Having Aadhaar no proof of citizenship: UIDAI in Calcutta HC
Times of India | 5 July 2024
KOLKATA: Having an Aadhaar number is no proof of citizenship or domicile, senior counsel for the Unique Identification Authority of India (UIDAI) submitted in the Calcutta High Court on Thursday, citing provisions of the Aadhaar (Enrolment and Update) Act.
Senior counsel Laxmi Gupta submitted that Aadhaar card is issued to residents staying in the country for 182 days at a stretch for the purpose of targeted govt subsidies.Gupta was making the submission to contest the prayer by the Joint Forum against NRC to strike down regulation 28A of the Aadhaar Act, 2023, that specifically deals with foreign nationals. UIDAI can deactivate Aadhaar card of a foreign national overstaying in the country after the expiry of his visa, Gupta submitted.
Joint Forum against NRC had moved a PIL at the division bench of Chief Justice TS Sivagnanam and Justice Hiranmay Bhattacharyya pointing to the confusion over deactivation of Aadhaar cards in Bengal. "There is confusion and contradiction in statements of Union ministers. A letter from the CMO has been sent to the PMO on this issue and a member of the Rajya Sabha from Bengal has also taken up the matter with Centre. The UIDAI initially said it was a technical error," Forum counsel Jhuma Sen had submitted.
The UIDAI counsel argued that the petition was not maintainable since it pleaded for persons who were not citizens of India. The UIDAI upon getting inputs from passport authorities or authorities governing the Foreigners Act may cause an inquiry into the documents of individuals as provided under regulation 29, Gupta submitted.
Sen on Thursday prayed before the court to strike down regulation 28A. "Regulation 28A, when read with the following regulation 29, becomes diabolical. This is back-door NRC. This is a colourable exercise of power," Sen submitted.
The counsel also submitted that a single bench of the HC had stayed one such deactivation of Aadhaar card. ASG Ashoke Kumar Chakraborty pleaded that the PIL was not maintainable on the grounds that the petitioner had not challenged section 54 of the Aadhaar Act from which the regulations followed. Chakraborty also questioned whether a petitioner could challenge the sovereignty of a country. The CJ cited a recent case where a foreign national staying at Ballygunge, and having Aadhaar card and filing IT returns, acquired 11 properties in Bengal. The division bench fixed the next hearing of the matter on July 11.