Memorial 20 A

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER
TEAM CODE: T- 20 A
17TH AMITY MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2018
BEFORE THE HON’BLE SUPREME COURT
OF ENDOR
Ben Yoda Foundation…………….............…………………….PETITIONER
VERSUS
UNION OF ENDOR……………………..……………………RESPONDENT
WRIT PETITION NO. ****/2018
ON SUBMISSION TO THE HON’BLE SUPREME COURT OF ENDOR
UNDER ART. 32 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF ENDOR
MOST RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,
COUNSEL APPEARING ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER

TABLE OF CONTENTS
INDEX OF AUTHORITIES ....................................................................................................... 2

STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION ........................................................................................... 4
STATEMENT OF FACTS.......................................................................................................... 5
ISSUES INVOLVED .................................................................................................................. 9
SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS ............................................................................................... 10
ARGUMENTS ADVANCED .................................................................................................... 11
[1] WHETHER THERE IS VIOLATION OF RIGHT TO PRIVACY BY THE VERIFIABLE DATA

REGISTRATION ACT, 2012 AS PER THE SUPREME COURT JUDGMENT 2017. ............................ 11
[1.1] VDR Act violates the fundamental right to privacy under Article 21 of the
Constitution of Endor. ....................................................................................................... 11
[1.2] VDR Act violates Article 19 of the Constitution......................................................... 15
[1.3] Database of the VDR Scheme is easily accessible which a threat to social security..... 18
[1.4] Parliamentary Standing Committee Report also raises various expenditure and
privacy concerns................................................................................................................ 19
[2] WHETHER A UNIQUE IDENTIFICATION NUMBER IS ESSENTIAL FOR PROMOTING SOCIAL

SECURITY, JUSTICE AND EQUALITY. ........................................................................................ 21
[2.1] Governmental schemes making VDR mandatory to avail welfare scheme are invalid.
.......................................................................................................................................... 21
[2.2] Scheme proposed by the government is in violation of the VDR Act itself. ................ 22
[2.3] VDR Scheme violates the basic Constitutional principle. ........................................... 23
[2.4] Government has failed to address concern about illegal immigrants acquiring VDR
numbers and available socio-economic benefits. ................................................................ 23
[3] WHETHER ‘SHOEHORNING’ OF BILL DISREGARDED CIVIL LIBERTIES, RESTRICTED CITIZEN’S

RIGHT TO LEGAL RECOURSE AND FAILED TO ADDRESS ISSUES ON DATA ACCURACY. ................ 25
[3.1] The bill is not a money bill, it is a financial bill. ......................................................... 25
[3.2] The purpose of the government stating the bill as a money bill is a political motive of
the government. ................................................................................................................. 26
PRAYER .................................................................................................................................. 27
1
INDEX OF AUTHORITIES
I. Cases -
A.K. Gopalan v. State of Madras, AIR 1950 S.C. 27 (India) ............................................................... 15

Bijoe Emmanuel v. State of Kerala, AIR 1987 S.C. 748 (India); ......................................................... 14
Chameli Singh v. State of U.P., (1996) 2 S.C.C. 549 (India). ............................................................ 14, 15
Collector of Malabar v. Erimal Ebrahim Hajee, AIR 1957 S.C. 688 (India). ....................................... 15
Francis Coralie v. Union Territory of Delhi, AIR 1981 S.C. 1746 (India). .......................................... 13
Gobind v. State of Madhya Pradesh and Ors. (1975) 2 S.C.C. 148 (India). ......................................... 10
Gobind v. State of Madhya Pradesh and Ors., (1975) 2 S.C.C. 148 (India) ......................................... 10
Gobind v. State of Madhya Pradesh, (1975)2 S.C.C. 148 (India .......................................................... 22
Hukam Chand Shyam lal v. UOI, (1976) 2 S.C.C. 128 (India). ........................................................... 16
Hurley v. Irish-American Gay, Lesbian, & Bisexual Group of Boston, 515 U.S. 557 (1995). ................. 15
Jairam Ramesh v. Union of India, (1988) SCR (2) 1011 (India). ......................................................... 26
Justice K.S. Puttaswamy (Retd.), and Anr. v. Union of India and Ors. AIR 2015 S.C. 3081 (India) .. 10
Justice K.S. Puttaswamy (Retd.), and Anr. v. Union of India and Ors. AIR 2015 S.C. 3081 (India). . 11
Justice K.S. Puttaswamy (Retd.), and Anr. v. Union of India and Ors., AIR 2015 S.C. 3081 (India). 13
Justice K.S. Puttaswamy (Retd.), and Anr. v. Union of India and Ors., AIR 2015 SC 3081, 169
(India)................................................................................................................................................ 15
Kesavananda Bharti v. State of Kerala, AIR 1973 S.C. 1461 (India). .................................................. 13
Kharak Singh v. State of U.P. and Ors., AIR 1963 S.C. 1295 (India) .................................................. 13
Kharak Singh v. State of U.P. and Ors., AIR 1963 S.C. 1295 (India). ........................................... 16, 22
Kharak Singh v. State of UP, AIR 1963 S.C. 1295 (India)................................................................... 10
LIC of India v. Consumer Education and Research Centre, (1995) 5 S.C.C. 482 (India); ................... 21
Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India, AIR 1978 S.C. 597 (India). ............................................... 11, 12, 21
Maruti Shripati Dubal vs. State of Maharashtra, (1986) 88 BOMLR 589 (India). ............................... 14
Moulana Mufti Syed Md. Noorur v. State Of West Bengal and Ors., AIR 1999 Cal 15 (India). ......... 14
Mr. X v. Hospital Z, AIR (1995) S.C. 95 (India).................................................................................. 11
Olga Tellis v. Bombay Municipal Corporation, (1985) 3 S.C.C. 545 (India)....................................... 21
P Rathinam v. UOI, (1994) 3 S.C.C. 394 (India). ................................................................................. 13
P.A. Jacob v. Superintend of Police, Kottayam, AIR 1993 Ker 1 (India .............................................. 14
People’s Union for Civil Liberties v. Union of India, (1997) 1 S.C.C. 301 (India).............................. 12
People’s Union for Civil Liberties v. Union of India, AIR 1991 S.C. 207. .......................................... 11
PUCL v. UOI, (1997) 1 S.C.C. 301 (India). ......................................................................................... 13
R. Rajagopal v. State of Tamil Nadu, (1994) 6 S.C.C. 632 (India); ..................................................... 10
Rajgopal v. State of Tamil Nadu, 1994 6 S.C.C. 632 (India ................................................................. 11
Ramlila Maidan Incident v. Home Secretary, Union of India, (2012) 5 S.C.C. 1 (India). ................... 11
Ramlila Maidan Incident v. Home Secretary, Union of India, (2012) 5 S.C.C. 1, 119-120 (India). .... 10
Sharda v. Dharmpal, AIR (2003) S.C. 3450 (India). ............................................................................ 11
Unni Krishnan v. State of A.P. (1964) 1 S.C.R. 332 (India)................................................................. 10
Unni Krishnan v. State of AP, (1993) 1 S.C.C. 645 (India).................................................................. 13
V.K Javali v. State of Mysore, AIR 1966 S.C. 1387 (India). ............................................................... 12
2
II. Statutes –
 Art. 9, International Convention on Civil and Political Rights (1966).

