M/S Vijay Store and Ors. v. Govt. of N.C.T. of Delhi and Anr.

1. Exemptions are allowed, subject to all just exceptions.

2. The applications are disposed of. W.P.(Q 11594/2017 & CM No. 47213/2017 W.P.(C) 11662/2017 & CM No. 47399/2017

3. The petitioners - who are either Fair Price Shop dealers or ration card holders - have filed the present petitions impugning the orders dated 30.11.20i[7] and 05.12.2017 (hereafter 'the impugned orders') issued by respondent no. 1,

4. In tenns of the impugned orders it has been directed that POS Terminals be installed in ihe Fair Price Shops (hereafter 'FPS') and the distribution of ratien to card holders be done through e-POS Terminals. In other words, FpS dealers are required to ensure that thumb/fmger impressions (fmgeiprints) of the customers are taken at the time of distribution of rations in order to verify- the identity of the ration card holders.

5. The petitioners' claim that the impugned orders violate their light of privapy which is gp'aranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. The petitioners reJitM onthe decision of Justice K.S. Puttaswamy and Ors.

V. Union of India and Ors.: AIR 2017 SC 4161 in support of their contention.

6., Mr Gupta, the leanied coun«el appearing for the petitioners contends that the issue whether any person can be compelled to give fingeiprints is pending consideration before the Supreme Court and, therefore, respondent noA was not entitled to issue the impugned orders making distribution Of rations contingent on the I'ation card holder giving his/her fingerprints. He ivR(Qji:594mi[7] ^ ^submitted that all- the ration card holders are required to have: Aadhaar card and, therefore, their identities have already been verified. In the circumstances, compelling the ration card holders to give their thumb impressions on. the e-POS Terminal for the purposes of distribution of food grains would offend their fundamental rights.

7. Mr Gupta, further submitted that the matter whether the Aadhaar card is required to be linked to other State Agencies is a subject matter of dispute that is pending consideration before the Supreme Court and the scope of the present petition is limited to only restraining respondent no.l from implementing the linkage with Aadhaar card during the pendency of the matter before the Supreme Court. He submitted that respondent no.l ought to have awaited the decision of the Supreme Court before attempting to implement verification on the basis of biometric data collected by the Unique Identification Authority ofIndia.

8. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners relied upon by the decision of the interim orders dated 11.08.2015 passed by the Supreme Court in Justice K.S. Puttawamy (Retired) and Anr. v. Union ofIndia and Ors.: 2015 (8) SCC 735 and further order dated 15.12.2017 passed in the above matter.

9. Mr Ramesh Singh, learned counsel appearing for respondents referred to the Aadhaar (Authentication) Regulations, 2016 (hereafter 'the Regulations') and drew the attention of this Court to Regulation 2(1)(p) of the Regulations, which defines the expression "Yes/No authentication facility". He submitted that respondents were not collecting any data but was merely attempting to use the "Yes/No Authentication facility" for W.P.(C) 11594/2017 Page 3 of[6] /• Yerifyiiig the identity,ofthe beneficiaries of the Public Distribution Scheme (hereafter 'PDS').

10. He also submitted that the linkage of Aadhaar card for PDS was expressly permitted under the interim orders passed by the Supreme Court in Justice K.S. Fiitaswami (Retired) andAnr. {supra).

11. There is much merit in the contention advanced by Singh. The Supreme Court had expressly permitted the use of the Unique Identification Number or' Aadhaar Card for certain purposes and ill particular for the purposes of distribution-offo.od grains etc under the PDS.,. -

12. The relevant extraci ofths said order is set otit below:- "22. Having considered the matter, we are of the view that the balance t)f interest woi-ild be best served, till the matter is finally decided bv a larger Bench if the Union of India cr the UIDA proceed inthe followmg rrianner; ' 22.[1] The Union of India shall give wide publicity in the electronic and print media including radio and television networks that it is not mandatory for a citizen to obtain an Aadhaar card; ^ -r; 22.[2] The:production^ofaqAadhaar card wi11 notbe condition for obtairiihg any bene^ts otherwise due to a citizen; 22.[3] The Unique Identification'Number of the Aadhaai*' card will not be used by the'respondents for any purpose other than the PD? Scheme and in particular for the puj^iose of distribution of fbodgrains; etc, and cookmg fliel, such as kerosene.' The Aadhaar card may also be used for the purpose ofthe LPG Distribution Sciierne; 22.[4] The information about an individual obtained by. the W.P.(C) 11^94/2017... ' " ^ '"'fageiof^ ( V UniflLUe Identilic^ion Authority of India while issuing an Aadhaar card'shall not be used for any other purpose, save,as above, except as may be directed by a Court for. the purpose ofcriminal investigation."

13. It is apparent from paragraph 22.[3] of the aforesaid order, the Supreme Court had not interdicted use ofAadhaar Card for PDS Scheme.

14. At this stage, it is also relevant to refer to Regulation 2(1)(p) of the Regulations, which defines the expression "Yes/No authentication facility" as under:- ""Yes/No authentication facility" means a type of authentication facility in which the identity information and Aadhaar number securely submitted with the consent of the Aadhaar number holder through a requesting entity, is then matched against the data available in the CIDR, and the Authority responds with a digitally signedresponse containing "Yes" or "No", along with other technical details related to the authentication transaction, but no identity information."