'No Public Interest': Delhi HC Directs Roster Bench To Hear Lawyer's Plea For Govt Life Insurance Benefits Without Furnishing His Aadhaar

The Delhi High Court today observed that there is no public interest involved in the writ petition moved by a lawyer, seeking to remove AADHAAR number as a mandatory requirement for the purpose of registration under Chief Minister Advocates' Welfare Scheme.

A division bench of Acting Chief Justice Manmohan and Justice Tushar Rao Gedela observed that it was petitioner's personal choice to not give his biometrics or use the Aadhar card and therefore, the matter will not lie before division bench. It has directed the roster bench of single judge to hear the matter on October 3.

Delhi Chief Minister had announced Group (Term) Insurance for practising advocates providing life cover of Rs. 10,00,000/- per advocate. It also announced Group Medi-claim coverage for the advocates, their spouse and two dependent children unto the age of 25 years, for a family floater sum insured of Rs. 5,00,000/-. To register on the portal for availing the benefit of this scheme, lawyers are first required to provide their Aadhaar number.

Petitioner claimed that lawyers already have a Bar card, an Election card and a Certificate of Practice. Thus, adding another "layer of redundancy" by mandating Aadhar card is not justified, he argued.

He submitted that even the Supreme Court has held that linking of Aadhar card must pass the test of proportionality. For instance, he submitted, the Top court has held that linking of Aadhar card with PAN card is justified but, linking of Aadhar card with bank account or Sim card is unconstitutional. Even providing child's Aadhar card to school for admission has been held to be unconstitutional, he said.

At this juncture, Justice Gedela orally enquired, "What is public interest in this? You may have your reasons that you don't want to give biometrics...It's an individual perception, you may not want Aadhar, it's personal interest, no...not public."

AC J Manmohan also agreed that the matter cannot be heard by a division bench as no public interest is involved. Accordingly, the matter is directed to be listed before single bench.

Case Title: Gaurav Jain v. GNCTD