 Bamette, 319 U.S at 645 (Murphy J, concurring).
 Aadhaar (Targeted Delivery of Financial and Other Subsidies, Benefits and Services)
Act, (2016).
III. Books –
 D. D. Basu, Commentary on the Constitution of India, Vol. 2,(8th ed., 2008).
 M.P. Jain, Indian Constitutional Law (8th ed. 2018).
 P.M. Bakshi, Constitution of India.
IV. Articles –
 PRS Legislative Research, The National Identification Authority of India Bill, (2010).
 Anna Jonsson Cornell, “Right to Privacy”, Max Planck Encyclopedia of Comparative
Constitutional Law (2015). Usha Ramanthan, A Unique Identity Bill, Vol. 45(30)
Economic and Political Weekly, 10-14 (2010).
 Ajoy P.B., Administrative Action and the Doctrine of Proportionality in India, Vol.
1(6) International Organization of Scientific Research Journal of Humanities and
Social Science, 16-23 (2012) R.
3
STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION
The Petitioner, Ben Yoda Foundation has approached this Honorable Supreme Court of
Endor under Article 32 of the Constitution of Endor, 1950.
4
STATEMENT OF FACTS
BACKGROUND
1. The Republic of Endor is a developing nation located in South Asia. It has a

population of over 1.3 billion, a fast growing economy, and shares its borders with 7
countries. With its vast wealth of natural resources and a huge development potential,
Endor has been striving to improve its GDP with the help of FDI and international
trade. Endorians speak over 21 languages across the country, with 5 major religions
having a significant presence throughout. Having porous borders, Endor struggles
with illegal immigration and certain security threats throughout the year. Endor has a
lengthy Constitution which grants its citizens certain fundamental rights, recognizes
them as equal in the eyes of law and firmly establishes Endor as a welfare state
striving towards certain development policies. Endor’s Constitution and all other laws
are in pari materia to those of Republic of India, as they stand on 7th January 2018,
with the exception of A. 141 of the Endor Constitution, whose equivalent does not
exist in Endor. Endor’s currency is at the same value as the INR.
VDR CARD
2. Due to its large population and inadequate infrastructure, a significant number of

Endorians struggle for basic amenities and require State support for their socio-
economic development and opportunities. The State, in order to comply with
international human rights principles, felt a growing need to identify the target groups
requiring the most support. For this, it was felt that identification tools were needed to
facilitate effective implementation of welfare measures. The Imperial Party, having
the majority in both Houses of Parliament, also felt that a national ID scheme could
have its benefits towards accessing healthcare, education, security, etc. The Imperial
Party thus began to promote the idea of a unique identification number for all
Endorians, in order to promote social security, justice and equality. Prime Minister
Palpatine called it “indispensable” for ensuring that welfare schemes reach deserving
persons and no misuse takes place. After consultation with certain think tanks and
expert panels, the Government of Endor decided to issue a Verifiable Data
Registration Card.
5
3. A VDR number was voluntary and could be issued to any resident of Endor; thus was
not restricted only to its citizens. Several NGOs lauded the Government’s efforts
towards treating both foreign nationals and Endorians the same and upholding values
of equality.
4. For the purpose of issuing a VDR number, an individual’s biometric and demographic
information needed to be collected and stored in a central database. In order to
execute this, the Government of Endor constituted the Biometric Identification and
National Knowledge System (“BINKS”) as the authority responsible for collecting
data and keeping it securely. This was done via an executive order in February 2011.
VDR BILL
5. In 2012, the Government also presented a VDR Bill in the Lower House of
Parliament, which entitled every resident of Endor to obtain a VDR number. The Bill
was thoroughly opposed by the Leia Alliance, who branded it as a breach of the right
of privacy. It was also referred to the Standing Committee of the Parliament, which
agreed with the various privacy and expenditure concerns expressed. It also expressed
concern about the central database, Palantir, being a dangerous tool prone to misuse
as well as leaks, owing to Endor’s lack of data protection laws.
6. However, the Imperial Party having a majority, insisted on the Bill being laid in the
House and had a robust debate on the same, claiming the identification scheme as
vital for realizing social justice and preventing misuse of taxpayer money. The
Government then insisted on a vote, after which the Bill was passed with a simple
majority in both Houses in late 2012. A sum of Rs. 2,000/- Crore was allotted to the
BINKS to start the process. The head of BINKS, Mr. Dooku Infykani, wrote in favor
of the scheme and spoke highly of its potential to eliminate corruption in Endor. The
voluntary nature of the scheme was also repeatedly emphasized upon.
7. 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. BINKS was labeled an inept
agency and the Imperial Party was criticized for having made the VDR Card
mandatory in order to avail several welfare schemes. PM Palpatine issued several
statements to defend the scheme, but failed to address the concern about illegal
immigrants acquiring VDR numbers and availing socio-economic benefits.
6
VDR ISSUES
8. 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. The reporter was able to see names, addresses, photos, and phone numbers,
email addresses, etc. 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. The writ challenged the VDR Act, 2012 and the entire scheme as
unconstitutional in nature, and cited the Parliamentary Committees report in support.
Issues of “shoehorning” the Bill through the Parliament with no regards given to the
concerns regarding civil liberties, accuracy of data maintained and the overall
integrity of the VDR scheme, were also raised. The Foundation also challenged the
scheme as being violative of the fundamental right to privacy, and claimed that the
VDR Act restricted a citizen’s right to legal recourses.
WRIT PETITION
10. When the hearing began before a Division Bench of the Supreme Court, 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. Acknowledging this as a “substantial question of law”, the Division Bench referred
the matter to a Constitutional Bench seeking clarity on the nature and existence of the
right to privacy. In 2017, a 9-judge bench of the Supreme Court unanimously upheld
the right to privacy as a fundamental right; however, the bench differed on its
limitations and reasonable restrictions.
12. Currently, the Government of Endor stands its ground about the 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
7
accounts. The Government claims that the scheme does not lead to any infringement
of the right to privacy, even as per the 9-judge decision.
13. The matter has now returned to the Division Bench for its consideration, to consider
all of the issues raised in the above proposition. The final hearing is scheduled to take
place on May the 4th, 2018.
8
ISSUES INVOLVED
I.
WHETHER THERE IS VIOLATION OF RIGHT TO PRIVACY BY THE VERIFIABLE DATA
REGISTRATION ACT, 2012 AS PER THE SUPREME COURT JUDGMENT OF 2017.
II.
WHETHER A UNIQUE IDENTIFICATION NUMBER IS ESSENTIAL FOR PROMOTING SOCIAL
SECURITY, JUSTICE AND EQUALITY.
III.
WHETHER ‘SHOEHORNING’ OF BILL DISREGARDED CIVIL LIBERTIES, RESTRICTED CITIZENS
RIGHT TO LEGAL RECOURSE AND FAILED TO ADDRESS ISSUES ON DATA ACCURACY.
9
SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS
[1] WHETHER THERE IS VIOLATION OF RIGHT TO PRIVACY BY THE VERIFIABLE DATA
REGISTRATION ACT, 2012 AS PER THE SUPREME COURT JUDGMENT OF 2017.
It is humbly submitted before the Hon’ble court that the Verifiable Data Registration Act,
2012 violates the fundamental rights guaranteed under Art.21 and Art.19. The VDR Scheme
of the government in which biometric and geographical data is required restricts the citizen’s
right. Government makes the VDR number mandatory for availing various benefits for the
citizens and thus restrict their right to choose whether they want to register for VDR Scheme
or not. Thus the Verifiable Data Registration Act, 2012 and Verifiable Data Registration
Scheme violate the fundamental rights of the citizens and are unconstitutional.
[2] WHETHER A UNIQUE IDENTIFICATION NUMBER IS ESSENTIAL FOR PROMOTING SOCIAL
It is humbly submitted before the Hon’ble court that Unique Identification Number is not
essential for promoting social security, justice and equality. The VDR Act is in violation of
constitutional principles and the scheme itself violates the VDR Act. The database is also
vulnerable to illegal use. Foreign instances also stated that UDI Scheme is not only the
process to ensure social security, justice and equality and scheme is also restrict the rights of
the citizens. Thus, by curbing the fundamental rights of the citizen’s social security, justice
and equality cannot be maintained.
[3] WHETHER ‘SHOEHORNING’ OF BILL DISREGARDED CIVIL LIBERTIES, the bill was passed
by RESTRICTED CITIZENS’ RIGHT TO LEGAL RECOURSE AND FAILED TO ADDRESS ISSUES ON
DATA ACCURACY.
It is humbly submitted before the Hon’ble courts that government with a political motive.
The bill was thoroughly opposed by the opposition party and the standing committee also
stated that there was lack of protection clause for the data misuse. The Verifiable Data Act
also affects the integrity of the state. Thus we can say that there was ‘shoehorning’ of the bill
which further disregarded civil liberties, restricted citizens right to legal recourse and failed to
address issue on data accuracy.
10
ARGUMENTS ADVANCED
[1]WHETHER THERE IS VIOLATION OF RIGHT TO PRIVACY BY THE VERIFIABLE DATA

