4726 - Voluntarily mandatory - The Hindu

Voluntarily mandatory

OPINION » EDITORIAL

September 30, 2013

The Supreme Court’s interim order making it clear that no person should be disadvantaged because she does not possess an ‘Aadhaar’ card may appear to address the basic question in the average citizen’s mind as to whether this card is mandatory or voluntary. In reality, there is no doubt about its voluntary  nature. At the same time, registration of citizens is indeed mandatory. It is a sign of the confusion that marks governance in the country that there is lack of conceptual clarity among the people about what Aadhaar is, how it is related to the population register and whether having a number is essential to receive benefits, subsidies and entitlements. To put matters in perspective, Aadhaar is a number, not a card, given by the Unique Identification Authority of India. The long queues that one sees in the neighbourhood for enrolment and capture of photographs and biometric data are meant for the National Population Register administered by the Registrar-General and Census Commissioner of India. The NPR data is sent to the UIDAI for generation of Aadhar numbers, and, if one already has such a number given earlier by UIDAI, it is ‘de-duplicated’. Enrolment in the NPR is mandatory under the Citizenship Act, whereas getting an Aadhaar number is voluntary.

Some authorities have done great mischief by linking delivery of services and transfers to the possession of an Aadhaar number; for example, the subsidy for cooking gas cylinders will be available only to those who have linked their Aadhaar numbers with their bank accounts and gas agencies. This has caused understandable alarm. The issues before the Supreme Court pertain to the UIDAI scheme and not to the NPR, although the legality of taking biometrics, a feature of the Register, is also under challenge. There are serious questions concerning the possible invasion of privacy when one parts with personal information and images of irises and fingerprints, especially in an era of transnational snooping and digital crime. Further, the present legal framework provides only for taking photographs but not biometric data. Linking the Aadhaar number to benefits and services is also causing great hardship. Some contend that unverified allotment of Aadhaar numbers poses a threat to national security, and the Supreme Court now wants to ensure that immigrants lacking proper documents do not get them. But insistence on documentary proof from the poor and homeless may lead to denial of benefits to a significant segment of the population. The ongoing case gives the country an opportunity to revisit its entire policy on identification and registration so that the twin objectives of knowing who a citizen is and ensuring effective delivery of services are not undermined.

4725 - ‘Aadhaar infringes on our fundamental right to privacy’ - The Hindu

‘Aadhaar infringes on our fundamental right to privacy’

DEEPA KURUP September 30, 2013

K.S. Puttaswamy - The Hindu

Former Justice K.S. Puttaswamy, who went to court against the linking of state benefits to the UID scheme, says much money has been wasted on the ‘dangerous’ project

The Supreme Court order restraining the linking of services and benefits to the 12-digit Aadhaar number has placed in doubt ambitious plans by the Centre and several State governments to make the ‘voluntary’ Aadhaar scheme mandatory for access to services and subsidies. The order was passed on a writ petition by retired justice of the Karnataka High Court K.S. Puttaswamy, along with two other petitions referred from the Bombay and Madras High Courts. In an interview with The Hindu in Bangalore a day after the Supreme Court verdict, the 88-year-old judge-turned-litigant said this was the first time in his legal career, spanning five decades, that he felt the need to petition the courts. 

Excerpts:

Why did you choose to move the courts on this issue?

The way the government has gone about implementing this project is odd and illegal. In 2011 [over a year after Aadhaar enrolments commenced in the country] the Parliament’s Standing Committee on Finance rejected the National Identification Authority of India Bill, 2010, on several grounds. Yet, the government did not attempt to modify the Bill and bring it back for parliamentary approval. It is not constitutional to simply proceed using an executive order to implement a scheme that has been rejected in this fashion.

What is your fundamental opposition to this project?

Apart from the fact that it does not have Parliament’s approval, the project infringes upon our right to privacy, which flows from Article 21 that deals with the fundamental right to life. We are required to part with biometric information, iris and fingerprints, and there is no system to ensure that all this data will be safe and not misused.

My other concern, and I believe this is critical, is that it is easy for anyone to get an Aadhaar number. The enrolment centres are run by private operators so anyone can walk in and get one. This means that [undocumented] immigrants can get one too and that’s a clear security threat. Part of the political will for this project stems from this motivation because obviously they [undocumented] immigrants are also a vote bank for some

Many critics of Aadhaar (even those whose petitions are being heard with yours) have focussed on other aspects such as the dangers of making this ‘voluntary’ scheme a mandatory one for access to crucial services and welfare.

