income or health. Tracking and surveillance are also not supported in
the BINKS system. The BINKS is also barred from revealing information stored in the central
identities data repository.119
¶64. To further limit misuse of data, the Authority will not have records of transactions that the
resident would have engaged in. The Authority will only retain authentication records in a
manner similar to the retaining of credit card records; to protect the interest of residents in case
of disputes of authentication. 120 This is analogous to the finding of a court where the phone
numbers dialed, not the contents of the suspect's conversations, were monitored.121
118
119
120
Smith v. Maryland, 442 U.S. 735 (1979).
121
Aadhaar Act, 2016 § 32(3).
-39-
¶65. In Section 28122, the Bill envisages the creation of an independent body called the Identity
Review Committee which shall ascertain the extent and pattern of usage of VDR numbers across
the country and prepare a report annually and make recommendations to the central government.
¶66. The government of Endor has held numerous consultations with certain think tanks and
expert panels before deciding to issue a Verifiable Data Registration Card123 which is suggestive
of the fact that security and privacy issues were fairly looked into. The government is
consequently keen to ensure that social benefits actually reach the people they are intended for.
This is the animating principle behind VDR.124 Without building better and more secure social
welfare nets, and ensuring access for the poor to education and health, the efforts against
inequality and poverty will come to naught. VDR is the foundation on which the state can
provide the services and resources individuals need to ensure their dignity, and their right to a
better life.
¶67. The VDR doesn’t support surveillance as mentioned in VDR act 125 that any answer to a
query is answered by a positive or negative. Further126 any information sought by a requesting
entity is to be disclosed to the individual. It is humbly submitted that the VDR doesn’t satisfy the
surveillance meaning as defined in CCPR. 127 The General Comment also indicates that “the
gathering and holding of personal information on computers, data banks and other devices,
whether by public authorities or private individuals or bodies, must be regulated by law.” 128 It is
further submitted that the BINKS strictly complies with International Human Rights Principles.
2.4. VDR Act is in compliance with Principles of International Human Rights.
¶68. The VDR act complies with various International Human Rights Principles129 by extending
the socio-economic opportunities to all the residents in their territories. 130 Likewise, any
122
123
124
Moot Proposition, ¶3 and 4.
125
Aadhaar Act, 2016 § 8(4).
126
Aadhaar Act, 2016 § 8(1) & 8(2).
127
U.N. Human Rights Committee, C.C.P.R. General Comment No. 16: Article 17 (Right to Privacy), The Right to
Respect of Privacy, Family, Home and Correspondence, and Protection of Honour and Reputation, O.H.C.H.R.
(Apr.8, 1988), http://www.refworld.org/docid/453883f922.html.
128
Id. at ¶10.
129
International Convent on Civil and Political Rights art. 2, Apr. 12, 1979, 999 U.N.T.S. 171;Universal Declaration
of Human Rights, G.A. Res. 217(III) A. U.N. Doc. A/RES/217(III) (Dec. 10, 1948).
-40-
restrictions on the right of non-nationals to access non-contributory schemes for income support,
including a qualification period, must be proportionate and reasonable.131 The VDR act places no
restrictions on non-nationals but rather opens its doors to the residents. This notion and objective
to include residents in the socio economic opportunities of the state is also evident from further
International Human Rights Principles:
¶69. A State party must respect and ensure the rights laid down in the Covenant to anyone within
the power or effective control of that State Party, even if not situated within the territory of the
State Party.”132 This extends to persons within their “authority”. 133
¶70. The inclusion of all residents also supports the principle of non discrimination under
International human rights law.134 In this regard, the Human Rights Committee has underscored
the importance of “...measures to ensure that any interference with the right to privacy complies
with the principles of legality, proportionality and necessity regardless of the nationality or
location of individuals...”135
¶71. The VDR act 136 also complies with the Convention on the Rights of Persons with
Disabilities137 in order to promote equality and eliminate discrimination.
¶72. The VDR act takes due note138 of effective measures and right to request rectification as
stated by ICCPR.139 The Committee concerns that there are no adequate remedies by way of
130
131
U.N. Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, General Comment No. 19: The right to social security
(Art. 9 of the Covenant), O.H.C.H.R. (Feb.4, 2008), http://www.refworld.org/docid/47b17b5b39c.html.
132
U.N. Human Rights Committee, General comment no. 31 [80], The nature of the general legal obligation