REGISTRATION ACT, 2012 AS PER THE SUPREME COURT JUDGMENT 2017.
1. It is humbly submitted before the Hon’ble Court that the Verifiable Data Registration
Scheme and the Verifiable Data Registration Act, 2012 enacted by the Endor
government are unconstitutional, they are in violation of Article 21 and Article 19 of
the Constitution of Endor, and therefore, they are void. Right to Privacy has been
recognized as a fundamental right and the Verifiable Data Registration Scheme and
Verifiable Data Registration Act, 2012 is in the contravention of the Constitution of
Endor.
[1.1] VDR Act violates the fundamental right to privacy under Article 21 of the
Constitution of Endor.
2. Right to privacy is a basic inalienable right of an individual1, to exercise control over
ones privacy and personality is necessary for the development of a human being. The
matter of an individual fundamental right is a natural law and should be safeguard
from unnecessary interference.2
3. Right to privacy is a constitutionally protected Fundamental right. 3. The Right to
privacy is implicit in right to life and liberty guaranteed to citizens of Endor by Art.
21. It is a “Right to be let alone”. A citizen has the right to safeguard the privacy of
his own, family, marriage, procreation, motherhood, childbearing and education
among other matters. 4
1
Justice K.S. Puttaswamy (Retd.), and Anr. v. Union of India and Ors. AIR 2015 S.C. 3081 (India).
2
Gobind v. State of Madhya Pradesh and Ors. (1975) 2 S.C.C. 148 (India).
3
Gobind v. State of Madhya Pradesh and Ors., (1975) 2 S.C.C. 148 (India); See also, R. Rajagopal v. State of
Tamil Nadu, (1994) 6 S.C.C. 632 (India); People’s Union for Civil Liberties v. Union of India, (1997) 1 S.C.C.
301(India); Kharak Singh v. State of UP, AIR 1963 S.C. 1295 (India); Ramlila Maidan Incident v. Home
Secretary, Union of India, (2012) 5 S.C.C. 1, 119-120 (India).
4
Unni Krishnan v. State of A.P. (1964) 1 S.C.R. 332 (India).
11
4. According to Black’s Law Dictionary, Privacy has been defined as, “right to be left
alone”5, to live freely without interruption and unnecessary publicity. It is on the
desire of the individual to choose to what extent he will want to expose himself.6
5. The scope of Art. 21 are very broad and it covers every aspects of life which is
necessary for an individual to live a healthy and secured life. Art. 21 covers all those
aspects which are necessary for a meaning life and even state can’t violate it.7 Art. 21
protect the dignity of an individual, its personality and privacy. Right to dignity has
been recognized as an important element of Right to life. Right to privacy has a
broader scope in aspect of life. Tapping of telephone conversation, disclosure of
dreadful disease8, subjecting to medical tests9 are some aspects where privacy of an
individual is hindered. Information collected by the government under VDR Scheme
is very intimate and integral to one’s personality and hence making it mandatory to
provide basic and intimate information10 is unconstitutional and violative of
Fundamental Right to Privacy.
[1.1.1] VDR Scheme of the government is not in accordance with the procedure established
by law as per Article 21 of the Constitution.
6. Right to Privacy is an integral part of Right to life and Personal Liberty, 11 and it can
be curtailed only in accordance with the “Procedure established by Law”, as provided
under Art. 21 of the Constitution of Endor.12
7. International Convention on Civil and Political Rights also provides that it is duty of
the state to protect the liberty of the people and it can be restricted, only in accordance
with such procedure as are established by law.13
8. Supreme court in Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India 14, laid down a test for any law
to be considered to be in accordance with the ‘Procedure established by law’:-
5
Rajgopal v. State of Tamil Nadu, 1994 6 S.C.C. 632 (India); See also, Warren and Brandeis, “The Right to
Privacy”, Vol.4 (5), Harvard Law Review, 195-196 (1890).
6
7
8
Mr. X v. Hospital Z, AIR (1995) S.C. 95 (India).
9
Sharda v. Dharmpal, AIR (2003) S.C. 3450 (India).
10
Moot proposition, Para 8.
11
Ramlila Maidan Incident v. Home Secretary, Union of India, (2012) 5 S.C.C. 1 (India).
12
People’s Union for Civil Liberties v. Union of India, AIR 1991 S.C. 207.
13
Art. 9, International Convention on Civil and Political Rights (Adopted by United Nations General Assembly
on December 16, 1966).
14
Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India, AIR 1978 S.C. 597 (India).
12
(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.
9. VDR Act, 2012 enacted by the government making VDR number mandatory for all
schemes and benefits, are not in accordance with procedure established by law. It is
not just, fair and reasonable. It also does not satisfy the requirements of Art. 14, 19
and 21 of the Constitution and therefore it is arbitrary and violate the principle of right
to privacy as the restrictions imposed by government are unjustifiable.
10. Further, In People’s Union for Civil Liberties v. Union of India 15, it was held that
restriction on fundamental right to personal liberty can be imposed, when there is
grave danger to ‘public safety’ arising due to sudden circumstances. In the present
case, though there are instances of terrorism and illegal immigrants, there has been no
report of sudden threat. The respondent provides to cure these issues, but duplicity of
identities is easily possible, thus the nexus between the restriction and public order is
not present. In V.K Javali v. State of Mysore, it was held that if nexus is not present in
restriction and public order, then the restrictions can’t be sustained16. Therefore it
can’t be said that policy is in the interests of public or security of the state. Many
instances of many fake VDR cards which use the same biometric information have
surfaced till date.
[1.1.2] Right to privacy is an inalienable right conferned by various parts of the