Yes, that is also a point. Why must I get an Aadhaar when I already have a ration card? Even at the recent hearing it has been reported that the government submitted in court that the scheme is voluntary. But everyone knows that today you cannot get your LPG subsidy in Tumkur, and other districts, without this number. So, the right hand says it is voluntary and the left says it is mandatory — then it is a plain lie. They’re still taking inconsistent stands and look who is suffering — citizens

The government submits that over Rs.50,000 crore has been spent on the project. It is seeking a review of the SC order. Is it too late to turn back now on this scheme?

No. It is not. That so much has been squandered without analysing the benefits or dangers of this scheme shows a disregard for public money. I think they didn’t think this through. In fact, there were voices even within the government that were opposed to it. My understanding is that the Supreme Court is unlikely to allow their review petition.

We’ll have to wait and see.

deepa.kurup@thehindu.co.in

4724 - Focus on cash transfer, not target by Reetika Khera - Deccan herald

Focus on cash transfer, not target

Reetika Khera, Sep 29, 2013 :

The Supreme Court's interim order on Aadhar is a very welcome intervention. The Aadhaar project’s stated objective was to increase “inclusivity”.

Yet, over the past few months, especially since December 2012, confusion over whether Aadhaar is compulsory or voluntary has increased, leading to the worst possible outcome - it is turning into a source of exclusion. For instance, in Delhi's rollout of the National Food Security Act (NFSA), people are being told that they must have an Aadhaar card to be included.

For others, Aadhaar has added another layer of bureaucracy to the existing maze - a Dalit friend who got admission into TISS, had to travel from Hyderabad where he works, to his village in Osmanabad, to enrol for Aadhaar, and then to Mumbai to complete his scholarship formalities.

In an Aadhaar-free world, he would have been saved a lot of time and money, and could have managed by only going to Mumbai. 

On  January 1, 2013, the Delhi government made Aadhaar compulsory for all revenue department services. This department issues income certificates that are necessary to avail of the 25 per cent reservation in private schools (under the Right to Education Act) for poor children. Until an exception clause was added exempting it for income certificates, it created additional hassles for such parents.

Similarly in March 2013,  I met an elderly man in Jharkhand who could barely walk – he would squat on the spot every 100 m to take rest, before continuing. Since the Aadhaar-enabled “direct benefit transfers” (DBT) rollout, all elderly were being asked to open accounts seeded with their Aadhaar number. This man had come to the Panchayat Bhawan to complete his paperwork - the Rs. 300 of pension is what keeps him going - but was told that some papers were missing, so he would have to make another trip to complete the formalities.

The Aadhaar story goes back to 2009 when the UIDAI was set up with Nandan Nilekani as chairman. Unlike a passport that allows you to travel abroad, a voter ID that lets you vote, a ration card which entitles you subsidized rations (and so on), he was only peddling a number (later christened “Aadhaar”) with no tangible benefits. So, why would anyone queue up for it?

The government initially used a "feel good" approach to enthuse people, that Aadhaar was the magic wand that would fix all problems (read corruption) in social welfare programmes. But that false claim was successfully challenged (for example, the PDS turnaround in Chhattisgarh and Odisha happened not with Aadhaar but intelligent use of simpler technology). 
Gradually, the government began to resort to subtle arm-twisting techniques. Existing cash transfers, such as pensions and scholarships were repackaged, a slogan, “aapka paisa aapke haath,” was given for DBT , a first step towards making Aadhaar de facto compulsory. An impression was created that DBT was not possible without Aadhaar. The warning, that they were climbing the ladder from the top by implementing DBT without first computerising beneficiary lists or opening accounts with core banking, was ignored.

Nine months later, the minutes of a meeting relating to Aadhar on August 5 in the PMO show that this realisation has finally sunk in. According to these minutes, out of nearly 40 lakh beneficiaries of DBT schemes, 56 per cent have bank accounts, 25 per cent have both accounts and an Aadhar number but less than 10 per cent accounts are seeded with their Aadhar number.
One shudders to think of the fate of those who do not have an account, or whose accounts are not seeded with Aadhaar. The minutes clearly list various bottlenecks to further expansion (“There are many problems and inadequacies that still need to be addressed”, “rollout of core banking is badly behind schedule” etc). Yet, the minutes betray the coercive intention of the government: “It is time to crack the whip and move faster”, the deadline for a switchover “will make people share their details and speed up seeding”.

The government double-speak on whether Aadhaar is compulsory or voluntary has been exposed repeatedly: full page ads in national dailies setting deadlines for seeding Aadhaar numbers to bank accounts for the LPG subsidy appear along with reassurances by minister Rajeev Shukla in Parliament that Aadhaar is not mandatory.

