In response to a statement by counsel for West Bengal and senior advocate Kapil Sibal that the apex court must decide the constitutional validity of this idea which is the driving force behind making mandatory Adhaar, the Supreme Court asked on Wednesday as to what was wrong with the idea of “one nation, one identity? After all we are all Indians and proud of that identity”. Kapil Sibal said that forcing citizens to link each of their social interactions with Adhaar was to empower the government with the right to information about people. On Tuesday he said that “The real issue to be tested by the Supreme Court is the one nation, one identity idea”.
When questioned by Justice Ashok Bhushan who is part of the five judge constitution bench which is hearing marathon arguments on petitions challenging the validity of Adhaar on the ground that it violated citizen’s fundamental right to privacy, Kapil Sabil said that” Everything with the idea of one nation, one identity but let’s not get into a debate on that issue in court. I said that yesterday as legal argument and not as a political statement. To be Indian and being proud of it is fine, but Adhaar should not be the determining device for that. We are all fiercely Indian even if we do not have Adhaar. Justice A K Sikri tried summarizing Kapil Sabil statement by saying that “ What you (Kapil Sibal) meant was that one nation, one identity does not mean that if one does not have Adhaar, he does not cease to be an Indian.
Agreeing to this summation, Kapil Sibal said that “ What I meant was that I am not Adhaar and Adhaar is not me” He further added that the fear of losing identity proof was minimal when a citizen was able tp prove his identity through physical documents, as the lost identity card could be retrieved or a duplicate could be prepared. But “When throws an individual’s personal details, the most valuable property of that person gets into the digital world through Adhaar and so if the data gets stolen or leaked then it is lost forever.