constitution.
11. The Supreme Court has asserted that in order to treat a right as a fundamental right, it
is not necessary that it should be expressly stated in the Constitution as a fundamental
right. Political, social and economic changes in the country entail the recognition of
new rights. The law in its eternal youth grows to meet the demands of the society.
Article 21 has proved to be multi dimensional after Maneka Gandhi case17. This
extension in the dimensions of Article 21 by giving an extended meaning to the word
‘life’ and ‘liberty’ in Article 21. These two words in article 21 are not to be read
narrowly. Right to life in Article 21 has been interpreted to mean more than mere
15
People’s Union for Civil Liberties v. Union of India, (1997) 1 S.C.C. 301 (India).
16
V.K Javali v. State of Mysore, AIR 1966 S.C. 1387 (India).
17
13
survival. It includes all those aspects of life which go to make a man’s life
meaningful, complete and worth living.
12. The Supreme Court has asserted that Article 21 is the heart of fundamental rights. 18 It
has enough positive content and is not merely negative in its reach even though
Article 21 is worded in negative terms.19 In PUCL V. UOI20 the court has implied the
right of privacy from Article 21 by interpreting it in conformity with Article 21 of the
Universal Declaration on Human Rights and Article 17 of the International Convenant
on Civil and Political Rights, 1966. Both of these international documents provide for
the rights of privacy. As the government of Endor ensures that they comply with the
international laws, they cannot go in contradiction of these principles.
[1.1.3] Dignity is an essential part, which cannot be ignored.

13. Dignity is an integral part of the Constitution.21 Dignity is guarantee against
arbitrariness,22 lamps of freedom23 and in the right to life and personal liberty24. The
right to privacy is an element of human dignity25. Privacy ensures that a person has a
right to lead a life with dignity without any intrusion26. The term ‘life’ in Art 21
means a right to live with dignity27. Therefore, any violation of dignity of an
individual is violation of right to life of the individual.
14. The government requires various demographic and biometric information which is
related to one’s personal life. These involve questions relating to family, marriage,
procreation and education are all integral to the dignity of the individual28. Parting
with personal information is in violation of the privacy, which is a part of the integrity
of an individual, enabling him to realize his freedom of thought, belief and self-
determination, which are essential components of the dignity of an individual29.
18
Unni Krishnan v. State of AP, (1993) 1 S.C.C. 645 (India).
19
P Rathinam v. UOI, (1994) 3 S.C.C. 394 (India).
20
PUCL v. UOI, (1997) 1 S.C.C. 301 (India).
21
Francis Coralie v. Union Territory of Delhi, AIR 1981 S.C. 1746 (India).
22
INDIA CONST. art. 14.
23
24
25
Kesavananda Bharti v. State of Kerala, AIR 1973 S.C. 1461 (India).
26
Justice K.S. Puttaswamy (Retd.), and Anr. v. Union of India and Ors., AIR 2015 S.C. 3081 (India).
27
Kharak Singh v. State of U.P. and Ors., AIR 1963 S.C. 1295 (India); See also, Francis Coralie v. Union
Territory of Delhi, AIR 1981 S.C. 1746 (India).
28
Justice K.S. Puttaswamy (Retd.), and Anr. v. Union of India and Ors., AIR 2015 S.C. 3081 (India).
29
Id. at 28.
14
15. Right to live as a human being is secured only when a person is assured of all
facilities to benefit himself which includes privacy30. The government by depriving
people of their privacy of mind and body is neglecting their dignity.
16. Senior Council Mr. Anil Divan said that the individuals obtaining VDR number were
required to give personal information that included biometrics, iris and fingerprints,
which infringed the fundamental right to privacy under Article 21 of the constitution.
There were no safeguard to protect the personal information of the citizens and there
was no provision for penalties if the same comes to public domain. The provision for
collecting and retaining the biometric data had been held to be impermissible in by the
top courts in Britain and France31.
[1.2] VDR Act violates Article 19 of the Constitution

17. The VDR Act proposed by the government makes it mandatory to get registered
under VDR Scheme to get the benefits which is given by the Government. The
government also intended to attach the VDR number with other sectors like tax
holder’s account, insurance policies, mobile numbers and bank accounts, so that they
can have a control on all the activities which violates Article 19 of the Constitution.
[1.2.1] Right to remain silent is entitled in Article 19(1) (a).

