The Bombay HC refused relief to a Mumbai resident who insisted on not getting an Aadhaar card for himself and his son for college admissions.

The court first suggested the petitioner, an Andheri resident, gets enrolled for Aadhaar and in the meanwhile, it would ask his son’s college to keep a seat vacant. But the petitioner refused, citing a 2015 Supreme Court order that said Aadhaar is a voluntary decision.

The SC order had said authorities cannot deny benefits to a citizen only because he does not have an Aadhaar card.

The HC bench of justice BR Gavai and justice Riyaz Chagla, however, said the petitioner was being adamant merely for the sake of argument. “We fail to understand the instance of not obtaining the Aadhaar card. It appears the petitioner is adamant and wants to take a stand only for the purpose of adamancy. We are therefore not inclined to grant interim relief,” the bench said.

The man, in his plea filed through senior counsel Mihir Desai and advocate Swaraj Jadhav, said his 17-year-old son completed Class 11 from St Xaviers College. But although he had secured the requisite marks and met all other requirements for readmission to Class 12, the college refused it as he and his parents could not give them their Aadhaar details.

READ: Those without Aadhaar won’t be deprived of social benefits till next hearing: SC

When the petitioner cited the SC order to the college authorities, they pointed to an April 2015 Maharashtra government resolution making Aadhaar mandatory for college admissions. But the petitioner said while the state resolution directed educational institutes to conduct Aadhaar registration drives for students, it did not make Aadhaar a binding requirement for admission or readmission.

The petitioner argued that the college’s decision to make Aadhaar mandatory went against the SC order.

The petitioner argued that his son, “who otherwise was meritorious and eligible,” was being refused an “opportunity of being educated”.

He said the college authorities were breaching his son’s “fundamental right to lead his life with respect and dignity”. With no relief from the HC, the petitioner is likely to challenge the decision in the SC.

.