BEFORE THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

W.P. (CRI) NO._____/2023

IN THE MATTER OF

SANJIB KUMAR ROY

(PETITIONER)

V.

UNION OF INDIA
(RESPONDENT)

UNDER ARTICLE 32 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA

WRITTEN SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER

Most Respectfully Submitted to the Honourable Chief Justice of India &

Other Companion Judges.
 TABLE OF CONTENTS

Sl No. Page No.

1. Index of Authorities 3

2. List of Cases 4-5

3. Statement Of 6
Jurisdiction

4. Statement of Facts 7-8

5. Statement of Issues 9

6. Summary of 10
Arguments

7. Written Pleadings 11 - 25

8. Prayer 26

2
 INDEX OF AUTHORITIES

STATUTES

1. The Constitution of India, 1949

BOOKS
1. M P Jain’s Indian Constitutional Law (7th Edition)
2. VN Shukla's Constitutional Law (12th Edition)
3. DD Basu’s Shorter Constitution of India (16th Edition)

WEBSITES
1. https://indiankanoon.org
2. https://livelaw.in
3. http://www.bareactslive.com
4. https://www.mondaq.com
5. https://www.indiacode.nic.in
6. http://www.legalservicesindia.com

3
 LIST OF CASES

1. Justice K. S Puttaswamy v. Union of India AIR 2015 SC 3081

2. Kharak Singh v. State of U.P. AIR 1963 SC 1295
3. Gobind Singh v. State of M.P. AIR 1975 SC 1378
4. R. Rajagopal v. State of T.N. AIR 1995 SC 264
5. People’s Union for Civil Liberties v. Union of India AIR 1997 SC 568
6. ‘X’ v. Hospital ‘Z’ AIR 1999 SC 495
7. District Registrar and Collector v. Canara Bank AIR 2005 SC 186
8. R. M. Malkani v. State of Maharashtra AIR 1973 SC 157
9. Vishaka v. State of Rajasthan AIR 1997 SC 3011
10. Anuj Garg v. Hotel Assn. of India, AIR (2008) 3 SCC 1
11. Aruna Ramachandra Shanbaug v. Union of India (2011) 4 SCC 454
12. Arunchalam v. Sethuratnam, AIR 1979 SC 1284
13. CCE v. Venus Castings (p) Ltd., (2000) 4 SCC 206
14. Jamshed Hormusji Wadia v. Board of Trustees, Port of Mumbai, (2004) 3 SCC
214
15.Haripada Dey v. State of West Bengal, AIR 1956
16.Durga Shankar v. Raghu Raj AIR 1954 SC 520
17.K.L.D. Nagasree v. Government of India AIR 2007 AP 102
18. Kerala State Electricity Board v. Kurien E. Kalathil, (2000) 6 SCC 293
19. Keshvananda Bharti v. State of Kerala (1973) 4 SCC 225
20. Matru v. State of U.P, AIR 1971 SC 1050
21. Mohammad Khalil Chisti v. State of Rajashtan, 2013 CrLJ 637 (649) (SC)
22. Mr CJ Karira v. Planning Commission, Government of New Delhi
23.N.Suriyakala v. A. Mohandoss, (2007) 9 SCC 196 : (2007) 3JT 266
24. Narpat Singh v. Jaipur Development Authority, (2002) 4 SCC
25. National Legal Services Authority v. Union of India
26. Parmanand Katara v. Union Of India & Ors, 1989 SCR (3) 997
27. Ram Pirari v. Bhagwant, (1990) 3 SCC
28. Sambhu Das v. State of Assam, (2010) 10 SCC 374
29. Sanwat Singh v. State of Rajashtan, AIR 1961 SC 715

4
30. Selvi v. State of Karnataka, AIR 2010 SC 1974
31. Sharda v. Dharmpal, AIR (2003) SC 3450
32. Shreya Singhal v. Union of India, (2015) 5 SCC 1
33. State of Sikkim v. Dorjee, AIR 1991 SC 1933 ; (1991) 4 SCC 243
34. State of U.P v. Indian Hume Pipe Co. ltd (1977) 2 SCC 724
35. Suchitra Srivastava v. Chandighar Administration AIR 2010 SC 235
36. Western Indian Plywood Ltd. v. P. Ashokan, AIR (1997) 7 SCCC 638
37. Griswold v. Connecticut, [381 US 479 (1965)]
38. Munn v. Illinois, [94 US 113 (1877)]
39. Roe v. Wade, [410 US 113 (1973)]

5
 STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION
The Petitioner humbly submit this written submission in response to the writ
petition filed before this Hon’ble Supreme Court.