The government should pause to think which of the two objectives is more important - "aapka paisa aapke haath" (DBT) or chasing the target of giving a number to 60 crore people. DBT can proceed without Aadhaar if the government focuses its energy on computerisation and extending core banking services to transfer cash directly into people's accounts. Chasing the latter will require some coercion, thereby causing further disruption and exclusion. The Supreme Court, by preventing Aadhaar from becoming compulsory, is actually doing the government a favour.

(The author is Assistant Professor of Economics, IIT Delhi)

4723 - 'State must notify Aadhaar not mandatory' - TNN

'State must notify Aadhaar not mandatory'

Jaideep Deogharia, TNN | Sep 29, 2013, 03.13 AM IST

RANCHI: After the hype and hoopla about the 12-digit unique Aadhaar number being allotted to citizens across the country being the crucial tool of service delivery, the project seems to have got a big jolt after an order of the apex court ruling that it cannot be made compulsory for delivery of services.

On Sunday when the project celebrates the third anniversary of the first Aadhaar number being doled out in Tembhli, Nandurbar in Maharashtra, the then director general of Unique Identification Authority of India ( UIDAI) R S Sharma, who is now the chief secretary Jharkhand has to contemplate measures to clarify to the citizens that the scheme is not mandatory for service delivery in Jharkhand.

"We have not made Aadhaar numbers mandatory for Jharkhand, some of the services have been linked with it and any individual can voluntarily enrol to obtain the benefits," Sharma said while talking to TOI. However, Yashwant Sinha, chairman of the parliamentary standing committee of finance (SCF), which had rejected the National Identification Authority of India Bill-2010 said the government should now come up with a notification clearly stating that Aadhaar number 'may be obtained' instead of saying 'must be obtained' for accessing services.

Sinha said, "The 21-member parliamentary standing committee has found serious flaws with the bill and had submitted its report rejecting it in December 2011, ignoring which the Union government had spent hundreds of crores on the project.

"The Supreme Court order saying that Aadhaar number cannot be made mandatory for delivery of services is an endorsement of the objections raised by the standing committee," he said, adding that the project involves serious security concerns with the secure storage of biometric data.

Earlier on July 20 this year, Sharma while chairing a meeting with the government officials had issued specific directives to the departments to shortlist the services that could be linked with Aadhaar cards and also arrange for introducing Aadhaar-based biometric attendance system in all government offices at the earliest.

"Aadhaar is a valid document for address and identity proof of every individual and from next calendar year benefits of all socio-welfare schemes of the government should be transferred to individuals through Aadhaar only," he had said.

Sharma had also said Aadhaar should be made compulsory in issuance of driving licenses, land registration, application for any government work, online filing of IT returns, records of prisoners, and registration of FIR in police stations.

4722 - Aadhar cut down to size, data mining projects raise concerns - New Indian Express

Aadhar cut down to size, data mining projects raise concerns

By Yatish Yadav - NEW DELHI

Published: 29th Sep 2013 09:31:33 AM

After the Supreme Court ruling that the Aadhaar card issued by Unique Identification Authority of India (UIDAI) is not mandatory to receive essential government services, the fate of UPA government’s other ‘data mining’ projects through National Information Utilities (NIUs) hangs in balance.

It is no surprise that the recommendation to set up NIUs for five projects—Goods and Services Tax, Tax Information Network, Expenditure Information Network, National Treasury Management Agency and New Pension System to collect and store taxpayer’s data with private companies for centralised tax collection and registration came from a committee, Technology Advisory Group for Unique Projects (TAG-UP), headed by UIDAI chairman Nandan Nilekani. These NIUs will be constituted as private companies with taxpayer’s money. Surprisingly, they will not only collect and store your personal information but also levy user charges if you want to avail its services in future.

The committee in 2011 had recommended that private ownership within NIUs should be at least 51 per cent and government—Centre and state’s—role would become that of a paying customer with each having 24.5 per cent ownership in the company.

According to a secret cabinet note, government has already approved Rs 315 crore to set up just one company to collect Goods and Services Tax data. The move was opposed by the Department of Expenditure saying it would be wrong if controlling stake of 51 per cent is held by private companies without any substantial investment.

The government was told by the Nilekani-headed TAG-UP committee that decentralisation of government function by introducing such information technology projects will bring efficiency in governance and it will increase tax collection. The objection of DoE was overruled by the UPA government justifying the arrangement for a larger goal of bringing independence, flexibility and professional environment through private companies.

