- Home
- News
- Articles+
- Aerospace
- Agriculture
- Alternate Dispute Resolution
- Banking and Finance
- Bankruptcy
- Book Review
- Bribery & Corruption
- Commercial Litigation
- Competition Law
- Conference Reports
- Consumer Products
- Contract
- Corporate Governance
- Corporate Law
- Covid-19
- Cryptocurrency
- Cybersecurity
- Data Protection
- Defence
- Digital Economy
- E-commerce
- Employment Law
- Energy and Natural Resources
- Entertainment and Sports Law
- Environmental Law
- FDI
- Food and Beverage
- Health Care
- IBC Diaries
- Insurance Law
- Intellectual Property
- International Law
- Know the Law
- Labour Laws
- Litigation
- Litigation Funding
- Manufacturing
- Mergers & Acquisitions
- NFTs
- Privacy
- Private Equity
- Project Finance
- Real Estate
- Risk and Compliance
- Technology Media and Telecom
- Tributes
- Zoom In
- Take On Board
- In Focus
- Law & Policy and Regulation
- IP & Tech Era
- Viewpoint
- Arbitration & Mediation
- Tax
- Student Corner
- AI
- ESG
- Gaming
- Inclusion & Diversity
- Law Firms
- In-House
- Rankings
- E-Magazine
- Legal Era TV
- Events
- News
- Articles
- Aerospace
- Agriculture
- Alternate Dispute Resolution
- Banking and Finance
- Bankruptcy
- Book Review
- Bribery & Corruption
- Commercial Litigation
- Competition Law
- Conference Reports
- Consumer Products
- Contract
- Corporate Governance
- Corporate Law
- Covid-19
- Cryptocurrency
- Cybersecurity
- Data Protection
- Defence
- Digital Economy
- E-commerce
- Employment Law
- Energy and Natural Resources
- Entertainment and Sports Law
- Environmental Law
- FDI
- Food and Beverage
- Health Care
- IBC Diaries
- Insurance Law
- Intellectual Property
- International Law
- Know the Law
- Labour Laws
- Litigation
- Litigation Funding
- Manufacturing
- Mergers & Acquisitions
- NFTs
- Privacy
- Private Equity
- Project Finance
- Real Estate
- Risk and Compliance
- Technology Media and Telecom
- Tributes
- Zoom In
- Take On Board
- In Focus
- Law & Policy and Regulation
- IP & Tech Era
- Viewpoint
- Arbitration & Mediation
- Tax
- Student Corner
- AI
- ESG
- Gaming
- Inclusion & Diversity
- Law Firms
- In-House
- Rankings
- E-Magazine
- Legal Era TV
- Events
Madras High Court Directs UIDAI Enquiry On Alleged Misuse of Aadhaar Data by BJP
Madras High Court Directs UIDAI Enquiry On Alleged Misuse of Aadhaar Data by BJP The Madras High Court (HC) heard a plea wherein it was alleged that the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) Puducherry had misused the Aadhaar data of voters to boost election campaigns. The HC bench comprising of Chief Justice Sanjib Banerjee and Justice Senthilkumar Ramamoorthy, directed the Unique...
ToRead the Full Story, Subscribe to
Access the exclusive LEGAL ERAStories,Editorial and Expert Opinion
Madras High Court Directs UIDAI Enquiry On Alleged Misuse of Aadhaar Data by BJP
The Madras High Court (HC) heard a plea wherein it was alleged that the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) Puducherry had misused the Aadhaar data of voters to boost election campaigns.
The HC bench comprising of Chief Justice Sanjib Banerjee and Justice Senthilkumar Ramamoorthy, directed the Unique Identification Authority of India (UIDAI) to enquire as to how confidential information that is held by it has been leaked.
The Court gave the said aforesaid directions on receiving a credible allegation which has been squarely leveled that only mobile phones linked to Aadhar cards have received the SMS messages. It is squarely for the UIDAI to provide an adequate answer.
The issue arose when bulk SMSes were received by voters in Puducherry and a report on the matter has also been sent to the top authorities of the Election Commission of India. It will now inquire on the said issue as to whether the party had violated the Model Code of Conduct (MCC).
A petition was filed by the President of the Democratic Youth Federation of India (DYFI), who has submitted that bulk SMS messages were sent to Puducherry voters whose mobile numbers were linked to Aadhaar with a link to join WhatsApp groups run by the BJP. He alleged that there were around 952 such groups.
The BJP asserted before the HC that it has not stolen the Aadhaar data and that the numbers used were available in the public domain. The advocate representing the parties stated that the mobile numbers of the public are available in the public domain. He informed that the karyakartas of the BJP had collected these numbers over a period of time and that no personal data has been stolen by the party as alleged by the petitioner.
To this contention of the party, the bench stated, "There is no doubt that such a body which would treat the information that it possesses regarding citizens with a degree of responsibility that an appropriate enquiry would be conducted to ascertain the source of the leak if any. It is not acceptable that such information would have been obtained by karyakartas as suggested by the 6th respondent political party."
The bench expressed its concern over a possible leak of confidential Aadhaar information, it noted that "There is the serious matter of the privacy of the citizens being breached. This huge aspect of the matter should not be lost in the politics of the season or the hullaballoo of the attendant campaigning."
The Chief Justice showing concern for the Indian democracy stated that if the credibility of the system is dented, then the image of the country takes a beating.
The HC directed the UIDAI to answer how it has failed to protect details and particulars furnished to it in confidence by citizens in the hope that confidentiality would be preserved.
The Court posted the matter after six weeks and it directed the respondent authorities to answer as sought by the Court. It urges the authorities not to undermine the faith in the democratic process and to ensure the conduct of free and fair elections.