Bank Account Archives

Delhi High Court grants ad-interim injunction in favour of INDIAMART against fraudulent website offering work from home data entry jobs

Delhi High Court: In a suit filed by Indiamart Intermesh Limited (‘plaintiff’) seeking permanent injunction against fraudulent website https://india-mart.co/ registered by Sameer Samim Khan (‘defendant’) for luring gullible persons and offering them ‘work from home’ jobs under the ‘India Mart’s Data Entry Project’, Prathiba M Singh J., granted ex parte ad interim injunction observing that if the activities of Defendant 1 are not nipped in the bud, irreparable injury would be caused not only to the Plaintiff, but also to the public at large that may be deceived by the fraudulent activities of Defendant 1.

The Plaintiff had coined and adopted the mark / name ‘INDIAMART’ in the year 1996 and registered the domain name www.indiamart.com way back on 8-03-1996. The said mark is also the permanent feature of its corporate name. It is a business to business (B2B) portal providing an internet-based marketplace / platform with free and paid listings for promotion of industry, products and services. The said platform operates as an interactive platform between buyers and sellers. The Plaintiff also has various ‘INDIAMART’ domain names registered under several extensions such as www.indiamart.com, www.indiamart.co.in, www.indiamart.ind.in and www.indiamart.net.in.

The Plaintiff is aggrieved by Defendant 1’s registration (as on 07-08-2022) of the impugned domain name- https://india-mart.co/ by registrar GO DADDY LLP which has protected details for privacy. The suit was filed against the defendant for illegal and unauthorized adoption and use of the Plaintiff’s trademark/logo/devices for the purposes of deceiving and duping the general public and trade by misrepresenting himself as the Plaintiff/ Plaintiff’s representative.

The picture of impugned website

It is pertinent to note that Defendant 1 is operating the above website from the said domain name where it features the photographs of Plaintiff’s promoters and also gives the details of the Plaintiff’s address- IndiaMart Intermesh Limited 1st Floor, 29-Daryaganj, Netaji Subhash Marg, New Delhi- 110002 and for the purpose of luring customers for such vacancies is also offering various plans which can be availed by anyone after payment of application fees of Rs. 899/- and 1199/-.

On certain enquiries made by the plaintiff, as claimed, it was also found out that on some of the openly available telephone directories such as Truecaller, the details of Defendant 1 consist in fact of the logo, name, and address of the Plaintiff.

The Court noted that it is clear that Defendant 1 is completely passing off and indulging in fraudulent activity by showcasing himself as the Plaintiff/ Plaintiff’s representative and collecting various sums of money by allegedly offering job opportunities. The website leaves no doubt in the mind of the Court that the entire business of Defendant 1 is mala fide, dishonest and illegal and also, contrary to law.

The Court thus restrained defendant 1 from using the mark / name / domain name ‘INDIAMART’ which is identical or confusingly / deceptively similar to the Plaintiff’s mark ‘INDIAMART’ till the next date of hearing.

The Court directed MeitY/DoT to issue blocking orders within 24 hours of the receipt of the present order and GO DADDY LLP to lock and suspend the impugned domain name.

It further directed defendant 3 to provide records to Mr. Raman Lamba, ACP, Cyber Crime Unit, Delhi Police to investigate regarding the person who has registered the domain name and as to whether the said person has requested for ‘privacy protect feature’ or was the same given by GoDaddy on its own as well as the details of payment received by GoDaddy from Registrant- Defendant 1 and whether any further services are being offered to the Defendant 1 by GoDaddy.

As per records submitted before the Court, the details of the bank account for remitting duped money as ‘application fee’ appears to be in Union Bank of India, the counsel for the bank assured the Court that the bank account shall be immediately frozen. The Court has further asked the bank to submit whatever details they possess and can be possibly derived from the bank account.

The matter is next listed for 27-09-2022.

[Indiamart Intermesh Limited v. Sameer Samim Khan, CS (Comm) 631 of 2022, decided on 13-09-2022]

Advocates who appeared in this case :

Mr. Sidharth Chopra, Mr. Nitin Sharma, Ms. Deepika, Mr. Naman Tandon and Mr. Yatinder Garg, Advocates, for the plaintiff;

Ms. Nazia Praveen, Advocate for Mr. Sanjeev Sagar, Standing Counsel for Union Bank of India Ms. Hetu Arora Sethi, Advocate for Delhi Police. Mr. Raman Lamba, IFSO, Special Cell, Delhi Police, Advocates, for the defendant.

