The Delhi High Court on September 30 sought responses from the Centre and oil marketing companies on a public interest petition challenging the mandatory biometric Aadhaar authentication requirement for domestic LPG consumers seeking refills at the regulated price.
A Division Bench comprising Chief Justice Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya and Justice Tejas Karia heard the plea filed by advocate Pulkit Luthra, who has a certified 75% visual disability.
During the hearing, the Bench raised a concern over consumers who may not possess Aadhaar, observing,
“Everybody doesn’t have Aadhaar in this country, but they too are consuming LPG.”
Background
The petition challenges the Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas' September 17 communication to oil marketing companies and the subsequent September 19 press release concerning biometric Aadhaar authentication for domestic LPG consumers.
The petitioner has contended that consumers who are unable or unwilling to complete the authentication process could face restrictions on obtaining LPG at the regulated price. According to the plea, such consumers may instead be offered 5 kg or 10 kg cylinders at market prices, subject to availability.
Luthra has argued that this does not provide an adequate alternative because consumers may effectively lose access to the standard 14.2 kg domestic LPG cylinder at the regulated price.
The petition also refers to government data indicating that approximately 3.16 crore domestic LPG consumers had not completed biometric authentication as of September 14.
The petitioner has particularly challenged the requirement on the ground that biometric authentication can create difficulties for persons with disabilities, elderly consumers and others who may face persistent biometric failure.
Luthra has referred to his own visual disability and submitted that iris authentication, which requires the user to keep the eyes open and blink, can create substantial difficulties for persons with visual impairments.
The plea states,
“The Petitioner submits that no clear, uniform and readily-accessible fallback mechanism has been prescribed for consumers in cases of persistent biometric failure. The purported alternative channels do not, by themselves, constitute an alternative means of identification where the underlying requirement remains successful biometric authentication.”
The petitioner has argued that the directions are arbitrary and disproportionate and affect rights protected under Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution. He has also relied upon the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016.
Another challenge concerns Section 7 of the Aadhaar Act, 2016. The plea contends that the provision does not authorise biometric authentication to be imposed as a mandatory condition for obtaining domestic LPG at the regulated price.
The petitioner has further relied upon the Supreme Court's decision in K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India, arguing that mandatory Aadhaar authentication involves an intrusion into privacy and therefore requires legal authority.
After hearing the petition, the Delhi High Court sought responses from the Central Government and the concerned oil marketing companies.
The Division Bench will consider the matter further on October 5.