The petition invokes its jurisdiction under Article 32 of the Constitution of India
It sets forth the facts and the laws on which the claims are based.

6
 STATEMENT OF FACTS

India is sovereign country. The fundamental rights works as a safety valve for the
citizens of India, its not only protects right of life, liberty and equality etc but also
provides remedies for its violation. In this scenario one 81-year old retired
Supreme Court Judge named Sanjib Kumar Roy filed a case against the Union of
India in validating the right to privacy in one the identification card. This latest
case is concerned with the challenge to the government's Jeevan Dahara scheme
(a form of uniform biometrics-based identity card) which the government
proposed making mandatory for access to government services and benefits. The
challenge was p before a three-judge bench of the Supreme Court on the idea
that the theme desecrated the proper to privacy.

However, the lawyer argued on behalf of the Union of India that the Indian
Constitution doesn't grant specific protection for the proper to privacy. He based
mostly this on observations created within the case of M.P.Sharma v.Satish
Chandra (an eight-judge bench) and Kharak Singh v.Uttar Pradesh (a five-judge
bench).

However, a eleven-judge bench found that elementary rights weren't to be

construed as distinct, unrelated rights, thereby upholding there dissenting view in
Kharak Singh. This also formed the basis of later decisions by smaller benches of
the Supreme Court which expressly recognized the right to privacy.

The Petitioner however argued before the nine-judge bench that this right was a

7
freelance right, guaranteed by the right to life with dignity under Article 21 of the
Constitution. The Respondent submitted that the Constitution solely recognized
personal liberties which can incorporate the right to privacy to a limited extent.

Now the case is before the Supreme Court of India. The points to be argued
before the Supreme Court are:
Whether right to privacy is a fundamental right or not?
Whether the state has the power to ask for citizens biometric details or not?

8
 STATEMENT OF ISSUES

40. Whether right to privacy is a fundamental right or not?

41. Whether the state has the power to ask for citizens biometric
details or not?

9
 SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS

1. Whether right to privacy is a fundamental right or not?

It is humbly submitted before Hon’ble Court that Right to Privacy is a
Fundamental Right as evolved by the Court in its various pronouncements
and by the International treaties of which India is a signatory and the new
privacy policy of Jeevan Dhara card is in violation of the fundamental right,
that is, Right to Privacy, provided to the people under the ambit of Article
21 of the Constitution of India.

Therefore it is humbly submitted before the Hon’ble Court that “Right to

Privacy” is an integral part of right to life and personal liberty guaranteed
under article 21.

2. Whether the state has the power to ask for citizens biometric

details or not?
It is humbly submitted before this Hon’ble court that the finger prints or the
retina scan or any other biometric method of storing one’s personal
information and then using it without the consent of individual is totally
violative of the fundamental right of Right to Privacy envisaged in Right to life
under Art.21 as every individual or citizen in this country had complete control
over his/her body and State cannot insist any person for giving his/her finger
tips or iris of eyes, as a condition precedent to enjoy certain rights and the
maintenance of biometric data violates citizens Right to Privacy.
It is further submitted before this Hon’ble court that since the government
does not have any comprehensive law to secure the Jeevan Dhara data and by
imposing the Jeevan Dhara card the government is imposing the duty on the
citizens which is giving the state much more rights that it required for a
democratic country. So in the light of above submission the Jeevan Dhara card
should be not be made mandatory to the citizens of India as it poses
considerable risk to the biometric details of the citizens.