imposed on States Parties to the Covenant, O.H.C.H.R. (May 26,
2004), http://www.refworld.org/docid/478b26ae2.html.
133
U.N. GAOR, 36th Sess., Supp. No. 40, U.N. Doc. A/36/40, at annex. XIX ¶12.2; U.N. Human Rights Committee,
Consideration Of Reports Submitted By States Parties Under Article 40 Of The Covenant: Concluding observations
of the Human Rights Committee ¶11, U.N. Doc. C.C.P.R./C.O./78/I.S.R. (Aug. 21, 2003); U.N. Human Rights
Committee, Consideration Of Reports Submitted By States Parties Under Article 40 Of The Covenant: Concluding
observations of the Human Rights Committee ¶8, U.N. Doc. C.C.P.R./C.O./72/N.E.T. (Aug. 27, 2001); U.N. Human
Rights Committee, Consideration Of Reports Submitted By States Parties Under Article 40 Of The Covenant:
Concluding observations of the Human Rights Committee ¶6, U.N. Doc. C.C.P.R./C.O./81/B.E.L. (Aug.12, 2004);
Coard et al. v. the United States, Case 10.951, Inter-Am. Comm’n H.R., Report No. 109/99, ¶37, 39, 41 and 43
(1999).
134
135
U.N. Human Rights Committee, Concluding observations on the fourth periodic report of the United States of
America ¶22, U.N. Doc. C.C.P.R. /C/U.S.A./C.O./4 (Apr. 23, 2014).
136
137
Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities art. 5.
-41-
correction of inaccurate information in data-bases or for their misuse or abuse, 140 concluding
observations on France141are also thoroughly followed by the VDR act.142
¶73. In this regard it is important to note here that the HRC criticized the overly high privacy
protection enforced in respect of data in Hungary as:143
“The Committee is concerned at the high level of protection afforded by Act LXIII of 1992 on
the Protection of Personal Data and Public Access to Data of Public Interest, which prohibits the
collection of disaggregated personal data of any kind. The Committee is concerned that this
prohibition impedes it from effectively monitoring the implementation of the provisions of the
Covenant (Art.2 and Art.17).” Therefore, it is important to note that the personal data collected
by BINKS is important to effectively monitor the implementation of the provisions of the
Covenant.
¶74. Moreover, such measures are proportionate; they are the least intrusive instrument amongst
those which might achieve the desired result. 144 One factor that must be considered in
determining proportionality is what is done with bulk data and who may have access to them
once collected.145 The measures against illegal and fraudulent access are firmly dealt in the VDR
act.146
¶75. It is humbly submitted before the Hon’ble Court that under international human rights law,
any restriction on the rights to privacy, freedom of expression, and freedom of association
138
Aadhaar Act, 2016 § 3(2); Aadhaar Act, 2016 § 28(5); Aadhaar Act, 2016 § 29(4); Aadhaar Act, 2016 § 31(1).
139
U.N. Human Rights Committee, C.C.P.R. General Comment No. 16: Article 17 (Right to Privacy) The Right to
(Apr. 8, 1988), http://www.refworld.org/docid/453883f922.html.
140
U.N. Human Rights Committee, Consideration Of Reports Submitted By States Parties Under Article 40 Of The
Covenant: Concluding observations of the Human Rights Committee on Republic of Korea ¶17, U.N. Doc.
C.C.P.R./C/79/ADD.114 (Nov. 1, 1999).
141
U.N. Human Rights Committee, Consideration Of Reports Submitted By States Parties Under Article 40 Of The
Covenant: Concluding observations of the Human Rights Committee on France ¶22 U.N. Doc.
C.C.P.R./C/F.R.A./C.O./4 (July 31, 2008).
142
Aadhaar Act, 2016 § 3(2); Aadhaar Act, 2016 § 28(5) ; Aadhaar Act, 2016 § 29(4) ; Aadhaar Act, 2016 § 31(1).
143
SARAH JOSEPH & MELISSA CASTAN, THE INTERNATIONAL COVENANT ON CIVIL AND POLITICAL RIGHTS: CASES,
MATERIALS, AND COMMENTARY 561 (3d ed. 2013).
144
U.N. Human Rights Committee, C.C.P.R. General Comment No. 27: Article 12 (Freedom of Movement),
O.H.C.H.R. (Nov. 2, 1999), http://www.refworld.org/docid/45139c394.html.
145
U.N. High Commissioner for Human Rights, The Right To Privacy In The Digital Age Report Of The Office, ¶27,
U.N. Doc. A/H.R.C./27/37 (June 30, 2013).
146
Aadhaar Act, 2016 § 39 ; Aadhaar Act, 2016 § 40 ; Aadhaar Act, 2016 § 41 ; Aadhaar Act, 2016 § 42.
-42-
must pursue at least one of the “legitimate aims,” which are often exhaustively listed in the
corresponding article at issue. These aims are extremely broadly phrased and include public
safety, prevention of crime, protection of morals and of the rights of others, and national
security147 Under ECHR,148 this also includes “the economic well being of the country.”
¶76. Both the UN Special Reporter on Counter Terrorism and the UN Special Reporter
on Freedom of Expression have held that the “permissible limitations” test under Article
19 among other articles of the ICCPR, was equally applicable to Article 17 ICCPR.149
¶77. The principle that any interference with a qualified right such as the right to privacy
or freedom of expression must be “necessary in a democratic society” is one of the
cornerstones of human rights law. In general, it means that a state must not only
demonstrate that its interference with a person’s right meets a “pressing social need” but also
