SC on WB plea: How can a state challenge Aadhaar law
New Delhi
The Supreme Court on Monday pulled up the West Bengal Government for challenging the Aadhaar law that makes having the number mandatory for availing benefits of social welfare schemes, saying it went against the federal structure.
“How can a state file a petition challenging Acts of Parliament?… Tomorrow Parliament can also challenge a state law,” a Bench headed by Justice AK Sikri said.
The Bench, also comprising Justice Ashok Bhushan, was hearing a petition filed by the Mamata Banerjee government against Centre’s notification making Aadhaar a requirement for availing benefits of social welfare schemes.
As senior lawyer Kapil Sibal, representing the state, said it was not filed by the state government but by its labour department, the Bench clarified that individuals were entitled to question the scheme, but not a state government.
“Let Mamata Bannerjee come and file it. We will consider her as an individual,” the Bench said.
Sibal sought to justify the petition, saying the labour department filed it because it was facing problems in disbursing subsidies to the targeted beneficiaries.
But the Bench wasn’t convinced. “Look at your prayer. You are challenging the vires of the Act. How can a state challenge an Act of Parliament?” it asked and suggested if the state wanted it was free to amend its petition.
However, it issued notice to the Centre on another petition challenging the linking of Aadhaar to mobile phone numbers.
In a related development, a three-Judge Bench headed by Chief Justice of India Dipak Misra said a Constitution Bench would be set up by the end of November to decide petitions challenging the Aadhaar Act and the linking of the unique identification number to social welfare schemes. The Centre also filed an affidavit dismissing charges against Aadhaar.
Earlier, the Centre had told the top court that the deadline for mandatory linking of Aadhaar to avail benefits of government schemes had been extended till March 31, 2018 for those who did not have the unique identification number.