10
 WRITTEN PLEADINGS

1. Whether right to privacy is a fundamental right or not?

It is submitted before this Hon’ble court, that Right to Privacy is a Fundamental
Right, incorporated in the Constitution under the aegis of Art. 21. The right has
been implicitly provided to the people, by way of various pronouncements and
interpretation of Art. 21.
2.1 Meaning of Right to Privacy
1. Right to Privacy is vested within Right to life and personal liberty under Art.21.
The definition of the phrase “personal liberty” given by Prof. Dicey, according to
whom personal liberty means freedom from physical restraint and coercion which
is not authorized by law. An unauthorized intrusion into a person’s home and the
disturbance caused to him is the violation of the personal liberty of the
individual12. Therefore, Right to life enshrined in Art.21 has been liberally
interpreted so as to mean something more than mere survival and mere existence
or animal existence. It therefore includes all those aspects of life which go to
make a man’s life meaningful, complete and worth living. The Right to Privacy is
not just a common law right, not just a legal right, not just a Fundamental Right
under the constitution. It is a natural right inherent in every individual.
2. Right to Privacy is not just an elitist concern, not just a modern myth, nor
entirely irrelevant in the internet age. The court has rejected any notion that the
Right to Privacy is an impediment to social welfare in any way, and the idea that
those who seek socio-economic security do not care about their civil and political
rights.
3. Privacy with its attendant values assures dignity to the individual and it is only
when life can be enjoyed with dignity can liberty be of true substance. As stated
in recent judgment of Justice K. S Puttaswamy v. Union of India, “To live is to live
with dignity.” The Right of Privacy is defined as an individual's legal right, not
explicitly provided in the United States Constitution, to be left alone and live life
free from unwarranted publicity. Privacy rights are considered fundamental
rights. Privacy can also extend to other aspects, including bodily integrity,

11
personal autonomy, informational self-determination, protection from state
surveillance, dignity, confidentiality, compelled speech and freedom to dissent or
move or think. In short, the Right to Privacy has to be determined on a case-by-
case basis. Privacy enjoys a robust legal framework internationally. Article 12 of
the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, 1948 and Article 17 of the
International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), 1966, legally protect
persons against “arbitrary interference” with one’s privacy, family, home,
correspondence, honour and reputation.
4. “Privacy enables each individual to take crucial decisions which find expression
in the human personality. It enables individuals to preserve their beliefs,
thoughts, expressions, ideas, ideologies, preferences and choices against societal
demands of homogeneity. Privacy is an intrinsic recognition of heterogeneity in
creating a zone of solitude”. At a time when individuals are being told what eat,
who to love and marry, to respect or oppose, this assertion of the citizen’s
autonomy sends out an important message to both society and the state. Privacy
with its attendant values assures dignity to the individual and it is only when life
can be enjoyed with dignity can liberty be of true substance. Privacy ensures the
fulfilment of dignity and is a core value which the protection of life and liberty it
intended to achieve. The dignity of the individual, equality between human beings
and quest for liberty are the foundational pillars of the Indian constitution.
2.2 Implication of Right to Privacy under Article 21
5. In the case of Kharak Singh v. State of U.P., privacy was though denied the
status of a fundamental right, but it was affirmed by the bench that it indeed is a
human right under common law, while construing the meaning of personal
liberty. The dissenting opinion of SubbaRao J. did impute the Right to Privacy as a
fundamental right under the ambit of personal liberty but the same was not
reckoned by the majority.
6. In Gobind Singh v. State of M.P., the Supreme Court, through a three judge
bench stated that privacy is a concern for an individual and is a part of the
concept of liberty. Furthermore, in the case of R. Rajagopal v. State of T.N., more
popular as the Auto Shankar case, the scope of right to be left alone was
widened. The bench of the Supreme Court, decided to give a constitutional status

12
to Right to Privacy stating that it is “implicit in the right to life and personal
liberty”.
7. In the evolution of the law over Right to Privacy, in the case of People’s union
for Civil Liberties v. Union of India, it was admitted by the bench that Right to
Privacy is a part of the right to life and personal liberty. Although the bench
refused to define privacy, it did reckon that the infringement of the privacy would
depend upon the basis of the facts of the various cases, considering the concept
to be too broad and moralistic in order to define it in a judicial manner.
8. It is therefore submitted before this Hon’ble Court, that though Right to Privacy
has not been explicitly mentioned as a fundamental right in the Constitution, it
still is a part of the same as it is one of the essential ingredients of personal
liberty. Today, the right has become, by evolution a multifaceted right. For
instance, bodily privacy has been affirmed in the case of ‘X’ v. Hospital ‘Z’,
financial privacy in the case of District Registrar and Collector v. Canara Bank,
communication privacy in the case of R. M. Malkani v. State of Maharashtra,
et.al. Therefore, Right to Privacy has now been given the status of the
fundamental right.
9. Apart from Right to Privacy being a fundamental right, it is pertinent here to
mention about the importance of the international treaties and laws on privacy
which is to be respected according to Article 51 of the constitution, in case if
there is not a law already made for the issue which is being dealt with.
10. In the landmark case of Vishaka v. State of Rajasthan, it was propounded by
the bench that if a fundamental right is being infringed and there is not any
domestic legislation to deal with it then the subject must be construed in line with
the provisions in the international treaties and conventions, to which the country
is a party.