that it is proportionate-to the legitimate aim pursued.150
¶78. Any restriction to right to privacy, if any falls under the limitations set by International
Human Rights Principles such as ICCPR 151 enables necessary, legitimate and proportionate
restrictions to the right to privacy by means of permissible limitations.
¶79. In this regard, it is impertinent to mention that the Special Reporter takes the position that
the right to privacy should be subject to the same permissible limitations test as the right to
freedom of movement, as elucidated in General Comment 27.152 VDR act satisfies the test as
expressed in the comment.153 The VDR scheme upholds the principles of proportionality and
necessity.
147
International Convent on Civil and Political Rights art. 19, Apr. 12, 1979, 999 U.N.T.S. 171;Universal
Declaration of Human Rights, G.A. Res. 217(III) A. U.N. Doc. A/RES/217(III) (Dec. 10, 1948).
148
European Convention on Human Rights art. 8.
149
U.N. Special Reporter, The Promotion and Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms While
Countering Terrorism, ¶11, U.N. Doc. A/H.R.C./13/37 (Dec. 28, 2009).
150
Handyside v. The United Kingdom, no. 5493/72, 7 Dec. 1976, ¶48 and 49.
151
International Convent on Civil and Political Rights G.A. Res. 2200(XXI) U.N. Doc. A/6316 (Dec 19, 1966).
152
U.N. Human Rights Committee, C.C.P.R. General Comment No. 27: Article 12 (Freedom of Movement),
O.H.C.H.R. (Nov. 2, 1999), http://www.refworld.org/docid/45139c394.html; U.N. Human Rights Committee,
General comment No. 34 Article 19: Freedoms of opinion and expression, O.H.C.H.R. (Sept. 12, 2011),
http://www.refworld.org/docid/4ed34b562.html.
153
Id., ¶11-14.
-43-
¶80. ICCPR154 states that interference authorized by states can only take place on the basis of
law, which itself must comply with the provisions, aims and objectives of the covenant. Also,
this is evident as per the committee’s comment in concluding observations on the Russian
Federation155 and Jamaica.156 It is humbly submitted, that interference authorized by the state
which includes the collection of demographic and biometric information is to enable the state to
fulfill and comply with the provisions, aims and objectives of the covenant.
¶81. It is contend that the information sought by the BINKS for the purpose of issuing a VDR
card, if it interferes with an individual’s right to privacy, is reasonable on the ground that name,
date of birth and address are the basic necessities to create an ID card and therefore section
2(k)157 stands firm on the reasonability ground. This can be further explained by the committee’s
general comment 16 where it states that “... the competent public authorities should only be able
to call for such information relating to an individual’s private life the knowledge of which is
essential in the interests of society as understood under the Covenant...” The states interference
with privacy is proportional to the end sought and is necessary in the circumstances of the given
case.158
¶82. It is therefore submitted that VDR operates in a sphere which doesn’t violate an individual’s
civil liberties; on the contrary it operates to fulfill the aim and objective of International Human
Rights Principles.
154
U.N. Human Rights Committee, C.C.P.R. General Comment No. 16: Article 17 (Right to Privacy) The Right to
(Apr. 8, 1988), http://www.refworld.org/docid/453883f922.html.
155
U.N. Human Rights committee, Consideration of reports submitted by states parties under article 40 of the
covenant. O.H.C.H.R. (July26, 1995),
http://tbinternet.ohchr.org/_layouts/treatybodyexternal/Download.aspx?symbolno=CCPR%2FC%2F79%2FAdd.54
&Lang=en.
156
U.N. Human Rights committee, Consideration Of Reports Submitted By States Parties Under Article 40 Of The
Covenant, O.H.C.H.R. (Nov. 19, 1997), http://www.refworld.org/docid/3ae6b0320.html.
157
158
Toonen v. Australia, Comm. No. 488/1992, Adoption of views, ¶8.3 (Mar. 31, 1994),
http://hrlibrary.umn.edu/undocs/html/vws488.htm.
-44-
¶83. It is submitted before the court that the framers of the Indian Constitution deliberately
avoided the possibility of judicial review of the Speaker's decision. Money bill, owes its origin to
the British Parliament Act, 1911, 159 where for the first time it was statutorily defined. 160
Evidently, a court of law cannot question the Speaker's certificate under §3.161
¶84. In Special Reference No. 1 of 1964162, the Supreme Court discussed the scope of immunity
from judicial review under Article 212, clarifying that it is not absolute in nature. The Court
held:
“Article 212(1) seems to make it possible for a citizen to call in question in the appropriate court
of law the validity of any proceedings inside the legislative chamber if his case is that the said
proceedings suffer not from mere irregularity of procedure, but from an illegality. If the
impugned procedure is illegal and unconstitutional, it would be open to be scrutinized in a court
of law, though such scrutiny is prohibited if the complaint against the procedure is no more than
this that the procedure was irregular.”