*Arunima Bose, Editorial Assistant has put this report together.

Case Briefs Tribunals/Commissions/Regulatory Bodies

Whether a typographical error in mentioning a bank account number can have adverse impact on income tax assessment? ITAT deliberates

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Visakhapatnam: While deciding the instant appeal by the Revenue against the Order by CIT (A) deleting the additions made by the Assessing Officer vis-a-vis the assessee’s unexplained bank cash deposits; the coram of Duvvuru R.L. Reddy (Judicial Member) and S. Balakrishnan (Accountant Member), held that a mere typographical error in mentioning the bank account number does not mean that the assessee has not disclosed proper information about the bank account details.

Facts of the case: The instant appeal concerned the Assessment Year of 2017-18. The assessee is an automobile dealer who made substantial cash deposits during the demonetisation period. Consequently, a notice U/s. 142(1) of the Income Tax Act (hereinafter the Act). Since the assessee did not respond, a letter was issued calling for information. The bank concerned was also issued a notice U/s. 133(6) requesting to furnish the account(s) statement and the KYC particulars of the assessee. A final show cause notice U/s. 142(1) of the Act was issued on 19-9-2019.

Based on the cash deposits made by the assessee for Rs. 71,41,540, the Assessing Officer (hereinafter A.O.) assessed that these deposits are unexplained U/s. 69A of the Act and completed the assessment. The A.O. noted the existence of assessee’s two Permanent Account Numbers, and that the assessee has not disclosed the bank account with Axis Bank, Lakshmipuram Branch. The A.O. also perused Form-26AS available with one of the PAN accounts and added an income of Rs. 1,24,362 as amounts received from various parties. Since the assessee did not submit any details, the A.O. passed the order U/s. 144 of the Act.

The assessee appealed A.O.’s order before CIT(A), Guntur, who then deleted the additions made by the AO and allowed the appeal.

Contentions: The Revenue (appellant) contended that CIT(A) failed to appreciate the fact that certain submissions/additional evidence produced by the assessee before the CIT(A), were never produced /submitted by assessee before the A.O. during the assessment proceedings. It was contended that assessee did not substantiate its claim regarding cash deposits appearing in Axis Bank account in respect of which addition of Rs. 71,41,540 was made towards unexplained money u/s. 69A of the Act.

Per- contra, the assessee (respondent) contended that the assessee wrongly mentioned the bank account number while filing the balance sheet before the A.O. and has rightly disclosed the balance with the Axis Bank.

It was further submitted that the cash deposits of Rs. 71,41,540/- into the bank account was duly accounted in the cash book and out of which Rs. 64,63,713 was accounted for in the P & L Account under the head “Revenue from operations (gross)”. The balance amount of Rs. 6,77,827 was received from the customers towards registration charges, insurance etc. for vehicles; and to that extent it does not take the character of income; and is only a reimbursement of expenditure payable to various authorities for registration of the vehicle.

Observations and Decision: Perusing the facts and contentions presented by the parties the Tribunal pointed out certain contradictions in the A.O.’s Order. The Tribunal also found merit in the arguments made by the respondents wherein they submitted the cash deposits have been duly recorded in the books of account and reflected in the assessee’s P & L Account.

The coram also found merit in the respondent’s contentions in which they stated that the balance amount was received from the customers towards registration charges, insurance etc. for vehicles; therefore, the cash is collected from the customers as reimbursements and hence, it does not form part of the revenue of the assessee.

With the afore-stated observations, the Tribunal stated that it did not find any infirmity with Order of deletion passed by the CIT(A). It was also held that the assessee while filing ITR-V, had disclosed all the required and relevant information concerning bank account numbers and PAN numbers.

[Income Tax Officer v. Sri Siddi Vinayaka Auto Mobiles, 2022 SCC OnLine ITAT 310, decided on 28-06-2022]

Advocates who appeared in this case :

Assessee by GVN Hari, Advocate

Revenue by SPG Mudaliar, Sr. AR

*Sucheta Sarkar, Editorial Assistant has prepared this brief

Case Briefs Tribunals/Commissions/Regulatory Bodies

CIC | Information re officers carrying out orders of Govt. can be redacted by CPIO under RTI Act: CIC in matter concerning Aadhar seeding with bank accounts

Central Information Commission (CIC): Suresh Chandra, (Commissioner) held that “Section 10 RTI Act reveals that the power of severing the information disclosable from the exempted one vest in the CPIO if this power is read as not vesting in him, it may render the very provision otiose.”