18. The VDR Act of the government violates Article 19(1) (a) of the constitution. The
ambit of freedom of speech and expression provided under Art. 19(1) (a) of the
Constitution is very wide.32 Right to freedom of speech and expression under 19(1)
(a) gives right to speak freely and express oneself freely. Freedom of speech and
expression also include right to remain silent. In Bijoe Emmanuel v. State of Kerala33
Supreme Court recognized that right to speak also include right to be silent. Thus state
cannot compel anyone to speak on any matter against his/her will. The right includes
by necessary implication, freedom not to listen and/or to remain silent.34 Silence
30
Chameli Singh v. State of U.P., (1996) 2 S.C.C. 549 (India).
31
https://www.ndtv.com/India-news/dont-issue-aadhar-cards-to-illegal-immigrants-supreme-court-tells-centre-
535453 (Jan 30,2018, 04:25 PM).
32
D. D. Basu, Commentary on the Constitution of India, Vol. 2, 2078 (8th ed., 2008).
33
Bijoe Emmanuel v. State of Kerala, AIR 1987 S.C. 748 (India); See also, P.A. Jacob v. Superintend of Police,
Kottayam, AIR 1993 Ker 1 (India); Maruti Shripati Dubal vs. State of Maharashtra, (1986) 88 BOMLR 589
(India).
34
Moulana Mufti Syed Md. Noorur v. State Of West Bengal and Ors., AIR 1999 Cal 15 (India).
15
postulates a realm of privacy. The privacy of the individual recognizes an inviolable

right to determine how freedom shall be exercised. An individual may perceive that
the best form of expression is to remain silent.35 The person, who has the right to
choose to speak, also has the right to choose to remain silent.36 The right to freedom
of thought guaranteed by Constitution against state policies includes both right to
speak freely and the right to refrain from speaking at all.37
19. The government has made VDR mandatory in order to avail several welfare scheme.38
The state by making VDR mandatory for several schemes compelled the citizens to
part with their biometric and demographic information is in violation of their right to
remain silent. Further there exists no reasonable ground to restrict the right to remain
silent of the citizens. Therefore, it can be observed that the VDR Act of the state
violates Article 19(1) (a) of the constitution.
[1.2.2] Restrictions on fundamental rights can be done only in the interest of sovereignty
and integrity of the state.
20. In People’s Union for Civil Liberties v. Union of India39 the court observed that
restrictions on fundamental right to liberty can be imposed only when there is any
grave danger to public safety. In the present case, there are instances of illegal
immigration but there no sudden threat and curbing the rights of the citizens is a
solution to illegal immigrations. This case does not fall under the exception and on the
contrary the security of the citizens is at stake by leakage of their personal data.
21. Article 19(2) contains the provisions of restrictions that can be imposed by the state. It
envisages that the state can make any law in restrictions of freedom of speech and
expression in the interest of sovereignty and integrity of the state. Thus every citizen
has the right of freedom of speech and expression expect when restrictions are
imposed on it in accordance with Art.19 (2) of the constitution.40
22. The government contended that the Scheme lie within the reasonable restrictions
under Art. 19(2) and the information collected were for the social security and justice.
35
Justice K.S. Puttaswamy (Retd.), and Anr. v. Union of India and Ors., AIR 2015 SC 3081, 169 (India).
36
Hurley v. Irish-American Gay, Lesbian, & Bisexual Group of Boston, 515 U.S. 557 (1995).
37
Bamette, 319 U.S at 645 (Murphy J, concurring).
38
39
Chameli Singh v. State of U.P., (1996) 2 S.C.C. 549 (India).
40
A.K. Gopalan v. State of Madras, AIR 1950 S.C. 27 (India); See also, Collector of Malabar v. Erimal Ebrahim
Hajee, AIR 1957 S.C. 688 (India).
16
The VDR Scheme did not fit in the reasonable restrictions because the scheme is not
in accordance of the public interest because it restricts the citizens to exercise their
rights, which is itself against the social welfare principle. Easy access to data also puts
a question on the security of the citizens by the VDR scheme. Thus, it can be
contended that the VDR Act and scheme did not lie within the reasonable restrictions
of the fundamental rights.
[1.2.3] Phone Tapping can be exercised only in the case of public threat.
23. Government has provided that the VDR should be attached to the mobile numbers of
everyone. But this step of government is in violation of Art. 19(1) (a). By attaching
the phone number with VDR the process of phone tapping can be exercised. Talking
on a phone amounts to exercise by the individual of his right to freedom of speech and
expression protected by Art. 19(1) (a). This freedom means the right to express one’s
views, convictions and opinions freely by word of mouth, writing, printing, picture or
in any other manner. When a person is talking on the phone, he is exercising his right
of freedom of speech and expression. This means that telephone tapping unless it
comes within the compass of permissible restrictions under Art. 19(2) would infract
Art. 19(1) (a).41
24. Telephone tapping is permissible under section 5(2) of the Telegraph Act, 1885. The
court held that the process of phone tapping can be initiated only when there is any
public emergency or the existence of any public safety interest. But in this case there
is no sudden need of public emergency. Thus attaching of phone number with VDR is
against right to freedom of speech and expression under Art 19(1) (a)42.
25. The Supreme Court observed in Kharak Singh case43 that, while telephone
interception of guilty person by the police through lawful means is justified in larger
public interest, the same is not justified when an innocent citizen is involved and will
amount to violation of right to privacy, of the person.
26. In the present case, the citizens are compelled to attach their VDR number with the
mobile numbers. The government has not specified that whether they will take care of
telephone tapping or not or whether they will exercise their power only in case of any
41
M.P. Jain, Indian Constitutional Law 1223 (8 th ed. 2018).
42
Hukam Chand Shyam lal v. UOI, (1976) 2 S.C.C. 128 (India).
43
Kharak Singh v. State of U.P. and Ors., AIR 1963 S.C. 1295 (India).
17
crime. The instance says that the government will have a check on all citizens, thus
making it unlawful because the process of phone tapping is practiced on innocent
citizens also which is in violation of right to privacy.
[1.3] Database of the VDR Scheme is easily accessible which a threat to social security.
27. VDR Scheme of the government of Endor does not ensure any adequate security
measures to guarantee the security of data collected for the purpose of making VDR
cards. Though, there are legal provisions for offences related to data leakage, but there
are no security measures to ensure the protection of data. Thus, the major portion of
database of the VDR project remains largely unprotected, giving rise to grave
violation of the privacy of the people.
[1.3.1] Data is vulnerable to theft and misuse.

28. National newspaper published a report about how it was able to obtain the access to
data upon paying petty sum of Rs. 500/-44 and access all VDR numbers as well as the
information associated with them. The reporter was also able to see names, addresses,
photos, and phone numbers, email addresses etc of any individual.45 Thus, it can be
observed that present law is not sufficient to ensure the safety of data and is
vulnerable for misuse.
29. Scheme of VDR Cards brought by the government is susceptible to theft. There have
been many instances in several countries that information being stolen from the
government database of national identification programs and recreation of such
information by illegal means. For instance, in Turkey, Personal details i.e. First and
last names, National identifier numbers Gender, City of birth, Date of birth, Full
address, ID registration city, district etc. of nearly fifty Million Turkish citizens,
including the country’s President Recep Tayyip Erdogan, have been compromised
and posted online in a massive security breach which is supposed to be the biggest
public breaches of its kind, effectively putting two-thirds of the Nation's population at
risk of identity theft and fraud.46 The biometric information can also mix-matched.
44
45
46
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/04/04/personal-details-of-50-million-turkish-citizensleaked-online-ha
( Feb 02, 2018, 3:00 PM).
18
The government does not provide any information on whether the errors of matching
fingerprints are negligible or non- existent. There is a concern that the data can be
used by the government itself for the other purpose other than which is collected.
[1.3.2] Protection of data is a question of great concern.

