K. S. Puttaswamy (8 February 1926 – 28 October 2024) was an Indian judge of the Karnataka High Court who was also the original petitioner, challenging the Government of India over making Aadhaar mandatory.
On 26 January 1994, Andhra Pradesh Chief Minister Kotla Vijayabhaskara Reddy constituted the Backward Classes Commission under the Chairmanship of Justice K. S.
on 24 March 1986,[6] the petitioner urged that section 2(14)(iii) of the Act dealing with income "arising from sale of lands used for agricultural purposes" is outside the legislative competence of the centre as the subject is exclusively assigned to states either under Entry No.
In other words, the user of lands for agriculture or other purpose cannot and does not make any difference to decide the nature of the gains made on the transfer of the capital asset.
If at this stage, this Court were to decline to interfere, though there is no dispute on facts, the final determination of the question that arises is likely to take another decade" and proceeded to examine the merits.
In quashing the impugned order except to the extent of "building materials and stones" and issuing a writ in the nature of mandamus to the respondent to include all other items refused in that order in the certificate of registration already issued to the petitioner under the CST Act, Justice Puttaswamy noted "When I examine the claim made by the petitioner with reference to every one of the items for which it had registration, it is not possible to hold that they are not integrally connected with the ultimate production of goods.
Puttaswamy turned litigant[9] for the first time in his legal career, spanning five decades, when he petitioned the Supreme Court against the linking of state benefits to the UID scheme saying that much money has been wasted on the ‘dangerous’ project.
Arguing passionately that "It is a clear violation of citizens privacy and among various other reasons this program was rejected by the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Finance, but still the Government of India went ahead with it.
In the course of investigation, all the affected parties, the environmentalists and the general public must be involved and their views and objections duly considered by the experts and decided on merit and not on any collateral considerations.
Justice Puttaswamy wrote that he asked a leading Swiss expert on dams, Raymond Lafitte, when he was visiting New Delhi, what his view was on China’s Three Gorges Project.
[21] Raymond Lafitte thought for a while and said that it was a most laudable venture because after just two decades it would take to build, commission and operate, 50 million people downstream would be able to cultivate their lands without flooding and be assured of regular releases.
When Justice Puttaswamy questioned ‘what about the over one million people that have been deprived of their homes and have to be resettled elsewhere on account of this mega project?’, he replied ‘That is the price we must pay for future progress!’.
In response, Justice Puttaswamy told the Swiss expert that "the Three Gorges Project – beneficial as it is in the long run – can never be a possibility in India, under a democracy based on individual rights and freedoms."
He observed that this topic is of utmost importance and aspired to generate a useful discussion leading to a public demand for the implementation of interlinking of rivers which will benefit the people of India as a whole.