According to the plan, entire individual data—direct and indirect taxes—including registration, return and payment by taxpayers will be in custody of private company that will operate from Delhi and Mumbai. Independent law researcher Usha Ramnathan said turning public data into a private entity is a serious issue connected with the privacy of individual.  “It is a complete highway robbery. In fact, UIDAI was model to establish NIUs where all government data should be handed over to private companies. If you hand over the complete data of public without creating a capacity within the government, the entire system would collapse if tomorrow court rules against it,” said Ramanathan.

With the creation of NIUs, these projects will ensure that entire population, even non-taxpayers or those exempted from paying taxes by the government are carefully tagged like UIDAI.  The secret cabinet note reveals that in some states where tribal population is exempted from tax, an idea of issuing dummy PAN card was suggested to mark the entire state population.

“The representative of Sikkim indicated that in Sikkim no income tax is payable for Scheduled Tribe and therefore they do not have PAN numbers. It was clarified by Dr Nandan Nilekani that for Sikkim and some other north-eastern states dummy PAN numbers can be issued,” note said.  

Gopal Krishna of Citizens Forum for Civil Liberties said all the projects related to UIDAI which were launched to collect and store personal data raises serious security concerns as they are untested, unreliable and based on unsafe technology.

“All the committee reports headed by Nandan Nilekani will be adversely affected by SC order. The UIDAI intention of making it mandatory was exposed as they cannot by force collect biometric of an individual. This tagging of people and handing over public data to private company is a dangerous trend which was even abandoned by the developed nations including US and UK,” Krishna said.

However, a government official on the condition of anonymity said issues of privacy and security concerns about private companies are unfounded as government will have strategic control of the NIUs through special resolution and composition of board. 

“It will have a robust IT infrastructure and security system to protect the information,” the official said.

4721 - Suspend Aadhaar, it is leading India to a surveillance state - Deccan Herald

Date: 29 September 2013 

Suspend Aadhaar, it is leading India to a surveillance state

R. Ramakumar, Sep 29, 2013 :

One important feature of Aadhaar is its immense potential to violate privacy and civil liberty of the people. This is one of the main issues highlighted by the petitioners in the Supreme Court.

Aadhaar envisages a centralised database of Indian residents. At present, the data on each individual is available only in separate “silos” and it is near impossible to link a person’s information in one silo to that in another. A unique ID number opens up this possibility. An invasive government, a profit-minded private entity or a hostile group can get hold of personal data in more than one silo. Such data could be linked up to create a profile of individuals as well as track them for life. This constitutes an assault on a very basic freedom enjoyed by each individual.

Very few countries have national databases of citizens allowing convergence across silos. In most countries where such projects were introduced, such as the United States or United Kingdom, citizens reacted collectively to the threats of intrusion into their democratic rights. They argued that the data collected may be misused for a variety of dubious purposes. Legislations on privacy have not been seen as satisfactory guarantees against functionality creep.

Privacy is no “western” import into India. The idea of privacy is well-embedded in the history of all Indian cultures. The Supreme Court of India has inferred the right to privacy from the explicit guarantee of personal liberty in Article 21 of the Constitution.

In other words, the right to personal liberty subsumes the right to privacy too. From the 1964 judgement on ‘Kharak Singh v/s The State of U. P. & Others’, right up to the 2009 judgement on ‘Ram Jethmalani v/s the Union of India’, this has been a fundamental guiding principle for the Supreme Court. 

In the 2009 judgement, the SC noted that the right to privacy “is not merely that the State is enjoined from derogating from them. It also includes the responsibility of the State to uphold them against the actions of others in the society, even in the context of exercise of fundamental rights by those others.” 

The present government does not consider the right to privacy as valuable at all. According to Nandan Nilekani, “privacy and convenience is always a trade-off”. Further, discussions around Aadhaar have involved open calls for sharing personal information with private companies.

For instance, a Planning Commission working group in 2006 callously recommended that “…unique ID could form…the basis of a public-private-partnership wherein unique ID-based data can be outsourced to other users.” It also stated that “part of this database could be shared with even purely private smart card initiatives such as private banking/financial services on a pay-as-you-use principle…”

In India, one major threat to privacy arises from here: the promotion of private players in the provision of social services, such as education, health, banking and insurance. 

With the privatisation of social services, personal data would be transformed into commodities in the market for Aadhaar numbers. In such a context, promises to introduce privacy laws become weak tools to gain the trust of citizens. India does not have a privacy law. The collection, use and sharing of personal data collected by the UIDAI is a totally unregulated sphere.