30. Chapter VI and Chapter VII of the VDR Act, 2016 deal with Protection of data and
offences and penalties for breach of any such data. The National Unique Identification
Authority is required to adopt and implement appropriate technical and organizational
security measures to ensure that the information in the possession or control of the
Authority is secured and protected against access, use or disclosure not permitted
under this Act or regulations made there under, and against accidental or intentional
destruction, loss or damage.47 But, there is no provision of security against misuse by
the government itself. And, there is a possibility that such information could be
misused by government. For instance, in the Rwandan genocide it was by using
identity cards that the demarcation of the Tutsis and Hutus could be done.48
31. The Government of Endor stands its ground about the 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.49 As
all the details are stored in VDR and VDR will be attached to other sectors, raises
doubts as to the protection of data, which can act as a gateway for identity theft.
32. It can be observed that the data collected by the government of Endor for VDR
Scheme is easily accessible and the government has not adequate measure to secure it,
thus a threat to citizens.
[1.4] Parliamentary Standing Committee Report also raises various expenditure and
privacy concerns
33. VDR was presented in the house of parliament in 2012. The government intended it is
a necessary step towards welfare state but the opposition party thoroughly opposed it.
46
Section 28(2), Aadhaar (Targeted Delivery of Financial and Other Subsidies, Benefits and Services) Act,
2016 (India).
46
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/04/04/personal-details-of-50-million-turkish-citizensleaked-online-ha
(Feb 02, 2018, 3:00 PM).
47
2016 (India).
48
< https://www.hrw.org/reports/1999/rwanda/Geno1-309.htm> ( Jan 30, 2018, 4:37 PM).
49
Moot proposition, Para 13
19
They also refer to the standing committee report which expressed concern about the
security, lack of data protection, violation of privacy and expenditure.
[1.4.1] Standing Committee concern about the scheme.

34. The parliamentary committee stated the following points in the report-
The Committee further identified the following as lacunae in the UID scheme: (a)
continuance of other forms of identification for proof of address; (b) potential for
identification fraud due information being stored in smart cards issued by registrars;
(c) likelihood of incomplete coverage of marginalized sections due to lack of existing
data and estimated failure rate of up to 15 percent in capturing biometric information
from manual laborers50.
35. The Committee listed concerns about the scheme raised by other government bodies,
including: (a) duplication of efforts by agencies for collecting personal information
such as NPR, MGNREGS, BPL census, UIDAI, RSBY and Bank Smart Cards ; (b)
efficacy of the introducer system; (c) involvement of private agencies collecting
information as a threat to national security; (d) uncertainties in the UIDAI revenue
model; (e) merits of functioning of UIDAI; (f) necessity of collection of iris image for
enrolment; (g) involvement of several nodal appraising agencies; and (h) method used
for storing of data and its implications on privacy and security51.
36. The Committee expressed strong disapproval that no comprehensive feasibility study
evaluating financial implications and prevention of identity theft was undertaken prior
to approval of the UID scheme.
37. The Senior counsel Mr. Anil Divan state that there was no legislative backing for
obtaining personal information and the proposed legislation that government had
introduced was rejected by the parliamentary standing committee on finance52.
38. These points from the committee clearly described that the VDR was not in
accordance of the basic principles and there is a huge threat to the security of the state
as refer to the privacy of data.
50
PRS Legislative Research, The National Identification Authority of India Bill, (2010).
51
Id. at 50.
52
Don't issue Aadhar cards to illegal immigrants, Supreme Court tells Centre, (Feb 15, 2018, 5:03 PM),
https://www.ndtv.com/india-news/dont-issue-aadhar-cards-to-illegal-immigrants-supreme-court-tells-centre-
535453.
20
[2]WHETHER A UNIQUE IDENTIFICATION NUMBER IS ESSENTIAL FOR PROMOTING SOCIAL

39. It is humbly submitted before the Hon’ble court that Verifiable Data Registration
Scheme is not just, fair and reasonable and is not the only measure to for promoting
social security, justice and equality. By curbing the rights of citizens how can we
provide them social security, justice and equality.
[2.1] Governmental schemes making VDR mandatory to avail welfare scheme are
invalid.
40. In Maneka Gandhi’s Case53, Supreme Court held that for any law to be valid, it must
be in accordance with the procedure established by law. That means it should be just,
fair and reasonable. According to government it is necessary to introduce VDR cards
mandatory for the people to implement welfare schemes successfully, but it can be
done with others methods also that do not restrict the fundamental rights of the
people. The laws brought by the government violate the dignity of the people by
depriving them of their choice and keeping them under constant state surveillance.
41. The government has made the VDR number mandatory for various benefits.54 So, if a
person does not have a VDR number, he shall not be able to avail the benefits of
government schemes, which leave a person no choice but to get enroll for VDR
number.
[2.1.1] Government cannot have continuous surveillance except in the case of public
security.
42. The Preamble chapter on Fundamental Rights and Directive Principles accords right
to livelihood contained within the meaning of right to life as a meaningful life, social
security and disablement benefits are integral schemes of socio-economic justice to
the people.55 VDR number is also mandatory for non-benefit schemes like linking
with banks, mobile number.56 Here also they do not have any choice other than
getting a VDR number and attaching it in various sectors. It is always at the choice of
53
54
55
LIC of India v. Consumer Education and Research Centre, (1995) 5 S.C.C. 482 (India); See also, Olga Tellis
v. Bombay Municipal Corporation, (1985) 3 S.C.C. 545 (India).
56
21
the people which information he wants to or which he does not want to give, making
it mandatory deprives their right to choose. It deprives their right to livelihood,
thereby infringing right to life of the people.
43. Right to privacy which is an integral part of Right to life ensures freedom from
unwarranted state intervention.57 Usually, different types of data are collected form an
individual for different purpose. The information which is needed is collected at that
time. This lead to creation of informational silos.58 But the VDR Scheme of the
government collects multipurpose data at one point. Therefore, all the data of an
individual could be accessed at one time. Thus every decision made by a person could
be under state surveillance. The government can discriminate on the basis of
information and can deny too many social opportunities and facilities for a person.
44. Such surveillance is only allowed when the person is accused of some offence,
otherwise surveillance by the state on public is not just and fair and constitute a
violation of right to life of the people.59
[2.2] Scheme proposed by the government is in violation of the VDR Act itself.
45. The Principle of Proportionality states that a government ought to maintain a sense of
proportion between its particular goals and the measure it takes to achieve those goals,
so that its action impinges on the individual rights to the minimum extent so as to
preserve public interest.60 The government requires the people to part with basic
information about oneself, which is integral to one’s personality, as well as core
biometric information, which could have as well been handled through other methods,
given the facts and circumstances. For instance the SSN program of US govt. which
involves providing SSN cards to the residents, here the residence were not required to
disclose their any personal details or there biometric information. Even then the
program was very successful and the government was able to provide the benefits to
the needy.61
57
Anna Jonsson Cornell, “Right to Privacy”, Max Planck Encyclopedia of Comparative Constitutional Law
(2015).
58
Usha Ramanthan, A Unique Identity Bill, Vol. 45(30) Economic and Political Weekly, 10-14 (2010).
59
Gobind v. State of Madhya Pradesh, (1975)2 S.C.C. 148 (India); See also, Kharak Singh v. State of U.P. and
Ors., AIR 1963 S.C. 1295 (India).
60
Ajoy P.B., Administrative Action and the Doctrine of Proportionality in India, Vol. 1(6) International
Organization of Scientific Research Journal of Humanities and Social Science, 16-23 (2012) available at
www.iosrjournals.org; See also, M.R.F Ltd. v. Inspector of Kerala Govt., (1998) 8 S.C.C. 227 (India).
61
R. Rajkumr, Aadhar on a platform of myths, ( Feb 04 , 2018, 6:00 PM),
http://www.thehindu.com/opinion/lead/Aadhaar-on-a-platform-of-myths/article13673159.ece.
22
46. Under the Verifiable Data Registration Act, 2012 ensure that acquiring a VDR
number is voluntary and at the option of citizens but afterwards the government in
their Scheme stated that VDR number mandatory for all the benefits of the Endor
government. Thus the scheme which is promulgated by the government is in itself in
violation of the Act and thus violating the fundamental rights of the people.
[2.3] VDR Scheme violates the basic Constitutional principle.

