Madhewoo (Appellant) v The State of Mauritius and another (Respondents)

Published: 31/Oct/2016
Source: Judicial Committee of the Privy Council (UK)

[2016] UKPC 30
Privy Council Appeal No 0006 of 2016

1.   The National Identity Card Act 1985 (“the 1985 Act”) provides for adult citizens of Mauritius to carry identity cards which bear their names and signatures. More recently, the government proposed to introduce a new smart identity card, which incorporates on a chip the citizen’s fingerprints and other biometric information relating to his or her external characteristics. The National Identity Card (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 2013 (“the 2013 Act”) is the legislative vehicle which was enacted for this scheme, which it effected by amending the 1985 Act.

2.  Mr Maharajah Madhewoo (“the appellant”), a citizen of the Republic of Mauritius, has not applied for a biometric identity card. He challenges the constitutionality of the 2013 Act by seeking redress under section 17 of the Constitution, which allows a person to apply to the Supreme Court for redress if he alleges that any of sections 3 to 16 of the Constitution, which set out the individual’s fundamental rights and freedoms, “has been, is being or is likely to be contravened in relation to him”.

Read complete judgement : http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKPC/2016/30.html

 

Themes: ID Documents and Passports
Regions: Mauritius
Year: 2016