A second concern is whether biometric information collected by the UIDAI would be used for policing purposes. In what is a typical case of “functionality creep”,  the police and security forces, if allowed access into the biometric database, could extensively use it for regular surveillance and investigative purposes. Regular use of biometric data in policing can lead to a large number of human rights violations. 

Two specific instances of the police accessing the biometric database of the UIDAI have already been noted. In February 2013, the Goa Police approached the UIDAI office in Mumbai to identify the fingerprints collected from the site of murder of a seven-year old girl in Vasco. Newspaper reports quoted Goa Police sources thus: “officials of UID cards have agreed to share the data”. In April 2013, the Kerala Police requested help from the UIDAI in Bangalore to identify fingerprints collected from the site of the Mariakkutty murder case in Kannur.

On April 3, the Malayala Manorama quoted Kerala Police officials as saying that “Aadhaar card will also be as helpful as mobile phones in investigation process.” Under which law of the land? Indeed, the future appears scary. 

What is to be done? Clearly, the most reasoned way ahead is to suspend the Aadhaar project immediately. There should be a serious rethink on the idea of a centralised database linked to biometrics. Centralised information is centralised power. One is indeed living in fool’s paradise to imagine that centralised power will lead to no abuse of power. 

(The author is Associate Professor with the Tata Institute of Social Sciences, Mumbai )

4720 - ‘Don’t harass kids over Aadhar’ - Asian Age

‘Don’t harass kids over Aadhar’

By editor

Created 28 Sep 2013 - 00:00

The education department has warned schools against threatening students or forcing them to get their Aadhar cards made. The move comes after some parent-teachers’ organisations drew the department’s attention towards the fact that some schools were threatening to expel students who failed to produce their UID card receipts within two days. Sources from the school education ministry also confirmed that no circular making Aadhar cards mandatory for students was issued from their office.

Jayant Jain, president, Forum for Fairness in Education, said that they had been receiving complaints from parents across the city. “While the Supreme Court as well as various high courts in the country have ruled that Aadhar cards cannot be made mandatory, I wonder why the schools resort to such threats. It seems they have an ulterior motive,” he said.

T.M. Dongre, education inspector, north zone, said that ever since the start of the academic year, the department had not come out with any circular pertaining to Aadhar cards being made compulsory. “Parents should ask for a copy of the circular if the school claims that it is from the department. If the school refuses, the parents should contact the department or the education inspector. Strict action will be initiated against the school,” said Mr Dongre.

4719 - Aadhaar after the interim order - Telegraph India

Aadhaar after the interim order - What the Supreme Court order on Monday means for the card scheme

Do I still need an Aadhaar card for LPG subsidy if I live in one of the districts chosen for the pilot scheme, which applies from October 31 with a grace period of three months till January 31? There is no clarity yet. The decision will be voluntary, not mandatory, if the Supreme Court's interim order is upheld in the final ruling. But the Centre said on Tuesday that there was no change in its pilot scheme. The Centre said it would move the court seeking “a correction” of Monday’s interim order. It added that efforts would be made to pass a related bill in the winter session. Petroleum minister Veerappa Moily said the planned rollout of the Aadhaar-based cash subsidy payout to cooking gas consumers would continue as planned. The minister did not elaborate and he probably meant that the government would not make any change till the final order and the fate of the bill in the winter session were known. As matters stand now, the government cannot insist that you have to have the card to obtain benefits such as LPG subsidy Is the Supreme Court order interim or final? Interim. But the court has sufficiently indicated that it is not in favour of making the Aadhaar card mandatory for obtaining benefits when no legislation has been enacted for the purpose. The Centre had also categorically told the court that enrolment for the Aadhaar scheme was voluntary. What is not clear is whether various agencies such as oil companies can make the card number mandatory for providing the subsidy. According to the current plan, the oil companies will deposit the subsidy in the consumers’ bank accounts and the government will reimburse the companies When is the next hearing? The court has not set any specific date. In normal course, the case may come up for hearing after four to six weeks Will Aadhaar cards be issued in the interlude? Yes. There is no embargo from the court on issuing the cards. For residents, enrolment is voluntary, not mandatory Is there any point in having the Aadhaar card if it is not linked to the direct benefit scheme? Aadhaar means foundation. It is the base on which a delivery system can be built. The question is whether the card, the enrolment to which is voluntary, can be made mandatory for obtaining the benefits. Aadhaar can be used in any system that needs to establish the identity of a beneficiary Is the Aadhaar a citizenship card? No. It only suggests that the cardholder is a resident of India Why did the court say it should not be given to any illegal immigrant? Strictly speaking, the Aadhaar scheme does not differentiate between illegal immigrants and citizens. You can go to any authorised Aadhaar enrolment centre anywhere in India with your identity and address proof. The centres accept 18 types of proof of identity and 33 categories of proof of address. The objective is to provide identification numbers to facilitate access to benefits and services for individuals residing in India and who are entitled to such benefits. An element of ambiguity has crept in because the draft bill refers to “individuals residing in India and to certain other classes of individuals” Compiled by Basant Kumar Mohanty and R. Balaji