The facts of the instant case are that the appellant had filed an application under the Right to Information Act, 2005 before the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO), Reserve Bank of India seeking information regarding the following:

(a) Whether the RBI has made AADHAR seeding mandatory for opening and operating bank account. If yes, provide file with file noting where this decision was taken.

(b) Whether RBI was aware of decision on Supreme Court order dated 13th March, indefinitely extending the requirement of linking AADHAR till the Hon’ble Supreme Court pronounces the final judgment on the validity of AADHAR.

(c) Provide information on file with file noting where RBI has decided to be in contempt of the order of Supreme Court mentioned in point (b) above by issuing direction for linking of AADHAR.

Appellant requested the Commission to direct the CPIO to provide the information immediately and take the necessary action as per Section 20(1) of the RTI Act.

Appellant inter alia submitted that he had received the reply given by the CPIO however, the reply given on point no. (a) of the RTI application was incomplete. He stated that on point no. (a) he sought information as to whether RBI has made AADHAR seeding mandatory for opening and operating a bank account, if yes, provide a file with file noting where this decision was taken.

In the above regard, the respondent had provided a copy of the file noting as sought, however, they severed the names of the official(s) who made such proposal under Section 8 (1) (i) of the RTI Act. He contended that exemption claimed by the respondent was arbitrary and against the transparency law. He referred to clause (c) of sub-section (2) of Section 10 of the RTI Act which provides that when the access was granted to a part of the record under sub-section (1) of Section 10 of the RTI Act, the CPIO should have furnished the appellant the name and decision of the person giving the decisions. Hence, he requested the Commission to direct the respondent to provide the name of the person who had made such a proposal.

Analysis and Decision

Bench noted that the appellant’s main contention was with regard to the disclosure of the names of officials/Managers who initiated the note to amend KYC rules.

Though, initially, this information was denied by the respondent under Section 8 (1) (j) of the RTI Act, subsequently, in compliance of the order of the FAA, they provided copy of note sheet and blackened out the names of the officials on the ground of danger to the life, physical safety and personal threat being exempted under Section 8 (1) (g) of the RTI Act.

Commission further expressed that there have been several cases of the Supreme Court and High Courts wherein it has been laid down that the wisdom of public authority to claim exemption provided under the RTI Act may not be substituted unless found unreasonable or against the public interest.

Central Information Commission’s decision in Neeraj Sharma v. Reserve Bank of India, [CIC/RBIND/A/2017/167309], decided on 15-05-2019,

“The authorities have claimed exemption by virtue of the provisions under section 8(1) (a) and (d) of the RTI Act. The presumption that the legislature understands the needs of its people and that even its discrimination and classifications are based on adequate grounds has been acknowledged by the Supreme Court itself (in special reference No 1 of 2012,[(2012), 10 SCC 1]. The logic of balance exercise of judicial power has an assurance of institutional stability and re-organization of boundary of power is implicit in the Constitutional arrangement. It is contended that the failings of democracy and inadequacies of the democratic process cannot be invoked to negate the core of the democratic principle, namely that ultimate sovereignty vests in the people. Thus, arrangements of governance embodied in the Constitution resulting from the exercise of their free will cannot be used to deprive the ultimate masters of the right of final decision over their destiny. It is argued that “juridification of politics and politization of the judiciary” would be a loss for both the legislature and judiciary and that judiciary cannot act as a “censor of all governmental action”. There have been plethora of judicial orders highlighting the issue of restraint by judicial bodies in substituting their wisdom over those who have been assigned the function of implementation of Laws. The Commission after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case, hearing both the parties and perusal of records, feels that due reply has been given by the respondent. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.”

As regards the person who had written/initiated the note, is concerned, he was carrying out the orders of the Government of India or following the rules, and was not the approving authority. Even if he/they was/were approving the same, their names could be redacted/obliterated by the CPIO as per the provisions contained under of Section 10 (1) of the RTI Act.

Further, the Commission added that whenever the CPIO takes the decision to allow disclosure of information or withholding the part, he is supposed to mention his/her name and designation and in the instant case, if not disclosed, the same ay be disclosed immediately.

Section 10 RTI Act reveals that the power of severing the information disclosable from the exempted one vest in the CPIO, if this power is read as not vesting in him, it may render the very provision otiose.