11. This approach was undertaken in the case of Kharak Singh (supra), and,
Gobind Singh (supra). To make the position clear over the use of international
treaties, the court in the Auto Shankar case cited Article 8 of the European
Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) which does not treat privacy as an absolute
right but indeed as an imperative right needed in a democratic society. Article 12

13
of Universal Declaration of Human Rights and Article 17 of International Covenant
on Civil and Political Rights asks for the maintenance of privacy. This was referred
to in the case of People’s union for Civil Liberties v. Union of India case. To both
of these, India is a signatory.
12. Considering the aforementioned treaties and covenants and the provisions
therein, which explicitly states that privacy as an essential right of human being
and its violation is non-congruous to the meaning of life, it is therefore submitted
before the court to consider these international law treaties and jurisprudence
while dealing with the case in hand.
13. Any kind of invasion into the privacy of the individual is wrong per se, and this
has been upheld by the court by way of various judgments and pronouncements
such as in the Auto Shankar case, PUCL case, case of R.M. Malkani v. State of
Maharashtra et.al. Also, the courts at times have refused to admit the evidences
based on such intrusion to privacy of an individual.
14. It is pertinent to note that the jurisprudence in the country has not developed
much in this direction unlike the case in Europe and America, and due to such
situations the Supreme Court has at numerous occasions considered the
jurisprudence of these places as was done in the case of Shreya Singhal v. Union
of India. The case of Griswold v. Connecticut and Roe v. Wade which was dealt in
the US Supreme Court was used by the apex court of India in the Auto Shankar
case to highlight to invasion of government bodies into an individual’s privacy and
the violation of Article 21.
15. In the case of Selvi v. State of Karnataka, the court held that if an individual is
being forced to give the consent for any purpose then that is a kind of intrusion
into personal liberty. Even in the Auto Shankar case, the Supreme Court said that
right to be left alone which is a corollary of Right to Privacy incorporates the
principle of consent.
16. The Right to Privacy in any event will necessarily have to go through a process
of case -by- case development. Therefore, even assuming that the right to
personal liberty, the right to move freely throughout the territory of India and the
freedom of speech create an independent Right to Privacy as an emanation from
them which one can characteristic as a Fundamental Right. The right most valued
by civilized men, the right to be left alone. But in our age, the age of internet, the

14
right to be left alone includes also the right to be put out there, or exposed
involuntarily.
 Forced disclosure of the information that comprises our identities in the
age of biometric identification, social profiles, and cashless economic
transactions, damages an essential component of all personal liberties.
 Whether the individual’s information is used on its own, or is analyzed,
profiled or linked in the “social graph” to that of other related persons,
forced disclosure of personal information in today’s society creates power
in the state which receives the information.
 Not all of the constitutional right of privacy cases in the age of the internet
will involve forced disclosures. The cases that will matter most, should the
court decide in favour of the fundamental right, will be where the
government imposes a form of disclosure that, like limitations on physical
movement, inhibits the ability to be oneself.
 Court would find that the fundamental Right to Privacy is infringed when
forced disclosure of personal information to government interfere with the
exercise of any of the freedoms the Art.19 protects, when you cannot
actually have your freedom of movement, or of expression, for example,
because you are compelled to give information that empowers government
to restrict deny your rights.

17. The liberties guaranteed under Art.21, where, an Aadhar number is

required before a patient can request ambulance service ,as has been ordered
recently in UP, the right to medical care protecting life declared by Supreme
court in Parmanad Katara v. Union of India; in this case violated by compelled
disclosure of identity.
18. Supreme Court decides the present issues fully; it will find that the
common factors in all successful constitutional privacy claims are -
 The forced disclosure of personal information
 Under circumstances adversely affecting an individual’s ability to
exercise freedoms protected by Art.19 or liberties guaranteed by Art.21

15
  Also the terms of Art.14, that all persons must be equally treated with
respect to requirements of personal information disclosure, without
discrimination.

