NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court on Tuesday demanded to know whether citizens could seek government entitlements, while simultaneously insisting on retaining their anonymity at the end of a day-long debate on the compulsory scheme that opponents argued cannot be made a condition precedent for enjoying fundamental rights such as right to food and health or education.“You are saying that preservation of anonymity is part of Article 21 (fundamental right to life and liberty). The question is whether sustaining this anonymity would run counter to entitlements under Chapter IV (enshrining directive principles of state policy),” CJI Dipak Misra asked the two arguing senior advocates who argued against Aadhaar.A five-judge bench led by CJI is hearing a slew of petitions challenging the constitutional validity of the Aadhaar Act . Sibal argued that Aadhaar was unreasonable in more ways than one. It was procedurally unreasonable as it leaves the citizens with no choice on how to identify himself. “Proof of identity is my choice, not the states’ choice.”Sibal said he was not opposed to identity cards per se, but those must not insist on the citizens’ metadata which leaves him vulnerable. He said that he had no opposition to any identity as long as it involves scattered personal data, not aggregated, centralised data, which tilts the power of balance in the state’s favour. He said that he would have no problems with Aadhaar if it was used to limited purposes such as for national security, for controlling crime, for ensuring social security or for collecting revenue.“Identity was in a sense a pejorative word as it takes away dignity,” he said. The CJI and Justice DY Chandrachud were not too convinced and wondered whether a person could insist on anonymity while seeking such entitlements from the state.The arguments in the case will continue on Thursday.