Twitter | Search | |
Ankur Mutreja
I am surprised at the approach adopted by d court in dealing wid Sec 139AA IT Act in d . 1. It says finger print and IRIS scan are minimal info. How can 2 sets of info b minimal info when mere finger print can satisfy biometric reqt? (1 of N)
Reply Retweet Like More
Ankur Mutreja Sep 26
Replying to @Ankur_Mutreja
2. SC says this minimal info is already being collected in passports, driving licence, etc. NO. ONLY FINGER PRINTS ARE COLLECTED FOR OBTAINING DRIVING LICENCE & PASSPORTS. 3. SC just reiterates its earlier judgment in Bijoy Viswam to satisfy d test of proportionality. (2 of N)
Reply Retweet Like
Ankur Mutreja Sep 26
Replying to @Ankur_Mutreja
In Binoy Viswam, SC actually hardly dealt with proportionality. I have analysed it already here: U can't reiterate d benefit of aims of d legislation to justify proportionality. That too when u discuss it so comprehensively in re (3 of N)
Reply Retweet Like
Ankur Mutreja Sep 26
Replying to @Ankur_Mutreja
4. While discussing manifest arbitrariness u/a 14 in re: sec 139AA, SC reiterates d argument it gave in support of intelligible differentia in Bijoy Viswam. IS IT SOME JOKE? (4 of N)
Reply Retweet Like
Ankur Mutreja Sep 26
Replying to @Ankur_Mutreja
5. While discussing "legitimate state interest" in re privacy, SC reiterates Bijoy Viswam in re to duplicate PANs and then says collection of revenue can be "legitimate state interest" 4 infringing right to privacy. (5 of N)
Reply Retweet Like
Ankur Mutreja Sep 26
Replying to @Ankur_Mutreja
Are u saying just because few ppl don't pay their taxes properly, all honest tax payers' privacy should b infringed? DO YOU EVEN UNDERSTAND THE MEANING OF PROPORTIONALITY? (6 of N)
Reply Retweet Like
Ankur Mutreja Sep 26
Replying to @Ankur_Mutreja
Yes, I am committing contempt of court bc this court doesn't deserve any respect. What they have done is nothing less than an artifice. On the judgment is fine, esp bc it has been made clear benefits and services will be read ejusdem generis to subsidies. (7 of N)
Reply Retweet Like
Ankur Mutreja Sep 26
Replying to @Ankur_Mutreja
But in re: IT Act, mandatory has bn introduced through a back door through PAN on an almost no judgment. (8 of N)
Reply Retweet Like
Ankur Mutreja Sep 26
Replying to @Ankur_Mutreja
However, let me clarify d judgment wrt surveillance state is also illegal bc presentation by UIDAI has no legal grounding & also in d nine bench privacy judgment, there r clear indications proportionality can b checked only after data protection law has bn put in place. (9 of N)
Reply Retweet Like
Ankur Mutreja Sep 26
Replying to @Ankur_Mutreja
Above I have only spoken in d basis of majority judgment by Justice Sikri. Another important aspect was treatment of issued b4 2016, i.e. b4 cane into force. says such can be cancelled on d choice of d issuies. (10 of N)
Reply Retweet Like
Ankur Mutreja Sep 26
Replying to @Ankur_Mutreja
This again shows what trickery has bn played by d govt & endorsed by the SC. Majority of s have bn issued b4 2016 ILLEGALLY by playing trickery. Even those issued after 2016 have bn issued per force in derogation of subsisting interim orders. (11 of N)
Reply Retweet Like
Ankur Mutreja Sep 26
Replying to @Ankur_Mutreja
The SC says though s issued post 2016 were in derogation of interim orders but were not contempt bc interim orders were passed b4 d came into force. That's obfuscation. (12 of N)
Reply Retweet Like
Ankur Mutreja Sep 26
Replying to @Ankur_Mutreja
Ppl were forced 2 enrol 4 post 2016 on wide reading of "benefits" & "services" under AadhaarAct. However d judgment has read down "benefits" & "services" making relevant only to those who want to avail subsidies frm govt, who r an obvious minority. (13 of N)
Reply Retweet Like
Ankur Mutreja Sep 26
Replying to @Ankur_Mutreja
The natural corollary of reading down shld hav bn complete annulment of process till date as majority of issued till now were either illegal (pre 2016) or forced through fraud (post 2016). How can 100 crore+ illegal s be allowed to subsist? (14 of N)
Reply Retweet Like
Ankur Mutreja Sep 26
Replying to @Ankur_Mutreja
It is obvious nobody will seek cancellatn of their s now esp when it has bn autocratically made mandatory 4 PAN & wrt which, I repeat, SC passed no reasoned judgment. What is this if not a conspiracy of judiciary+executive to fradulently force ? (15 of N)
Reply Retweet Like
Ankur Mutreja Sep 26
Replying to @Ankur_Mutreja
Recently I read remark of CJI tht corruption = terrorism. Well... is plain simple corruption in view of what is stated above, AND MR. CJI, YOU ARE A TERRORIST YOURSELF. DECIDE YOUR OWN PUNISHMENT! (16 of N)
Reply Retweet Like