In light of the above, in the instant case, the name and designation of the official referred to in clause (c) of sub-section (2) of Section 10 of the RTI Act, may be construed, unless rebutted, as the CPIO that communicates the decision to the appellant under the provisions of the RTI Act.

Commission observes that if it is presumed that the appellant was referring to the persons who initiated or approved that particular note as referred above, the same could be severed and thus denied and in the absence of larger public interest, the Commission does not feel it expedient or reasonable to substitute the wisdom of the CPIO.

While parting with the decisions, Commission stated that moreover, the appellant having received the note, having received the rules under which Aadhar was made mandatory, was not without remedy and it could not be said that there was no transparency. If name and designation of the CPIO who had taken the decision of severing as envisaged under Section 10, were not communicated, the same may be communicated to the appellant within 3 weeks from the date of receipt of this order.[Girish Mittal v. CPIO, RBI; 2021 SCC OnLine CIC 1; decided on 07-01-2021]

Case Briefs High Courts

Chh HC | Whether the ‘bank account’ falls within the term “property” under S. 102 (1) CrPC? HC elaborates in regard to the settled position of law

Chhattisgarh High Court: Sanjay K Agrawal J., dismissed the petition holding that bank account is considered as property within the meaning of Section 102(1) Criminal Procedure Code, 1973.

The facts of the case are such that the petitioner was working as a Patwari when a complaint was registered against him for offence punishable under Sections 13(1)(b) and 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 i.e. PCA consequent to which investigation was conducted and vide order dated 03-12-2020 the petitioner and his family members were restricted to make any transaction with the amount deposited prior to 24-02-2020. Being aggrieved, instant petition was filed in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to allow him and his son and daughter to operate their bank accounts as they are in need of money and in the absence thereof, they are unable to continue their day to day activities also alleging that Sections 102(2) and 102(3) of Criminal Procedure Code i.e. CrPC and provisions of Sections 17 and 18 of the Act of 1988 have not been complied with, therefore, appropriate direction be issued for de-freezing their accounts.

Counsel for the petitioners relied on judgment Teesta Atul Setalvad v. State of Gujarat, (2018) 2 SCC 372 and submitted that Section 102(3) of CrPC was not complied. It was further submitted that it is the hard-earned money of the petitioner and his son and daughter which has been deposited in their accounts which could not have been seized without making an inquiry under Section 102(1) of CrPC as it is a blatant violation of the human right of the petitioner as they are rendered helpless during these hard times of COVID-19.

Counsel for the respondents submitted that the petitioner has the remedy of making an application for de-freezing their bank accounts under Section 457 of the CrPC. Even otherwise, the provisions contained under Section 102(3) of CrPC, though belatedly, but have been complied with and the investigation by respondent 3 has been conducted strictly in accordance with the law.

The Court relied on judgments State of Maharashtra v. Tapas D. Neogy, (1999) 7 SCC 685 ; M.T. Enrica Lexie v. Doramma , 2012 CRI.L.J. 2845 wherein it was observed that it is quite vivid that for freezing the account under Section 102 of the CrPC, there is no need of prior notice to the account holder or to the accused or to the suspect for the purpose of investigation and the provisions contained in Section 102 (1), (2) and (3) of the CrPC have to be complied with for freezing the account and it can be freezed only when it is the property alleged to be stolen or suspected to have been stolen or would be object of crime under the investigation or has direct link with commission of offence for which the police officer is investigating into as it has been held by their Lordships of the Supreme Court in Tapas D. Neogy (supra) that the property not suspected for commission of offence which is being investigated by the police officer cannot be seized and similarly the provisions contained in Section 102 of the CrPC have also to be complied with forthwith by informing to the concerned Magistrate without any avoidable delay.

The Court thus held that based on the observations and aforementioned judgments that the bank account of the accused or any of his relation constitutes property within the meaning of Section 102 of CrPC and the police officer in the course of an investigation can seize the operation of the said account if such asset has a direct link with the commission of offence for which the police officer is investigating into. As such, the investigating officer is entitled to seize the operation of the bank accounts in accordance with Section 102(1) of CrPC. The petitioner was also directed to avail the remedy available to him under Section 451/457 of CrPC and file an application for de-freezing his bank accounts before the Special Judge (PC Act), Durg.