¶85. This principle was further upheld by the Supreme Court in Raja Ram Pal v. Lok Sabha,163
where the Supreme Court held that:
“Any attempt to read a limitation into Article 122 so as to restrict the court's jurisdiction to
examination of the Parliament's procedure in case of unconstitutionality, as opposed to illegality
would amount to doing violence to the constitutional text. Applying the principle of ‘expressio
unius est exclusio alterius’ (whatever has not been included has by implication been excluded), it
is plain and clear that prohibition against examination on the touchstone of ‘irregularity of
procedure’ does not make taboo judicial review on findings of illegality or
unconstitutionality.”164
159
Pratik Datta et al., Judicial Review And Money Bills, 10 N.U.J.S. L. REV. 75, 92 (2017).
160
Parliament Act § 1(2), (Ch. 13/1911) (U.K.).
161
Parliament Act (Ch. 13/1911) (U.K.).
162
In re, Special Reference No. 1 of 1964, A.I.R. 1965 S.C. 745.
163
Raja Ram Pal v. Lok Sabha, (2007) 3 S.C.C.184.
164
Id. at ¶386.
-45-
¶86. The Supreme Court has on three previous occasions dealt with the question of whether it
can exercise its judicial review powers in case of breach of the constitutional procedures in
passing money bills. Each time, the answer has been in the negative.
¶87. In Mangalore Ganesh Beedi Works v. State of Mysore,165 a Constitutional Bench of the
Supreme Court was asked to determine whether the Indian Coinage (Amendment) Act, 1955 was
unconstitutional since it was not passed as a money bill. The court held that Article 212 prohibits
the validity of any proceedings in a legislature of a State from being called in question on the
ground of any alleged irregularity of procedure and Art. 255 lays down the requirements as to
recommendation and previous sanction are to be regarded as matters of procedure only.
¶88. In the case of Mohd.Saeed Siddiqui v. State of UP,166 the Supreme Court dismissed the
petitions on the ground that “the question whether a Bill is a ‘money bill’ or not can be raised
only in the State Legislative Assembly by a member thereof when the Bill is pending in the State
Legislature and before it becomes an Act.” It placed reliance on Articles 212 and 255 to justify
non-interference with the Speaker's decision of certification of a bill as ‘money bill’. Next, a
Division Bench of the Supreme Court in Yogendra Kumar Jaiswal v. State of Bihar was called
upon to decide on the constitutionality, of Orissa Special Courts Act, 2006.167 Here, the Court
brushed aside the appellant's plea to review the Speaker's certification of the bill as a ‘money
bill’ with the following observation:
“In our considered opinion, the authorities cited by the learned Counsel for the Appellants do not
render much assistance, for the introduction of a bill, as has been held in Mohd. Saeed
Siddiqui, 168 comes within the concept of ‘irregularity’ and it does come with the realm of
substantiality. What has been held in the Special Reference No. 1 of 1964 (supra) has to be
appositely understood. The factual matrix therein was totally different than the case at hand as
we find that the present controversy is wholly covered by the pronouncement in Mohd. Saeed
165
Mangalore Ganesh Beedi Works v. State of Mysore, A.I.R. 1963 S.C. 589.
166
Mohd. Saeed Siddiqui v. State of U.P., (2014) 11 S.C.C. 415.
167
Yogendra Kumar Jaiswal v. State of Bihar, (2016) 3 S.C.C. 183.
168
Mohd. Saeed Siddiqui v. State of U.P., (2014) 11 S.C.C. 415.
-46-
Siddiqui 169 and hence, we unhesitatingly hold that there is no merit in the submission so
assiduously urged by the learned Counsel for the Appellants.”
¶89. It is concluded here that because of these three decisions of the Supreme Court, the current
legal position in India is that the certification of a bill as ‘money bill’ by the Speaker is beyond
the judicial review powers of the Supreme Court and therefore cannot be challenged in a court of
law. However, notwithstanding, even if it can be challenged, the VDR act satisfies the conditions
laid down in article 110(1) of the constitution170, which are exhaustible.
169
Id.
170
INDIA CONST. art. 110, cl. 1.
-47-
AMITY NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2018. PRAYER
PRAYER
Wherefore in the light of the issues raised, arguments advanced and authorities cited, this
Hon’ble Supreme Court may be pleased to adjudge and declare that:
1. The VDR Act is constitutional as it does not violate Fundamental Rights guaranteed by
the Constitution.
2. That Right to Privacy is not an absolute right and it can be restricted for the welfare of the
state.
3. The need for VDR scheme is paramount and the act respects and upholds the
Fundamental Rights guaranteed in the constitution and also complies with International
Human Rights Principles.
4. That the speaker’s decision of a money bill cannot be challenged.
AND/OR
Pass any other order that this Hon’ble Court may deem fit in the interests of justice, equity
And good conscience.
And for this the Respondent, as is duty bound shall forever humbly pray.
Sd/-
(Counsel on behalf of the Respondent)
-48-

