The Centre on Wednesday told the Supreme Court that Right to Privacy is not a fundamental right under the Constitution, and that it cannot be invoked to scrap the Aadhaar scheme.

A day after it told the apex court that it would be too late to scrap Aadhar -- envisaged as a database of citizens with unique ID numbers -- the Centre said that a "fool proof" system would be in place for the implementation of this welfare programme.

"Right to Privacy is not a fundamental right under our Constitution. It flows from one right to another right. Constitution makers did not intend to make Right to Privacy a fundamental right.

"There is no fundamental right to privacy so these petitions under Article 32 should be dismissed," Attorney General Mukul Rohatgi submitted before a bench headed by Justice J Chelameswar which during the course of hearing said, "We are inclined to refer it to the larger Constitution bench".

Rohatgi was countering the contention that the scheme of Aadhaar based on collecting personal data violates the citizens right to privacy.

"What is the contour and what is the interplay of various rights required to be ascertained," he said, adding that "Right to Privacy is not absolute and is subject to restrictions."



The Attorney General said the plea for scrapping the Aadhar scheme on the ground there is violation of the right to privacy cannot be allowed.

The AG said the question of any violation of right to privacy does not arise when it is not there and asked the court to refer the case to a five-judge Constitution bench to decide whether Right to Privacy can be declared a fundamental right.

"We are formulating a fool proof system," he submitted before the bench, also comprising Justice S A Bobde and C Nagappan, which asked "would a person bargain his fundamental right to privacy to get a fundamental right of food".

"If a court comes to the conclusion that the right to privacy is a fundamental right then you cannot waive it," the bench observed while the Attorney General said if such issues are arising in the matter then "why can't it be referred to a larger bench".

Rohatgi said there is a "clear divergence of opinion" on the Right to Privacy and "a classic case of unclear position of law".

Further, he said the makers of Constitution also did not intend to make it a right and referred to apex court's judgements in this regard.

The court was hearing a batch of pleas against decisions of some states to make Aadhaar cards compulsory for a range of activities including salary, PF disbursements and marriage and property registration.