The question is a person

. It is the duty of court to protect the citizens of this country"."Even today, UIDAI website says that every citizen is entitled to voluntarily obtaining Aadhaar.During the arguments, which would continue tomorrow, the Centre said the Aadhaar Act was enacted in terms of the apex courts orders and Parliament has exercised its legislative powers for it.The govement said "Parliament has decided in its wisdom that you may have to do something which they (petitioner) do not want to do.He also argued that the way the govement was trying to make it mandatory, a person can be tracked and he would be under electronic surveillance throughout his life.

The govements decision to make Aadhaar mandatory for PAN number today came under sharp attack in the Supreme Court, with the antagonists asserting that the move would "dilute civil liberties and dominate the citizens.Divan buttressed his arguments by referring to earlier orders of apex court and said, "the Supreme Court has said it is voluntary.He argued that there was a "complete collision" between the Aadhaar Act and section 139AA of the Income Tax Act, which provides for mandatory quoting of Aadhaar or enrolment ID of Aadhaar application form for filing of income tax retus and making application for allotment of PAN number with effect from July 1 this year."State has a right to ask for information and state does it also. We caot impart on the conception of privacy prevailing in different parts of the world," it said.The govement also said that leakage of information was never from the UIDAI database where the biometric information is stored. There could be many things which could be objected to but the law caot be said to be discriminatory". Whether he can say that I will pay tax in the maer I want," the bench asked.During the hearing, the Centre maintained its stand saying section 139AA was enacted by Parliament to ensure that fake PAN cards are weeded out of the system and Aadhaar was the "most effective" way to do it.Divan also argued that the enrollers who are collecting data and biometrics for Aadhaar were private parties and there was serious issue of misuse or leakage of data.When the govement opposed the contentions advanced by petitioners, the bench put a poser to the parties and asked whether a person can say that he would pay tax in a maer in which he or she wants.Arguing that the enrollers of Aadhaar who are collecting data and biometrics from citizens were private parties and there was serious threat of misuse or leakage of data, senior advocate Shyam Divan said "there are cases where such information have been commercially sold.

The question is a person is ready to pay tax."Instrumentalities of state does not defraud the public."There are cases where such informations have been commercially sold. UIDAI has given the correct interpretation, that is, Aadhaar is voluntary..The Centre had yesterday said that Aadhaar was made mandatory for PAN card to weed out fake PAN cards which were used for terror financing and circulation of black money, while terming the conces over privacy as "bogus". The authority, which is the creature of the Aadhaar Act, is saying it is voluntary," senior advocate Shyam Divan told the bench.

The bench, however, said it would not go into the aspect of privacy as the issue would be dealt with by a constitution bench."If we fail here, there is tremendous possibility that state will dilute civil liberties and dominate its citizens.""If we fail here, there is tremendous possibility that state will dilute civil liberties and dominate its citizens. The language of the statute and understanding of UIDAI is clear."Contending that an Aadhaar-like system has not been implemented in any country China finger sprayer Factory which calls itself democratic, the opponents also said a person can be tracked and remain under electronic survelliance throughout his life.The concept of civil liberties will go then," he said. Aadhaar is entirely voluntary," he said, adding that the application form for Aadhaar enrollment also says it is voluntary.Divan countered the Centres arguments and said Aadhaar-like system has not been implemented in "any other country which calls itself democratic. They caot argue contrary to what is there in the statute enacted by Parliament," he said, adding, "there are no coercive proceedings in the Aadhaar Act and there are no penalties for not obtaining Aadhaar"."It will destroy social and political choices. The law says life and body is paramount and if the finger prints of an individual are stolen, it might end his identity.The counsel, who was representing two of the three petitioners who have challenged the govements decision, told the court that Attoey General Mukul Rohatgi had contended that Aadhaar was "mandatory". This is the worst thing," he said and added that a person caot be compelled to part away with his biometrics to obtain Aadhaar."In a tax regime, you caot say that I will not pay tax.The idea behind bringing Aadhaar was to have a "secure and robust system" to ensure that the identity of a person caot be faked, it had said.The apex court was hearing three petitions challenging the constitutional validity of Section 139AA of the Income Tax Act which was introduced through the latest budget and the Finance Act 2017."Absence of any coercive provision in the Act regarding securing Aadhaar is an important factor and it shows that it is not mandatory but voluntary," Divan said.""

The govement caot say that Aadhaar is mandatory. The law says life and body is paramount and if the finger prints of an individual are stolen, it might end his identity," he said, adding that even before the AadhaarAct came into force, around 100 crore Aadhaar cards were issued in the country.He said that the "creature" of the Aadhaar Act, that is the Unique Identification Authority of India (UIDAI) which is responsible for its enrolment and authentication including operation and management, has repeatedly said that every citizen of India was entitled to obtain it "voluntarily".To this, the bench asked, "they (petitioners) are saying that why to follow this law which according to them is invalid".The concept of civil liberties will go then," he told a bench comprising Justices A K Sikri and Ashok Bhushan.They said the step was in "complete collision" with the norms laid down by its statutory arm UIDAI which clearly states that Aadhaar is "voluntary".