In view of the above, the petition was disposed of.[Ram Naresh Tiwari v. State of Chhattisgarh, 2020 SCC OnLine Chh 1185, decided on 14-12-2020]

Arunima Bose, Editorial Assistant has put this story together

Business News News

RBI | Introduction of a new type of semi-closed Prepaid Payment Instrument (PPI)

Introduction of a new type of semi-closed Prepaid Payment Instrument (PPI) – PPIs upto Rs 10,000 with loading only from bank account

To give impetus to small value digital payments and for enhanced user experience, it has been decided to introduce a new type of semi-closed PPI with the following features:

Such PPIs shall be issued by the bank and non-bank PPI Issuers after obtaining the minimum details of the PPI holder.
The minimum details shall necessarily include a mobile number verified with One Time Pin (OTP) and a self-declaration of name and unique identity/identification number of any ‘mandatory document’ or ‘officially valid document’ (OVD) listed in the ‘Master Direction – Know Your Customer (KYC) Direction, 2016’ issued by Department of Regulation, Reserve Bank of India, as amended from time to time.
These PPIs shall be reloadable in nature and issued in card or electronic form. Loading / Reloading shall be only from a bank account.
The amount loaded in such PPIs during any month shall not exceed Rs 10,000 and the total amount loaded during the financial year shall not exceed Rs 1,20,000.
The amount outstanding at any point of time in such PPIs shall not exceed Rs 10,000.
These PPIs shall be used only for the purchase of goods and services and not for funds transfer.
PPI issuers shall provide an option to close the PPI at any time and also allow to transfer the funds ‘back to source’ (payment source from where the PPI was loaded) at the time of closure.
The features of such PPIs shall be clearly communicated to the PPI holder by SMS / e-mail/post or by any other means at the time of issuance of the PPI / before the first loading of funds.
The minimum detail PPIs existing as on the date of this circular can be converted to the above type of PPI if desired by the PPI holder.

The PPI-MD is being modified to introduce this new type of PPI. The other instructions contained in the PPI-MD will be applicable to this type of PPI also.

Reserve Bank of India

[Press Release dt. 24-12-2019]

Case Briefs High Courts

HP HC | In order to do complete justice, Court gives litigation a quietus

Himachal Pradesh High Court: The Bench of Tarlok Singh Chauhan, J., allowed a revision petition to set aside the conviction and sentence imposed on the petitioner considering the compromise reached in the matter.

The present case was jointly represented by the parties stating that the entire compensation has been paid to the respondent/complainant. And thus the counsel for the petitioner prayed that the case be compounded as has been done previously in a catena of judgments, primarily in Bhangu Trading Co. v. Surjit Singh, Crl. (A) No. 808 and 809 of 2018.

The Court while taking into consideration all the attending facts and circumstances and relying on the law laid down in the referred case, held that “for doing complete justice, the whole litigation should be given a quietus”. The Court also directed the amount lying in this Court or any other Court to be released in favour of the respondent/complainant on furnishing its bank account before the concerned Court.[Jagdish Kumar v. Golf Link Finance & Resorts (P) Ltd., 2019 SCC OnLine HP 225, decided on 01-03-2019]

Case Briefs Supreme Court

Aadhaar Act, 2016 constitutional not violative of right to privacy; linking of Aadhaar with mobile phone number, bank account not mandatory: SC

Supreme Court: In a 1448-pages detailed judgment, the 5- Judge Bench comprising of CJ Dipak Misra and A.K. Sikri, A.M. Khanwilkar, Dr D.Y. Chandrachud and Ashok Bhushan, JJ., by a majority of 4:1, declared the Aadhaar (Targeted Delivery of Financial and Other Subsidies, Benefits and Services) Act, 2016 to be valid and not violative of the fundamental right to privacy. However, certain orders and/or circulars making the citing of Aadhaar number mandatory have been held unconstitutional and struck down. Justice Sikri delivered the leading opinion for CJ Dipak Misra and himself and A.M. Khanwilkar, J. While Justice Chandrachud delivered a dissenting opinion and Justice Bhushan also delivered a separate opinion in which he broadly agreed with A.K. Sikri, J.