47. The basic Constitution principle is that the law should be just, fair and equitable, but it
does not fit in this ambit. The government made the VDR number necessary for
various benefits and thus ignores the choice of the citizens. By making VDR
mandatory the right to remain silent which is entitled in right to freedom of speech
and expression under Art. 19(1) (a) is under threat because the citizens are compelled
to part with their personal information. VDR also violate the right to privacy of the
citizens as the citizens are parted with their information which is even not necessary
for any purpose.
48. By collecting the information of a citizen for VDR by the government although
ensure public right to some extent but the point of individual right which are basic
fundamental right of a person are hampered.
[2.4] Government has failed to address concern about illegal immigrants acquiring VDR
numbers and available socio-economic benefits.
49. VDR Act, 2012 gives the provision that the VDR is voluntary.62 But it cannot be
issued to illegal immigrants and not set them as a pre-condition for availing welfare
scheme. A VDR number was voluntary and could be issued to any resident of Endor;
thus was not restricted only to its citizens63. Thus it is prima facie that the government
is providing VDR for not only citizens. The Committee also noted that all residents
are entitled to an VDR number under the Bill. This may allow illegal immigrants to
obtain an VDR number as well.
50. Senior Counsel Anil Divan told the top court bench of Hon’ble Justice BS Chauhan
and Hon’ble Justice SA Bobde that issuance of VDR numbers to all residents,
including migrants created a serious threat to national security. Mr. Divan said that
the government claim VDR a voluntary choice but giving benefits on the basis of
62
2016 (India).
63
23
VDR number made it mandatory in itself. The senior council state that there was no
legislative backing for obtaining personal information and the proposed legislation
that government had introduced was rejected by the parliamentary standing committee
on finance64.
51. International laws also had the provisions that the government can provide social
benefits to the illegal immigrants but economic and fundamental rights cannot be
provided. The government is providing VDR number to non-citizens also65. It means
that illegal immigrants can also get registered under scheme. If they are taking VDR
number they can also claim the benefits given by the government. In this regard
illegal immigrants came in same position with the citizens of Endor. Thus, the
fundamental benefits will also be given in the same status s the citizens which are not
valid.
52. The resources of the country will should be utilized in the benefit of citizens will also
be given to illegal immigrants. It will be a threat to our culture also. The employment
benefits will be also be shared. There will be a population growth and economy will
be hampered also. The government contented that they are registering illegal
immigrants for the welfare of the society, but as such there are no laws for illegal
immigrants in the state, thus enrolling them under this scheme will prevail them for
benefits with are not made for them and these benefits can be taken as granted by
them, which would lead to imbalance. Thus, it will be investment on immigrants
rather than citizens. Instances till now said that every time the government provides
them benefits for their upliftment, but they misuse it. Immigrants in Assam and other
also form their independent organization and demand for independent state, which is a
threat to social security and integrity of the country. Point of illegal immigrants is of
great concern and it should not be available for illegal immigrants and proper
procedure should be made by the government in this respect because providing them
benefits.
64
Don't issue Aadhar cards to illegal immigrants, Supreme Court tells Centre, (Feb 15, 2018, 5:03 PM),
https://www.ndtv.com/india-news/dont-issue-aadhar-cards-to-illegal-immigrants-supreme-court-tells-centre-
535453.
65
24
[3] WHETHER ‘SHOEHORNING’ OF BILL DISREGARDED CIVIL LIBERTIES, RESTRICTED

CITIZEN’S RIGHT TO LEGAL RECOURSE AND FAILED TO ADDRESS ISSUES ON DATA
ACCURACY.
53. It is humbly submitted before the Hon’ble court that the there was shoehorning of the
people and its disregarded civil liberties. The bill also restricted the citizen’s legal
recourse for the provisions on the question of type of bill. The Act also fails to discuss
about the accuracy of data. The overall process of money bill introduced by the
government was political motive so that the bill can easily be passed by Lok Sabha.
[3.1] The bill is not a money bill, it is a financial bill.

