Part 1 of this series included arguments by the petitioners challenging the linking of Aadhaar to the PAN card, thereby making it mandatory for all taxpayers to get an Aadhaar number. Making Aadhaar mandatory is in violation of Supreme Court orders, which limited the number of welfare services for which Aadhaar can be made mandatory. The government has since passed the Aadhaar Act as a money bill, thereby bypassing a Rajya Sabha. The PAN amendment is Section 139AA of the Income Tax Act, passed along with the Finance Bill earlier this year. The first petition was filed by CPI Leader Binoy Viswam, who is represented by Senior Advocate Aravind Datar, and the second one was filed by Sudhir Vombatkere and Bezwada Wilson, who are represented by Senior Advocate Shyam Divan. Attorney General Mukul Rohatgi, Harish Salve, and others are representing for Union of India and UIDAI. In addition to this, in the absence of the attorney general, Arghya Sengupta of the Vidhi Centre for Legal Policy, a think tank which lists former Aadhaar head Nandan Nilekani's wife Rohini Nilekani as a patron, argued on behalf of the government of India. Zoheb Hossein, advocate, and a "non-resident expert" at Vidhi Centre for Legal Policy, argued on behalf of the UIDAI. * Notes from the discussions in the Supreme Court below, based on press releases (this and this) from the Rethink Aadhaar campaign, and interspersed with a slightly edited/paraphrased versions of tweets from lawyers Prasanna S* and Gautam Bhatia*. May 2nd 2017 The Attorney General, representing the…
