Skip to main content

Blog # 14. All about Aadhar Privacy Case

  • The Supreme Court today observed that it is nearly impossible to define privacy, which is not absolute and the state cannot be prevented from imposing reasonable restrictions on citizens, according to a report by The Hindu. The nine-judge bench of the apex court, which is looking into the limited matter of right to privacy, attached to the Aadhaar case, also observed that any attempt to define privacy may cause more harm than good. The hearing in the privacy matter will continue on the second day tomorrow.
  • The petitioners today put forth a statement by Finance Minister Arun Jaitley, which he had given in the parliament while moving the Aadhaar Bill. “The present bill presupposes and is based on a premise, and it’s too late in the day to contest that privacy is not a fundamental right. Privacy is not an absolute right, which is subjected to a restriction established by law on a fair and just procedure,” Jaitley had said.
  • In past, the Apex court has held that right to privacy is not a fundamental right. On Tuesday, however, the Supreme Court observed, “In a Republic founded on a written Constitution, it is difficult to accept there is no fundamental right to privacy.” The court’s observation put a put a question mark on the government’s apparent efforts to make Aadhaar mandatory for access to a number of state-sponsored doles and services as well as for taxation and other aspects of regulatory governance. The court also formed a nine-judge bench headed by Chief Justice J S Khehar to decide on the privacy debate.
  • The top court on Tuesday also said that the larger bench would examine the correctness of the two judgements delivered in the cases of Kharak Singh and M P Sharma in which it was held that right to privacy was not a fundamental right. While the Kharak Singh judgement was delivered by a six- judge bench in 1960, the M P Sharma verdict was reported in 1950 and was delivered by an eight-judge Constitution bench, according to PTI.
  • The nine-judge bench also include justices J Chelameswar, S A Bobde, R K Agrawal, Rohinton Fali Nariman, Abhay Manohar Sapre, D Y Chandrachud, Sanjay Kishan Kaul and S Abdul Nazeer.

Comments

  1. ResearchPeptides12 February 2018 at 09:42

    I must say, I thought this was a pretty interesting read when it comes to this topic. Liked the material. . . www.joannetaylor.org

    ReplyDelete
  2. ResearchPeptides2 March 2018 at 13:52

    The first casualty of war is the truth Tweed Heads lawyers

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Blog # 26. Concept of Real Income under the Income Tax Act, 1961

  What is Income ? Before understanding the concept of Real Income, it shall be important to go through the the term “Income” and “Real”. Income is defined under S.2(24) of the Income Tax Act, 1961(Hereinafter referred as “the Act”). The definition as provided under the Act is an inclusive definition so as to cover up all the usual as well as unusual items, however it certainly does not define it in a way that we can be said it to be precise. The same can be understood by various Judge Made Laws. The first and the lead amongst them is a Privy Council Judgment in the case of Kamakshya Narain   Singh CIT 11 ITR 513 (PC)         Facts The assesse was a “Raja” gave mining lease and He received payments by way of royalty for coal mines leased out to various lessees. The case of the Assessee was that this royalty income received by the Assessee was nothing but the recoupment of the resources which shall be exhausted by the end of the lease and thus the same was not income bu
27 comments
Read more

Reference to TPO- Law & Important Judgements

Sec 92CA provides that the Assessing Officer (“AO”) may make reference to Transfer Pricing officer (“TPO”) for computation of arm's length price (ALP) of international transaction entered into by assessee if the AO considers necessary and expedient to do so with prior approval of Principal Commissioner or Commissioner. Further, CBDT instruction No. 3/ 2003 made it mandatory for AO to make such reference if the value of international transactions exceeded Rs. 5 crores. Transfer pricing arena has seen many disputes revolving around making reference to TPO and powers/duties of AO and TPO around that. In a recent landmark decision in the case of Tata Consultancy Services Ltd., the Mumbai ITAT held that AO cannot make a reference to the TPO mechanically without applying his mind to the TP report or to any other material or information, despite CBDT Instruction No. 3/2003.The CBDT has recently revised CBDT Instruction No. 3/2003, by issuing  Instruction No. 15/2015 ,  which stated tha
Post a Comment
Read more

Discussion on purchases held Bogus

Introduction Bombay High Court in Mahalaxmi Cotton Ginning Pressing and Oil Industries v The State of Maharashtra & Others (2012) 51 VST 1 (Bom.) (HC) (SLP dismissed by the Supreme Court) dealing with set off under section 48(5) and 51(7) of the Maharashtra Value Added Tax Act, 2002. Issue before the court was when dealer collects the taxes and does not deposit it in the Government Treasury, can the purchased be entitled to set off of the said taxes. Validity of the provision was challenged. Upholding the validity of the provision the court held that .Section 48(5) uses the expression “actually paid” in to the Government treasury. The words “actually paid” must receive their ordinary and natural meaning. There is no reason for the court to depart from the plain and ordinary meaning of these words when used in the context of section 48(5). To accept the contention that “actually paid…in the Government Treasury” should be read to mean the tax that ought t
Post a Comment
Read more