4718 - AADHAAR’S IDENTITY CRISIS - News Laundry

AADHAAR’S IDENTITY CRISIS

POSTED BY ARUNABH SAIKIA | SEPTEMBER 27, 2013 

So what’s all this news I’ve been hearing about some magic Utopian card? Yes yes, make fun of it all you want. But the Aadhaar card was thought of as a way of providing a unique identity for every resident of India, Non Resident Indian (NRI) or any foreign citizen residing in India of India. Like the social security number in America.

Oh, so was the Aadhaar card also going to come along with a gift pack of food, electricity and potable water for each citizen? It’s cynics like you who do our country in. What’s the harm in dreaming of a better world? According to the Aadhaar scheme, each citizen of India would be given an identification number of 12 digits for the purpose of establishing a unique identity for every single person in the country. The Unique Identification Authority of India (UIDAI), a part of the Planning Commission, is responsible for implementing the scheme. And Nandan Nilekani, former co-chairman of Infosys Technologies, was appointed as the first Chairman of UIDAI in June 2009 – a position he continues to hold till date.

What a delightful plan. But why is everyone claiming that the Supreme Court has put a spanner in the Aadhaar works? The Court was actually just responding to a PIL filed by retired Karnataka High Court judge, Justice KS Puttaswamy. It ruled that Aadhaar Cards cannot be made mandatory to avail essential services and the government should exercise a little caution in issuing the cards – and definitely not distribute them among illegal migrants. This was because the PIL by the retired judge voiced concerns about Aadhaar Cards being given away to illegal migrants by the government.

What? But I thought the Aadhaar would be my pass to the grandest free feast of our times – the Food Security program. Not for the time being at least. If you’ve received your Aadhaar card, you can use it as proof of identity. The Supreme Court hasn’t commented on the validity of the Aadhaar Card as identity proof yet. So while you can’t have a feast thanks to it, you can get a gas connection.

What’s the hullaballoo in the media orchard about then? The hullaballoo isn’t totally unwarranted. The UIDAI (read Nandan Nilekani – chairman and poster boy of the UIDAI) which pretty much claimed that Aadhaar Cards will change the way things run in this country and that this will be a single uniform proof of identity across the country has put in a whopping Rs 3,735 Crore into the project as of July 31, 2013. But with the Supreme Court saying that the Aadhaar is not mandatory (which essentially reduces it to just another ID proof like a drivers’ license or a PAN card), the entire exercise has been reduced to just another humungous waste of money and time.

Bugger all, are you telling me that I spent that half day getting my picture taken and standing in line, just for another ID card? To add to my ration card, passport, PAN card, Voter ID card, driver’s license and gym card? Well, the premise of that card was that a centralised database would link all your other cards like the passport, driver’slicense, ration card, SC/ST card etc to your unique identification number. One card that fits all.

 But what if the database crashes? Aah, ye of little brain. Before it can crash, the database has to be compiled. And if that somehow did happen, shouldn’t you be asking how the government plans on digitally sharing data when almost 40 percent of rural India doesn’t even have electricity?

Say what you will, but Nilekani’s plan has almost won me over in spite of me. The idea of a single mobile identity sounds really cool if the database issue is sorted out. Well, the idea is undoubtedly most grand.  But then we live in a country where what exists in black and white very rarely gets replicated on the ground. And a project as ambitious as the UID comes with an entire range of teething troubles. The Supreme Court’s judgment, addresses just one of them – Aadhaar Cards being given away to illegal immigrants. Take a state like Assam which has very serious issues with illegal immigration, the problem could assume unmanageable proportions and have very far-reaching repercussions. Also, one cannot possiblydismiss illegal immigration as just one of those minor issues that comes along with all big projects.

This mega project – however noble and visionary it may be – has very little clarity of execution. And that is something which makes or breaks projects.  Hardly surprising though, since the Ministry of Planning has itself admitted that no committee had been constituted to study the financial implications of the scheme and it was given a go-ahead without a detailed project report. In fact, the whole project technically has no legal backing at all as it has been running through an executive order and the Parliament is yet to pass the National Identification Authority of India Bill.