19. The importance of a fundamental right in our system is that it can only be
enforced against the state. Platform social media companies receive voluntary
disclosures of personal information in immense quantities every minute, but
they are not subject to constitutional controls. Moreover, though these
corporate are indeed ubiquitous in our lives, they are not obligatory. In dealing
with them, we still have choices only the poor of the state can, in fact, compel
us to expose ourselves more fully than we choose to do.
20. Right to Privacy of the Indian citizen got more teeth against the arbitrary
action the state. The Supreme Court’s ruling that the “Right to Privacy” is an
integral part of right to life and personal liberty guaranteed under article 21 of
the constitution will be seen in the light of its immediate context – the Jeevan
Dhara case.
21. Therefore, it is submitted before this Hon’ble court by the counsels for the
petitioner that the new privacy policy of Jeevan Dhara card is in violation of
the fundamental right, that is, Right to Privacy, provided to the people under
the ambit of Article 21 of the Constitution of India.

2. Whether the state has the power to ask for citizens biometric
details or not?
It is to be humbly submitted before the Hon’ble Court of Law that every individual
or citizen in this country had complete control over his/her body and State cannot
insist any person from giving his/her finger tips or iris of eyes, as a condition
precedent to enjoy certain rights and the maintenance of biometric data violates
citizens Right to Privacy.

16
3.1 Biometric Jeevan Dhara Cards are a threat to privacy
22. There are certain things that the State simply cannot do, because the action
fundamentally alters the relationship between the citizens and the State. The
wholesale collection of biometric data including finger prints and storing it at a
central depository per se puts the State in an extremely dominant position in
relation to the individual citizen. Biometric data belongs to the concerned
individual and the State cannot collect or retain it to be used against the
individual or to his or her prejudice in the future.
23. Further the State cannot put itself in a position where it can track an
individual and engage in surveillance. The State cannot deprive or withhold the
enjoyment of rights and entitlements by an individual or makes such entitlements
conditional on a citizen parting with his/her biometrics.
24. Being a conscientious person in the society, no one wants to give away his
finger tips or iris to private persons who were engaged as contractors/private
enrollers by the Govt. for undertaking the job of enrolment under the Jeevan
Dhara. It is to be submitted that the data given to such persons are not safe and
there was huge possibility that the same maybe leaked. Further, requirement of
giving Jeevan Dhara number for every transaction amounted to surveillance by
the State and the entire profile of such persons would be available to the State.
25. In today’s technology, there was every possibility of copying the fingerprint
and even the iris images. Various cases of fake Jeevan Dhara has come to light.
There are instances of Jeevan Dhara leak as well. Even hacking is possible. As the
collection of biometrics information is with the private authorities in a very poorly
and unorganized manner which results in various reports of data breaches and
the storage of these biometrics information in large deposits is considerable risk
for the security of these information’s and also these data of private information
is stored in central identities data repository from where hacking and destroying
the data is easily assessable. These are the issues within the realm of ‘Right to
Privacy’ which were to be decided by the Constitution Bench.
26. It is to be submitted that a citizen is entitled to enjoy all these rights including
social and civil rights such as the right to receive an education, a scholarship,
medical assistance, pensions and benefits under government schemes without
having to part with his or her personal biometrics.

17
27. An individual’s biometrics such as finger prints and iris scan are the property
and entitlement of that individual and the State cannot coerce an individual or
direct him or her to part with biometrics as a condition for the exercise of rights
or the enjoyment of entitlements.
28. Every citizen has a basic right to informational self-determination and the
state cannot exercise dominion over a citizen’s proprietary information either in
individual cases or collectively so as to place itself in a position where it can
aggregate information and create detailed profiles of individuals or facilitate this
process.
29. The Constitution of India is not a charter for a Police State which permits the
State to maintain cradle to grave records of the citizenry. No democratic country
in the world has devised a system similar to Jeevan Dhara which operates like an
electronic leash to tether every citizen from cradle to grave.
30. In National Legal Services Authority v. Union of India & Ors. Article 21, as
already indicated, guarantees the protection of “personal autonomy” of an
individual.
31. In Anuj Garg v. Hotel Assn. of India this Court held that personal autonomy
includes both the negative right of not to be subject to interference by others and
the positive right of individuals to make decisions about their life, to express
themselves and to choose which activities to take part in. Self-determination of
gender is an integral part of personal autonomy and self-expression and falls
within the realm of personal liberty guaranteed under Art.21 of the Constitution
of India.”

