2018 (1) TMI 279

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... Union of India, rep. by the Secretary, Ministry of Finance, North Block, New Delhi-110001 and two others in W.P.No.28181 of 2017 dated 06.11.2017. The operative portion of the order reads as follows: "8.The Hon'ble Supreme Court, in the case of Binoy Viswam, pointed out that on the one hand, the enrollment under aadhaar card is voluntary, however, for the purposes of the Act, Section 139AA makes it compulsory that for assessees to give aadhaar number, which means that in so far as income tax assessees are concerned, they have to necessarily enroll themselves under the Aadhaar Act and obtain aadhaar number, which will be their identification number, as that has become the requirement under the Act. 9. It has been furth....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... (ii) Consequences of failure to intimate Aadhaar number to the prescribed authority by specified date. 114. Insofar as first limb of Section 139AA of the Act is concerned, we have already held that it was within the competence of the Parliament to make a provision of this nature and further that it is not offensive of Article 14 of the Constitution. This requirement, per se, does not find foul with Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution either, inasmuch as, quoting the Aadhaar number for purposes mentioned in Sub-Section (1) or intimating the Aadhaar number to the prescribed authority as per the requirement of Sub-Section (2) does not, by itself, impinge upon the right to carry on profession or trade, etc. Therefore, it is n....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....restrictions on the right to do business. 12. Then, the Hon'ble Supreme Court proceeded to frame the question as to whether these restrictions are reasonable and meet the requirement of Clause (6) of Article 19. After referring to the decision in the case of Modern Dental College and Research Centre Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh [reported in 2016 (7) SCC 353], proceeded to discuss as to whether the restrictions, which would result in terms of the Proviso to Sub-Section (2) of Section 139AA of the Act, are reasonable or not. On this question, it would be beneficial to refer to certain paragraphs viz. paragraphs 122, 124 and 125 of the decision in the case of Binoy Viswam, as under : "122. While considering the aforesaid s....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....Having said so, it becomes clear from the aforesaid discussion that those who are not PAN holders, while applying for PAN, they are required to give Aadhaar number. This is the stipulation of sub-section (1) of Section 139AA, which we have already upheld. At the same time, as far as existing PAN holders are concerned, since the impugned provisions are yet to be considered on the touchstone of Article 21 of the Constitution, including on the debate around Right to Privacy and human dignity, etc. as limbs of Article 21, we are of the opinion that till the aforesaid aspect of Article 21 is decided by the Constitution Bench a partial stay of the aforesaid proviso is necessary. Those who have already enrolled themselves under Aadhaar scheme woul....