Classy! I expected no less from our government. And why have people suddenly woken up to these problems? It is strange for a project of this large a scale to have come such a long way without any serious scrutiny – but apparently it has. While there have been sporadic protests and objections from time to time, they have not been too organised and scathing enough to have any real impact. Also, the fact that different people have expressed doubts over different issues has resulted in individual concerns getting diluted. While a section has vociferously argued that the biometrics involved in the project will lead to a compromise on personal privacy, many have said that the idea itself is pointless. But no one has looked at the deficiencies or inefficiencies of the Aadhar Card in a holistic manner.

So what happens now? Is the government going to let the Aadhaar juggernaut carry on rolling? Well, Nilekani is definitely rolling on. He claimed just this month that all citizens will have an Aadhaar card by 2014 and they’ll be able to use them online. Because that’s just what villagers want to do, open their non-existent iPads and laptops and make bank transfers and pay bill for their non-existent mobile bills.

The government seems to be “rattled” according to news reports and wants the Supreme Court to modify the order by making Aadhaar mandatory to avail social welfare schemes which are heavily subsidised by the government. The government however still insists that it is a “voluntary” project.

What an utterly ambiguous stand. Only fitting, going by how ambiguous the Aadhaar scheme is.

Contact-Arunab-Saikia-Newslaundry1

4717 - Show your cards - The Indian Express

Show your cards

The Indian Express : Sat Sep 28 2013

* This refers to 'Foundational error' (IE, September 25). Ever since the Aadhaar project took off a few years ago, it has been shrouded in secrecy, and hampered by the lack of foresight. The Unique Identification Authority of India (UIDAI) has still not got the statutory power or recognition it so badly needs. 

There is no clarity on what the scope and purpose of an Aadhaar card is. In some quarters, it is felt that Aadhaar only replicates what the National Population Register is already doing. The uncertainty surrounding the project has created a sense of insecurity among people about how their personal data will be utilised and stored. People are also quite confused about whether Aadhaar is mandatory or optional. The government must work towards giving UIDAI parliamentary sanction and clarify these issues. If welfare programmes and accessing basic facilities are going to be predicated on having an Aadhaar card, then the UIDAI must at least have a legal framework.

— Ganapathi Bhat

Akola

4716 - DBT scheme's future bleak; UID making agency stops functioning - Hindustan Times

DBT scheme's future bleak; UID making agency stops functioning

Mehakdeep Grewal, Hindustan Times  Patiala, September 28, 2013

The future of Direct Benefit Transfer (DBT) scheme for LPG subsidies hangs in fire as even before the deadline October 1, the outsourced agency 'Vyam Tech' which responsible for making Aadhaar cards in Patiala has wrapped up its machines due to non-payment of salary.

Without the Aadhaar cards, a mandatory to avail subsidy, the beneficiaries are left in dark.

There seems no end to the controversies surrounding UPA government's ambitious project 'UID'. Out of the total 367412 LPG beneficiaries in the district only 47588 (13% of total) have got their Aadhaar cards and bank accounts linked. While others are left in the lurch, as the outsourced agency's contract ended on Friday. With no machines functioning, the making of card has come to standstill.

Sources said the agency had refused to extend its contract as total payment of over six lakhs of 45 operators has been pending over past three months.

Assistant district food civil supply controller (ADFSC) Renu Bala Verma said 94% of the population had been enrolled. However, the Aadhaar cards which were made in 2011 by outsourced agency Delhi Integrated Multi Modal Transit System Ltd (DIMITs) company were being remade as they data had failed to reach the Bangalore office.

Verma added that due to lack of co-ordination among the gas agencies and banks the total number of beneficiaries was varying.

She said till the government issues any order, the deadline for DBT would not be extended even if 100% enrolment is not done.

"We had asked the gas agency's to install Aadhaar card making machines in their offices to accelerate the process but they refused on space crunch grounds."

"After the Supreme Court's ruling that Aadhaar cards are not mandatory for availing government subsidies people have become more reluctant and the process has been delayed,"she said.

District food civil supply controller (DFSC) Ajaiveer Sarao said 40 more machines will be installed and contract has been given to a new company.

The distributors at the gas agency whined that the bank officials delaying the process as they were not collecting the Aadhaar card and gas connection details of customers from the agency.

Bharat gas agency manager Gyanak Singh said at the agency 1800 customers had deposited their forms; however, only 500 forms had been collected by the bank.

Bank coordinator HS Rekhi said the distributors have been told to provide the banks with the details so that seeding of accounts can be done.

Joginder Singh a LPG beneficiary said, "I had applied for Aadhaar card six months ago, however, I haven't received it, I am not sure if I will get the subsidy in my account or not."

