The excessive court docket listed the matter for additional listening to on October 22 (Representational)
New Delhi:
Google India Digital Companies Pvt Ltd on Monday informed the Delhi Excessive Court docket that it has no entry to the Aadhaar database and doesn’t require any such info for working its Google Pay (GPay) cellular app.
The submission was made in a further affidavit positioned earlier than a bench of Chief Justice DN Patel and Justice Prateek Jalan by Google in response to an allegation, in an ongoing public curiosity litigation, that the Nationwide Cost Company of India (NPCI) granted GPay entry to the BHIM Aadhaar platform with out data of the Distinctive Identification Authority of India (UIDAI).
“The Respondent 2 (GPay) is completely unconnected to BHIM AADHAAR which is a separate product.
“It’s additional submitted that Google Pay doesn’t require person”s Aadhar particulars, in any method in any way and due to this fact, neither does it require to entry the Aadhaar database nor does it have entry to the Aadhaar database,” Google has stated in its affidavit.
The allegation, in keeping with Google’s affidavit, was made by monetary economist Abhijit Mishra within the rejoinder filed by him in his PIL claiming that GPay was facilitating monetary transactions with out the requisite authorisation from RBI.
The rejoinder by Mr Mishra was filed in response to the affidavit filed by the Reserve Financial institution of India (RBI) in his petition.
RBI in its affidavit had contended that GPay was a 3rd occasion app supplier (TPAP) and doesn’t function any cost programs.
Due to this fact, its operations are usually not in violation of the Cost and Settlement System Act of 2007, RBI had stated.
Google had earlier filed an affidavit in response to the PIL and had acknowledged therein that its GPay app doesn’t require RBI authorisation as it’s not a cost system operator (PSO) however a 3rd occasion software supplier.
Mr Mishra, within the petition filed by way of advocate Payal Bahl, has claimed that GPay was performing as a funds system supplier in violation of the Funds and Settlements Act because it has no legitimate authorisation from the central financial institution of the nation to hold out such capabilities.
The excessive court docket listed the matter for additional listening to on October 22.
Source link