32. In Kharak Singh case Subba Rao, J. quoted Field, J. in Munn v. Illinois to
emphasise the quality of life covered by Art.21: “Something more than mere
animal existence. The inhibition against its deprivation extends to all those limbs
and faculties by which life is enjoyed. The provision equally prohibits the
mutilation of the body by the amputation of an arm or leg, or the putting out of
an eye or the destruction of any other organ of the body through which the soul
communicates with the outer world.”

18
33. In Aruna Ramachandra Shanbaug v. Union of India & Ors, it was held that in
common law it is the right of every individual to have the control of his own
person free from all restraints or interferences of others. Every human being of
adult years and sound mind has a right to determine what shall be done with his
own body. In the case of medical treatment, for example, a surgeon who
performs an operation without the patient's consent commits assault or battery.
It follows as a corollary that the patient possesses the right not to consent i.e. to
refuse treatment. This is known as the principle of self-determination or informed
consent.
34. The right to life covers and extends to a person’s right to protect his or her
body and identity from harm. The right to life extends to allowing a person to
preserve and protect his or her finger prints and iris scan. The strongest and most
secure manner of a person protecting this facet of his or her bodily integrity and
identity is to retain and not part with finger prints/iris scan.
35. The right to life under Art.21 permits every person to live life to the fullest and
to enjoy freedoms guaranteed as fundamental rights, constitutional rights,
statutory rights and common law rights. The effect of the impugned provision is
to coerce persons into parting with their finger prints and iris scan and lodging
these personal and intimate aspects of an individual’s identity with the State as
part of a programme that is wholly illegitimate.
36. Jeevan Dhara policy violates the Right to Privacy as the scheme is directly
interfering with the physical body of an individual who has to provide his
biometric information aforesaid to get himself registered in the government
records.

3.2 Providing general information can lead to a proper identification

37. It is to be submitted before the Hon’ble Court that by abolishing the system of
biometrics information and just providing general information can also lead to a
proper identification of an individual and on records of the government also.
38. Looking very deep into the topic the counsel come across a very important
aspect of government’s continuous attempts to amending the fundamental rights
as government is directly affecting an individual’s Right to Privacy and creating a

19
risk to their personal data which should be kept safe. But it is laid down in the
case of Keshavnanda Bharti v. State of Kerala that any part of the constitution
can be changed except the basic structure of the constitution which also counts
fundamental right.
39. Biometric system cannot authenticate a person with 100 percent certainty as
there are no safeguards or penalties and no legislative backing for obtaining
personal information.
40. When tapping of telephonic conversation, disclosure of dreadful disease,
Right to Privacy and subjecting to medical tests, women’s right to make
reproductive choices can be considered as Right to Privacy then how giving our
biometric details cannot be considered as infringement of Right to Privacy.
41. Jeevan Dhara is definitely violative of the fundamental right of privacy as it
misuses the personal information for a variety of purposes not only by
government organization but also private institutions.
42. It is to be submitted before the Hon’ble court that the finger prints or the
retina scan or any other biometric method of storing one’s personal information
and then using it without his consent is totally violative of the fundamental right
of Right to Privacy envisaged in Right to life under Art.21 forming the heart of
fundamental rights.

3.3 Jeevan Dhara card systems lead to function creep and discrimination:
Function creep means- the gradual widening of the use of a technology or system
beyond the purpose for which it was originally intended, especially when this
leads to potential invasion of privacy.
43. Jeevan Dhara Card was introduced for a certain purpose but now is expanded
beyond its original intent. In the case of the given scheme, it was promoted as
providing the poor with an identity. Then, it was about de-duplicating the entire
population, so that each person would have one unique number by which they
could be identified. Then it was to get rid of ‘ghosts’ and ‘duplicates’ in welfare
systems and to prevent ‘leakages’. Then data as property and the exploitation of

