[vc_row][vc_column][vc_column_text]The Supreme Court raps Mamata Banerjee’s government for challenging Parliament’s mandate, says the chief minister can file a petition as an individual citizen
The Supreme Court, on Monday, pulled up Mamata Banerjee’s West Bengal government for directly approaching the apex court against the Centre’s move to make Aadhaar mandatory for availing the benefits of various social welfare schemes.
The West Bengal government had filed a writ petition before the Supreme Court under Article 32 of the Constitution. The specific Article can only be used by individual citizens to approach the Supreme Court against state actions which violate their fundamental rights. Article 32 cannot be agitated by a State against the Centre, a technicality that the state government’s counsel, senior advocate Kapil Sibal, seems to have overlooked while moving the apex court which in turn led the top court to rap Banerjee’s government.
The West Bengal government’s plea had come up before the Supreme Court days after a defiant Banerjee had declared that she would not link her mobile phone with her Aadhaar number – something that Prime Minister Narendra Modi has made mandatory for all citizens – and dared telecom companies to disconnect her cell phone connection if they so wished.
After the top court pointed out the technical issues that prevented the West Bengal government from moving the writ petition in its current form, the petition was withdrawn. Justice AK Sikri did, however, note that chief minister Mamata Banerjee can file a petition on the issue as an individual citizen.
At the same time, the Supreme Court bench of Justices AK Sikri
and Ashok Bhushan, accepted a plea by advocate Raghav Tankha (filed against the Union of India) seeking a direction to the Department of Telecom and to various telecom operators to stop misleading the public as to the requirement of Aadhaar being the only means of authentication for proof of address by an erroneous and mala fide interpretation of the Supreme Court order in the Loknithi Foundation Case.
The bench issued notice to the government on Tankha’s plea.
When Sibal – a veteran of many legal battles – appeared as an intervenor for West Bengal chief minister Mamata Banerjee and the government, Justice Sikri, raised an objection, saying: “This is a matter of the State of West Bengal. The State cannot challenge the law on its own. The Secretary for the State should come as the party and more specifically, Ms Mamta Banerjee should file the petition.”
Justice Sikri asked Sibal: “In a federal structure, how can a State file a plea challenging Parliament’s mandate? We know it is a matter which needs consideration, but you satisfy us how a state can challenge it (sic)?”
Expressing its displeasure over the West Bengal government’s plea, Justice Sikri asked Sabil: “How can a State challenge a law passed by the Centre? Tomorrow the Centre will come against laws by the States” and then told the senior counsel: “let an individual come to us… Mr. Sibal, you know this… you are more mature than us.”
Sibal argued, saying: “This petition from my side is on the behalf of the labour department of West Bengal. It raises a public interest issue in regards to distribution of subsidies to targeted children.”
Sibal also requested the court for time to file an amended petition. A bill for Aadhaar seeding with PDS distribution is to be tagged along with this amended application.
The bench said that the issue of linkage of Aadhaar with mobile number will be considered at the end of the board.
The petition filed by advocate Tankha also seeks a direction to the Telecom Service Providers to stop advertisements as well as SMS, thereby misleading the citizens by misinterpreting the Supreme Court order.
The petition has been filed through advocate Pragya Baghel against the telecom operators Vodafone, Bharti Airtel, Idea, Reliance, Department of Telecommunication and Unique Identification Authority of India (UIDAI).[/vc_column_text][/vc_column][/vc_row]