54. The government stated the bill was a money bill but actually the bill must be termed
as a financial bill. Provisions for financial bill are same as any of the matters that are
given for the money bill, with additional of any other matter. The basis aim for the
proposition of bill given by government is that they want to provide welfare to the
society which include all social, economic, political, cultural and civil rights.
Withdrawal from the consolidated fund is the secondary matter which is a
consequence of the execution of the scheme. This clearly stated that there is an
additional matter that is why VDR bill is not a money bill but it is a financial bill66.
55. Like the money bill, a financial bill can only be introduced in Lok Sabha only. Rajya
Sabha has full power to effect amendments in it. Rajya Sabha is also not bounded to
pass the bill; it can also reject the bill if Rajya Sabha is not satisfied with it67. Thus,
VDR is a financial bill and Rajya Sabha has the right to question the status of bill.
56. The government contended that the speaker decide whether a bill is a money bill or
not and said that the decision of the speaker over a bill is final under Art.110 (3).
Khehar CJ said that “If the Speaker says blue is green, we will tell her that blue is
blue and not green”. In Jairam Ramesh v. Union of India68, the question before the
Supreme Court is that whether the decision of the speaker of the Lok Sabha can be
questioned in court. This matter is still pending in the court but the possibility says
that it can be questioned on the court of law because judicial review of every
66
INDIA CONST. art. 117, cl. 1.
67
M.P. Jain, Indian Constitutional Law 73 (8th ed. 2018).
68
Jairam Ramesh v. Union of India, (1988) SCR (2) 1011 (India).
25
perspective can be done. Judicial review is the basic structure of the Constitution and
is cannot be changed, so the judicial review of every legislation is possible.
57. The Leia Alliance, the Opposition Party, criticized the scheme soundly as a “waste of
national resources”, citing it to be redundant courtesy all residents having various
forms of national identification already69.
[3.2] The purpose of the government stating the bill as a money bill is a political motive
of the government.
58. In Arguendo, if a bill is a money bill it should be passed in the Lok Sabha with the
special but it was passed with a simple majority. The opposition party said that it was
a political agenda that is why the bill was presented by the name of money bill, so that
it can be passed easily in the Lok Sabha.
59. Under Art. 117(1) a money bill can be introduced after the recommendation of
President. In this case the instances proved that the bill was directly proposed in the
Lok Sabha without the recommendation of the president. Thus, the bill does not fulfill
the provision under Art 117(1)70.
60. The bill did not serve the basic motive of the welfare of the people. It restricted the
citizen’s civil liberties by VDR Act as it is in violation of Art.21 and Art. 19 restrict
people to exercise their rights. The VDR restricted the legal recourse by making it
mandatory for the benefits by the government. The government has provided
provisions for offences but there is no particular legislation for the security of data.
Thus, there is a huge threat to the citizens because the data is very easily accessible
and vulnerable to misuse.
69
70
INDIA CONST. art. 117, cl. 1.
26
PRAYER
Wherefore, in the light of the facts stated, issues raised, authorities cited and pleadings
advanced, it is humbly prayed that this Honorable Court may be pleased to adjudge and
declare that:
 There is a violation of Right to Privacy by the Verifiable Data Registration Act, 2012
and the Act is unconstitutional.
 A Unique Identification Number is not essential for promoting social security, justice
and equality.
 There was ‘shoehorning’ of Bill which disregarded civil liberties, restricted citizens’
right to legal recourse and has failed to address issues on data accuracy.
The court may also be pleased to pass any other Order, Direction or Relief which this
Hon’ble Court may deem fit in the best interests of Justice, Equity and Good Conscience.
All of which is most humbly prayed
Council for Petitioner
27

Memorial 20 A

Hochgeladen von

Dokumentinformationen

Originaltitel

Copyright

Verfügbare Formate

Dieses Dokument teilen

Dokument teilen oder einbetten

Freigabeoptionen

Stufen Sie dieses Dokument als nützlich ein?

Sind diese Inhalte unangemessen?

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

Memorial 20 A

Hochgeladen von

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER

17TH AMITY MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2018

BEFORE THE HON’BLE SUPREME COURT

Ben Yoda Foundation…………….............…………………….PETITIONER

WRIT PETITION NO. ****/2018

ON SUBMISSION TO THE HON’BLE SUPREME COURT OF ENDOR

UNDER ART. 32 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF ENDOR

MOST RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,

COUNSEL APPEARING ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER

INDEX OF AUTHORITIES ....................................................................................................... 2

[1] WHETHER THERE IS VIOLATION OF RIGHT TO PRIVACY BY THE VERIFIABLE DATA

[2] WHETHER A UNIQUE IDENTIFICATION NUMBER IS ESSENTIAL FOR PROMOTING SOCIAL

[3] WHETHER ‘SHOEHORNING’ OF BILL DISREGARDED CIVIL LIBERTIES, RESTRICTED CITIZEN’S

A.K. Gopalan v. State of Madras, AIR 1950 S.C. 27 (India) ............................................................... 15

 Art. 9, International Convention on Civil and Political Rights (1966).

1. The Republic of Endor is a developing nation located in South Asia. It has a

2. Due to its large population and inadequate infrastructure, a significant number of

8. In September 2015, a major national newspaper published an investigative report

WHETHER THERE IS VIOLATION OF RIGHT TO PRIVACY BY THE VERIFIABLE DATA

REGISTRATION ACT, 2012 AS PER THE SUPREME COURT JUDGMENT OF 2017.

WHETHER A UNIQUE IDENTIFICATION NUMBER IS ESSENTIAL FOR PROMOTING SOCIAL

SECURITY, JUSTICE AND EQUALITY.

WHETHER ‘SHOEHORNING’ OF BILL DISREGARDED CIVIL LIBERTIES, RESTRICTED CITIZENS

RIGHT TO LEGAL RECOURSE AND FAILED TO ADDRESS ISSUES ON DATA ACCURACY.

[1] WHETHER THERE IS VIOLATION OF RIGHT TO PRIVACY BY THE VERIFIABLE DATA

REGISTRATION ACT, 2012 AS PER THE SUPREME COURT JUDGMENT OF 2017.

[2] WHETHER A UNIQUE IDENTIFICATION NUMBER IS ESSENTIAL FOR PROMOTING SOCIAL

SECURITY, JUSTICE AND EQUALITY.

[1]WHETHER THERE IS VIOLATION OF RIGHT TO PRIVACY BY THE VERIFIABLE DATA

(1) The law must prescribe a procedure

[1.1.2] Right to privacy is an inalienable right conferned by various parts of the

[1.1.3] Dignity is an essential part, which cannot be ignored.

[1.2] VDR Act violates Article 19 of the Constitution

[1.2.1] Right to remain silent is entitled in Article 19(1) (a).

postulates a realm of privacy. The privacy of the individual recognizes an inviolable

[1.3.1] Data is vulnerable to theft and misuse.

[1.3.2] Protection of data is a question of great concern.

[1.4.1] Standing Committee concern about the scheme.

[2]WHETHER A UNIQUE IDENTIFICATION NUMBER IS ESSENTIAL FOR PROMOTING SOCIAL

[2.3] VDR Scheme violates the basic Constitutional principle.

[3] WHETHER ‘SHOEHORNING’ OF BILL DISREGARDED CIVIL LIBERTIES, RESTRICTED

[3.1] The bill is not a money bill, it is a financial bill.

All of which is most humbly prayed

Council for Petitioner

Das könnte Ihnen auch gefallen