A N M C C, 2018 T C: Mity Ational OOT Ourt Ompetition

Загружено:

Сведения о документе

Оригинальное название

Авторское право

Доступные форматы

Поделиться этим документом

Поделиться или встроить документ

Параметры публикации

Этот документ был вам полезен?

Это неприемлемый материал?

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

A N M C C, 2018 T C: Mity Ational OOT Ourt Ompetition

Загружено:

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

AMITY NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2018 TABLE OF CONTENTS

17TH AMITY NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2018

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE REPUBLIC OF ENDOR

UNDER ARTICLE 32 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF ENDOR

IN THE MATTER OF:

BEN YODA FOUNDATION ...PETITIONER

REPUBLIC OF ENDOR … RESPONDENT

WRIT PETITION NO. ****/2018

Memorial on behalf of the Respondent

INDEX OF AUTHORITIES ................................................................................................................... 5

STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION ........................................................................................................ 13

ISSUES INVOLVED .......................................................................................................................... 16

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS ............................................................................................................ 17

BODY OF ARGUMENTS ................................................................................................................... 19

Govind v. State of Madhya Pradesh, 1975 A.I.R. 1378................................................................ 22

Ram Prasad v. State of Bihar, A.I.R. 1953 S.C. 215 .................................................................... 26

Social Security Act, 42 U.S.C. § 405 (1935) ................................................................................ 37

Aadhaar Act, 2016 § 33 ................................................................................................................ 40

of Honour and Reputation, O.H.C.H.R. (April 8,

Writ Petition (Civil)

The Writ Petition is filed under Article 32 of the Constitution of Endor.

1.1.1 The VDR Act satisfies the test of reasonable classification

1. The classification proposed in the legislation must be founded on intelligible differentia.

iii. Possibility of Abuse of Power does not render a Legislation Arbitrary -

1.1.2 The VDR Act satisfies the test of Arbitrariness.

1.3.1. Establishment of Socialist Welfare State.

ii. Maintenance of Public Health -

1.3.2. Reasonable Restrictions can be imposed on Fundamental Rights to give effect to

1.4. The mere possibility of abuse of Legislation is no test of its Reasonableness.

The VDR Scheme passes the test of Proportionality.

The VDR Act passes the test of Wednesbury Unreasonableness.

¶45. When an administrative action is questioned as arbitrary, the principle of Wednesbury

i. The VDR Scheme was not arbitrary.

‘Arbitrarily’ means in an unreasonable manner, as fixed or done capriciously or at pleasure,

ii. The executive can make policies without statutory support

2.1 The need for a National ID scheme.

2.2 The need for the use of Biometrics.

¶58. A study by University of California 116 based on a large-scale experiment conducted in

2.3 That Profiling and Surveillance is not possible on BINKS.

2.4. VDR Act is in compliance with Principles of International Human Rights.

(Counsel on behalf of the Respondent)

Вам также может понравиться