20
the Unique Identification number for making people leave detailed digital
footprints became the game. Then it became a precondition for underserved and
socio-economically vulnerable people to get any manner of state assistance.
Then, from denial of entitlements if a person is not enrolled or does not seed
their number, it has reached a point where not having a UID number will force
you to commit an offence because you want to pay your taxes, but you cannot,
because the government will refuse to accept tax payment from you if you do not
give them your UID number. And they will cancel your PAN card and then levy a
penalty because you do not have a PAN card.
44. It has lead to invasion of privacy. Every identity system is made up of a
support register containing personal information parallel to that on the ID card.
When this information is maintained on a central database, the ID number acts as
a common identifier for multiple government agencies. The risks that this poses
for individual privacy is monumental. Centralized information is centralized
power. A national identifier contained in an ID card enables disparate information
about a person scattered in different databanks to be easy linked
and analyzed through data mining techniques. Moreover, multiple agency access
to sensitive data greatly increases the potential for misuse of personal
information, either through corrupt disclosure or lapses in security.

3.4 Jeevan Dhara cards systems shift the balance of power from the individual
to the state
45. Jeevan Dhara systems invariably pave the way for the convergence of
government services and the development of a comprehensive linkage between
public and private sector information systems. Such initiatives turn nations into
more authoritarian societies50. This profound impact in inevitable because the
Jeevan Dhara card is a component of complex web of technology that fuses the
most intimate characteristics of the individual with the machinery of state. In
order to give the card, the necessary legal gravity, its introduction is accompanied
by a substantial increase in police power. Authorities will, after all, want to
demand the card in a wide range of circumstances, and people must be
compelled to comply. Government rarely promotes this sobering outcome.
Instead, such initiatives are benignly dressed up as “citizen cards” guaranteeing

21
entitlement to benefits and services, and streamlining a person’s dealings with
the government.
46. The law leaves too much power in the hands of the executive. For instance,
the bill gives the Jeevan Dhara powers to determine if it should collect any
biological attribute of people too. This means the government could at a later
date mandate that DNA of all Jeevan Dhara numbers too be collected.
47. The biometrics of citizens are of citizens alone. The government can have no
claim over them. In the Identification of Prisoner's Act, 1920, recognizes the right
of a person to protect his or her finger impressions. These short Act comprising 8
sections requires persons convicted of offences punishable with rigorous
imprisonment for a term of one year or more to allow his measurements and
photographs to be taken by a police officer. A measurement may also be taken
when a person is arrested in connection with such an offence. A magistrate may
order a person to give finger impressions or a photograph for the purposes of
investigations.

48. Resistance is deemed to be an offence under Section 186 of the IPC

(Obstructing a public servant in the discharge of his duty). Where a person is not a
repeat offender, his photographs (negatives and copies) and all measurements
are required to be destroyed when he is released without trial or discharged or
acquitted.
49. This pre-constitutional regime, which gave limited rights to the state, is now
being turned on its head with wholesale trawling of fingerprints through an
administrative scheme with no statutory protection to individuals

3.5 No Data protection law in the state of India

50. The question of whether or not the government’s bureaucracy is equipped to
handle something like the Jeevan Dhara database and this is pertinent as the
incapability to do so will only make it easier for hackers to target the Jeevan
Dhara system. It is clearly evident from the facts of the case that hackers and
internet users leaked crores of data from Jeevan Dhara database which are now it

22
is in the hands of the private companies. This shows that bureaucracy is not well
equipped to handle the Jeevan Dhara system currently.
51. Despite the critical importance of the Jeevan Dhara number to all residents of
India, especially the poor, as well as the several doubts raised over the accuracy
of the technology, the government has not provided for a grievance redressal
system in the act. It included no provision for cases where a person has been
denied a Jeevan Dhara number or has run into authentication issues, depriving
them of access to a subsidy or service. A system of this scale would likely require
an independent nation-wide, taluk-level grievance redressal mechanism, but the
Jeevan Dhara Act, 2014 does not even hint at such a mechanism. Instead, Clause
23 (2) (s) of the Jeevan Dhara Act delegates the entire process of setting up
grievance redressal mechanisms to the Jeevan Dhara database system. It is not
good policy to leave such a vital function to the very agency that is responsible for
the administration of the project.
52. The project is also ultra vires because there is no statutory guidance-
i) on who can collect biometric information
ii) on how the information is to be collected
iii) on how the biometric information is to be stored

iv) on how throughout the chain beginning with the acquisition of biometric data
to its storage and usage, this data is to be protected
v) on who can use the data
vi) on when the data can be used.

