Justice K.S.Puttaswamy(Retd) vs Union Of India on 26 September, 2018 (b) Metabase relating to transaction, as provided in Regulation 26 of the aforesaid Regulations in the present form, is held to be impermissible, which needs suitable amendment. (c) Section 33 of the Aadhaar Act is read down by clarifying that an individual, whose information is sought to be released, shall be afforded an opportunity of hearing. (d) Insofar as Section 33(2) of the Act in the present form is concerned, the same is struck down. (e) That portion of Section 57 of the Aadhaar Act which enables body corporate and individual to seek authentication is held to be unconstitutional. (f) We have also impressed upon the respondents, as the discussion hereinafter would reveal, to bring out a robust data protection regime in the form of an enactment on the basis of Justice B.N. Srikrishna (Retd.) Committee Report with necessary modifications thereto as may be deemed appropriate. 220) With the removal of the aforesaid provisions from the statute and the Rules, coupled with the statement of the Authority on affidavit that there is no record of any transactions carried out by the individuals which is even known (and, therefore, no question of the same being retained by the Authority), most of the apprehensions of the petitioners are taken care of. At the same time, we may remind ourselves of the judgment in G. Sundarrajan v. Union of India & Ors.78. In that case, the Court noted the safety and security risk in the setting up of the nuclear power plant in the backdrop of Fukushima disaster and Bhopal Gas tragedy. Yet, keeping in view the importance of generation of nuclear energy, the Court observed that a balance should be struck between production of nuclear energy which was of extreme importance for the economic growth, alleviation of poverty, generation of employment, and the smaller violation to 78 (2013) 6 SCC 620 right to life under Article 21. It took note of the opinion of experts committee and observed that adequate safety measure have been taken. It noted huge expenditure of money running into crores and observed apprehension however legitimate it may be, cannot override the justification of the project. Nobody on this earth can predict what would happen in future and to a larger extent we have to leave it to the destiny. But once the justification test is satisfied, the apprehension test is bound to fail. Apprehension is something we anticipate with anxiety or fear, a fearful anticipation, which may vary from person to person. The Court also held that nuclear power plant is being established not to negate right to life but to protect the right to life guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution. No doubt, the Court took a view that this interest of people needed to be respected for their human dignity which was divinity. However, it was also stressed that generation of nuclear energy was a nuclear necessity and the project was for larger public benefit and consequently, individual interest or smaller public interest must yield. In such a situation, necessity for adequate care, caution, and monitoring at every stage and constant vigil was emphasised. Safety and security was read into Article 21. Acknowledging that proportionality of risk may not be zero, regard being had to the natures unpredictability, the Court ruled that all efforts must be made to avoid disaster by observing the highest degree of constant alertness. In the directions of the Court, it was observed that maintaining safety is an ongoing process not only at the design level but also during the operation. In the present case as well, we have come to the conclusion that Aadhaar Act is a beneficial legislation which is Indian Kanoon - http://indiankanoon.org/doc/127517806/ 146