The leading issue was whether Aadhaar Act violates the right to privacy? The Court, per majority, answered in the negative. Justice Sikri stated all matters pertaining to an individual do not qualify as being an inherent part of right to privacy. Only those matters over which there would be a reasonable expectation of privacy are protected by Article 21. The Aadhaar scheme is backed by the statute, i.e., the Aadhaar Act. It also serves legitimate State aim, which can be discerned from the Introduction to the Act as well as the Statement of Objects and Reasons which reflect that the aim in passing the Act was to ensure that social benefit schemes reach the deserving community. Aadhaar Act meets the test of proportionality. The inroads into the privacy rights where these individuals are made to part with their biometrics information, is minimal. It is coupled with the fact that there is no data collection on the movements of such individuals, when they avail benefits under Section 7 of the Act thereby ruling out the possibility of creating their profiles. The Aadhaar Act meets the test of balancing as well. As far as subsidies, services and benefits are concerned, their scope is not to be unduly expanded thereby widening the net of Aadhaar, where it is not permitted otherwise.

The salient points regarding constitutionality of the Aadhaar Act, 2016 and incidental issues are delineated hereinafter; also, the provisions, orders or circulars that have been struck down or read down or clarifies are mentioned:

A.K. Sikri, J. (for CJ Dipak Misra and himself and A.M. Khanwilkar, J.)

Adhar project does not create surveillance State; this is ensured by the manner in which the project operates. Security measures, as per the provisions of Section 29 (3) read Section 38 (g) as well as Regulation 17 (1)(d) of the Authentication Regulations, are strictly followed and adhered to.
Section 7 is the core provision of the Aadhaar Act and it satisfies the condition of Article 110 of the Constitution. Thus, the Aadhaar Act was validly passed as Money Bill.
Section 139-AA of the Income Tax Act, 1961 which mandates quoting of Aadhaar for filing IT Returns and applications for PAN is not violative of the right to privacy. It satisfies the test of permissible limits and therefore is not unconstitutional.
Rule 9 of the Prevention of Money Laundering (Maintenance of Records) Rules, 2005 which mandates linking of Aadhaar with bank accounts in its present form does not meet the test of proportionality, violates the right to privacy.

Circular dated 23 March 2017, mandating linking of Aadhaar with mobile number held to be illegal, unconstitutional and thereby was quashed.

Clarification of a few provisions:

Authentication records are not to be kept beyond period of six months.
Metabase relating to transaction held to be impermissible; needs amendment.
Section 33(1) read down; an individual whose information is sought to be released, shall be afforded an opportunity of hearing.
Section 57 partially unconstitutional insofar as it enables body corporate or individual to seek authentication.
Benefits and services as mentioned in Section 7 should be those which have the colour of same kind of subsidies etc., namely, welfare schemes of the Government whereby Government is doing out such benefits which are targeted at a particular deprived class. It would cover only those benefits etc. the expenditure whereof has to be drawn from the Consolidated Fund of India. On that basis, CBSE, NEET, JEE, UGC etc., cannot make the requirement of Aadhaar mandatory as they are outside the purview of Section 7 and are not backed by any law.
For enrollment of children under Aadhaar Act, it would be essential to have consent of their parents. On attaining majority, they would have the option to exit from the project.
Requirement of Aadhaar not to be mandatory for school admission of children as it is neither a service nor subsidy.

Dr D.Y. Chandrachud, J., gave a 23-points conclusion to the opinion wherein he dissented from the majority. In his opinion, the entire Aadhaar programme, since 2009, suffers from the constitutional infirmities and violations of fundamental rights. The enactment of the Aadhaar Act does not save the Aadhaar project. The Aadhaar Act, the Rules and Regulations framed under it, and the framework prior to the enactment of the Act are unconstitutional.

The opinion of Justice Chandrachud can be summarized in the following paragraph as stated by the dissenting Judge himself:

“Creating strong privacy protection laws and instilling safeguards may address or at the very least assuage some of the concerns associated with the Aadhar scheme which severely impairs informational self-determination, individual privacy, dignity and autonomy. In order to uphold the democratic values of the Constitution, the government needs to address the concerns highlighted in this judgment which would provide a strong foundation for digital initiatives, which are imminent in today’s digital age. However, in its current form, the Aadhaar framework does not sufficiently assuage the concerns that have arisen from the operation of the project…”

Ashok Bhushan J., divided the batch of cases into two parts, firstly, the challenge to Executive’s Scheme dated 28 January 2009 notified by the Government of India, by which the Unique Identification Authority of India was constituted to implement the UIDAI Scheme, and secondly, challenge to the Aadhaar Act, 2016. The learned Justice broadly agreed with the leading opinion of Justice Sikri. However, Rule 9 of the Prevention of Money Laundering (Maintenance of Records) Rules, 2005 which is struck down as violative of right to privacy by A.K. Sikri J., was upheld by Ashok Bhushan, J.