3.6 Sharing of one’s integral intimate information with government is

imposition of duty on an individual by state
53. The impugned provision is wholly disproportionate and excessive. The so
called state interest is minuscule compared to the massive invasion on person
liberty and freedom of an individual.

23
54. If a person chooses not to enroll, at the highest, in terms of the Jeevan Dhara
Act he or she may be denied access to certain benefits and services funded
through the Consolidated Fund of India. When the Jeevan Dhara enrolment
procedure is supposedly based on informed free consent and is voluntary a
person cannot be compelled by another law to waive free consent so as to alter
the voluntary nature of enrolment that is engrafted in the parent statute.
55. By visiting a conscientious objector (such as the petitioners) or any other
person who does not have a Jeevan Dhara number with severe consequences, the
object of the impugned provision is itself discriminatory and violative of Art.14.
There is no justification for discriminating against persons who do not wish to part
with their sensitive biometric information such as finger prints and iris scan.
56. The impugned provision in effect treats an individual’s finger prints and iris
scan as belonging to the state, blurring the distinction between the individual and
the state. The impugned provision reduces to a mirage the voluntary nature of
enrolment carried out under the Jeevan Dhara Act. It compels Jeevan Dhara
enrolment which is directly in conflict with the Jeevan Dhara Act.
57. A statutory provision that completely takes away the voluntary nature of
Jeevan Dhara and compels expropriation of a person’s finger prints and iris scan is
per se violative of Art.21. In any event, such coercion cannot be imposed on
legitimate tax payers and assesses who are otherwise willing to and pay income
tax. There is no concept of eminent domain of the state qua a person and his
body.

58. The state cannot hold an individual citizen hostage, by compelling them to
part with something that does not belong to the state.
59. In a digital world, the right to life includes maintaining personal autonomy
through informational self-determination. An individual must be allowed to limit
what he or she wants to put out because otherwise her personal autonomy could
get compromised. The coercion amounts to compelled speech. The freedom of
speech includes the right to remain silent. Here, the citizen is being compelled to
speak or part with his or her demographic information as well as finger prints and

24
iris scan. The impugned provision violates Art.19(1) (a) and is not saved under
Art.19(2).
60. Whenever a person voluntarily entrusts his finger prints and iris scan to the
state, the ‘property’ and entitlement is retained with that individual throughout
his life. The state merely acts as a trustee or fiduciary. The trustee or fiduciary
cannot compel the “beneficiary” to part with such sensitive person information.
62. The framework of the Jeevan Dhara Act is founded on voluntary enrolment.
This is a foundational premise of the programme. According to the state, “free
informed consent” is the essence of Jeevan Dhara. The state cannot alter this
basic premise based on which individuals were asked to enroll.
63. There is no comparison between the existing PAN system and the proposed or
intended Jeevan Dhara number system as the PAN system does not require
parting with the fingerprints and iris scan of an individual; Expose personal
information and data to private enrollers; create an ecosystem of authentication
that potentially could compromise the identity of the individual.
Therefore, it is humbly submitted by the council before the Hon’ble Supreme
Court that since the government does not have any comprehensive law to secure
the Jeevan Dhara data and by imposing the Jeevan Dhara card the government is
imposing the duty on the citizens which is giving the state much more rights that
it required for a democratic county. So in the light of above arguments the Jeevan
Dhara card should be not be made mandatory to the citizens of India.

25
 PRAYER
Wherefore, in the lights of facts stated, issues raised, authorities cited &
arguments advanced, it is most humbly prayed & implored before the Hon’ble
Court, that it may be graciously pleased to adjudge & declare –

1. That, the Special Leave Petition filed under Art. 136 of the Constitution of India
is maintainable.
2. That, the citizens of India have a Fundamental Right to Privacy.
3. That, the maintenance of a record of biometric data violates the Right to
Privacy under Art.21 of the Constitution.
4. That, the Jeevan Dhara card cannot be made mandatory for the residents of
Inndia.
5. That, to declare Jeevan Dhara Act, 2014 unconstitutional.
And pass any other relief, that this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the
interest of justice, equity and good conscience.
For this act of Kindness, the petitioner shall be duty bound forever pray.

___________

26