In view of the aforesaid discussion and observations, the writ petitions, transferred cases, special leave petition, contempt petitions and all the pending applications were accordingly disposed of. [K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India (Aadhaar-5 Judge), (2019) 1 SCC 1, decided on 26-09-2018]

Case Briefs Supreme Court

Not mandatory to link Aadhaar with Bank Accounts and Mobile Numbers till final disposal of the matter: SC [Full Report]

Supreme Court: After Senior Advocate Arvind Datar brought to the Court’s notice that the Passports (1st Amendment) Rules, 2018 has been introduced which makes Aadhaar mandatory for obtaining Passport under “Tatkal” Scheme, the 5-judge bench of Dipak Misra, CJ and Dr. AK Sikri, AM Khanwilkar, Dr. DY Chandrachud and Ashok Bhushan, JJ directed the deadline for linking Aadhaar with Bank Accounts and Mobile Numbers shall stand extended till the Aadhaar matter is finally heard and the judgment is pronounced. The Court also made clear that the said direction will also apply to the Tatkal Passport Scheme.

However, the Court accepted Attorney General KK Venugopal’s submissions that the benefits, subsidies and services covered under Section 7 of the The Aadhaar (Targeted Delivery of Financial and other Subsidies, Benefits and Services) Act, 2016 should remain undisturbed. Hence, the deadline for Aadhaar linkage for subsidies and scheme will remain unchanged i.e. 31.03.2018.

The said order of the Court came on Day 16 of the Aadhaar Hearing. [Justice KS Puttaswamy v. Union of India, Writ Petition (Civil) No. 494/2012, order dated 14.03.2018]

SCC Blog

Bank Account

Delhi High Court grants ad-interim injunction in favour of INDIAMART against fraudulent website offering work from home data entry jobs

Whether a typographical error in mentioning a bank account number can have adverse impact on income tax assessment? ITAT deliberates

CIC | Information re officers carrying out orders of Govt. can be redacted by CPIO under RTI Act: CIC in matter concerning Aadhar seeding with bank accounts

Analysis and Decision

Chh HC | Whether the ‘bank account’ falls within the term “property” under S. 102 (1) CrPC? HC elaborates in regard to the settled position of law

RBI | Introduction of a new type of semi-closed Prepaid Payment Instrument (PPI)

Introduction of a new type of semi-closed Prepaid Payment Instrument (PPI) – PPIs upto Rs 10,000 with loading only from bank account

HP HC | In order to do complete justice, Court gives litigation a quietus

Aadhaar Act, 2016 constitutional not violative of right to privacy; linking of Aadhaar with mobile phone number, bank account not mandatory: SC

Not mandatory to link Aadhaar with Bank Accounts and Mobile Numbers till final disposal of the matter: SC [Full Report]

Popular on scc online blog

Explained| Order 6 Rule 17 CPC: Doctrine of dominus litus for amendment of plaint

RTI on pay scales, gross pay, PF deduction and TDS| Unhappy with CPIO’s response, Central Information Commission allows inspection of records

Anomalous Position on “Adverse Possession” Settled

Dishonour of Cheque – S. 141 NI Act| Complainant only supposed to have general knowledge of person(s) in charge of company/firm; Burden on Director/Partner to prove their innocence: SC

Bar under Order II Rule 2 CPC cannot apply to an amendment sought on an existing suit; Supreme Court lays down Principles for Amendment of Pleadings

MOST COMMENTED

Delhi High Court | Mere signing documents in English does not mean the detenue has a working knowledge of English; detention order set aside

Supreme Court holds private school teachers entitled to gratuity; upholds Constitutional validity of Payment of Gratuity (Amendment) Act, 2009

Delhi High Court directs Government to ensure strict compliance of Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (Amendment) Rules, 2020 while transporting camels for Independence/Republic Day celebrations

Prateek Desai joins Khaitan & Co as Partner in New Delhi

Dr. M. V. V. S. Murthi 3rd National Virtual Moot Court Competition, 2022

Share this:

Share this:

Analysis and Decision

Share this:

Share this:

Introduction of a new type of semi-closed Prepaid Payment Instrument (PPI) – PPIs upto Rs 10,000 with loading only from bank account

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Popular on scc online blog

MOST COMMENTED