4715 - RBI asks banks to bear the cost of deploying e-KYC of Aadhaar - MoneyLife

RBI asks banks to bear the cost of deploying e-KYC of Aadhaar

MONEYLIFE DIGITAL TEAM | 27/09/2013 05:39 PM |   

In yet another example of burdening bank customers, RBI has asked banks to deploy infrastructure at own cost for using UIDAI’s Aadhaar biometric authentication for KYC

Although the Supreme Court has ruled that Aadhaar number from Unique Identification Authority of India (UIDAI) is not necessary for essential services, several government agencies are enforcing it on helpless citizens. Going a step further the Reserve Bank of India (RBI) is asking banks to bear the cost for deploying electronic-know your customer (e-KYC) launched by UIDAI.

Read Full Article

4714 - Is Aadhaar the way for welfare payouts? - No Says Nikhil Dey Yes Says A.Srinivas - Hindu Business Line

Is Aadhaar the way for welfare payouts? - No

NIKHIL DEY

Going by the submission made in the ongoing Supreme Court case on the UID, the interim order seemingly reflects a consensus. The petitioner was asking the court to pass orders to ensure that Aadhaar was not made mandatory to get social sector benefits. The Government’s assertion was that it was entirely voluntary, and therefore there was no need for any interim order. The Supreme Court felt the need to state the obvious, and make it abundantly clear that it could not be made mandatory to receive benefits under social sector programmes.

This order has thrown the Aadhaar establishment and its supporters into a state of panic. That is because they understand that the only way people can be “persuaded” to join the long lines for Aadhaar cards is to make it clear that Aadhaar is a prerequisite to be a beneficiary. The only “achievement” of this unofficial coercion is a high enrolment figure. Evidence from the field is unequivocal that Aadhaar has given no additional benefit to any social sector beneficiary. The “voluntary” nature of this enrolment has so far been mythical. 

Since the applicant is not being led by the rope to the enrolment centre, it is being termed voluntary; except that they cannot access entitlements like food, employment, cooking gas, or maternity benefits unless they are enrolled for the card. You have to be one of the beneficiaries of a scheme to really understand the mechanics of this technological tool.

Aadhaar is not really a card; it is a unique number that relates to biometric authentication. Therefore, its only unique value is when the biometric authentication works flawlessly, not only as a technology, but also as an administrative and vigilance mechanism.

Even in districts where direct benefit transfer rollouts are in place, for the tiny number of beneficiaries and schemes that have been taken up, Aadhaar is far from working. In most of the districts, many of the requisite milestones of financial inclusion are not in place. Pilot schemes in states where it is being tried show massive problems in efficacy, which is bound to result in either the exclusion of beneficiaries, or setting the system aside by using what is euphemistically called “manual override”. This in a centralised authentication system is a perfect prescription for leakage, and an acknowledgement of failure. There seem to be no answers to these failures except for the glib assertion that eventually all the glitches will go away.

The Supreme Court order and the rhetorical commitment to voluntariness must be strictly followed so that coercion and exclusion do not get set as state practice. If pilot projects, people’s experiences, and rigorous field-level evaluations indicate that the system will work, it can be adopted. If not, it should be allowed to sink before we waste more money and time on an impractical “magic bullet”.

(The author works with Mazdoor Kisan Shakti Sangathan.)

(This article was published on September 27, 2013)

Read also: Is Aadhaar the way for welfare payouts? - Yes

Is Aadhaar the way for welfare payouts? - Yes

A. SRINIVAS

The Supreme Court is right in saying that an individual’s access to state transfers should not depend on whether he/she has an Aadhaar card. Not possessing this card should not be treated as some sort of offence. But if the court’s ruling ends up undermining the disbursal of Aadhaar cards, it would be most unfortunate.

The basic idea behind distributing the Aadhaar card is to facilitate direct and accurate transfer of welfare benefits — in food, fertiliser, pensions, scholarships, low-cost housing and cooking gas — to the bank account of the beneficiaries.

Aadhaar, with its biometric identification, can curb fraud arising out of diversion of such funds to ghost or duplicate beneficiaries. A November 2012 report on Aadhaar brought out by the National Institute of Public Finance and Policy estimates the leakages, essentially due to impersonation in 22 welfare schemes, at 7-12 per cent of the total subsidy of over Rs 300,000 crore. This is no small sum.

Therefore, a whole class of cheats, touts and rent-seekers would hate to see everyone getting an Aadhaar card.

Similarly, a number of bona fide, ordinary citizens struggling to receive their entitlements will wish for an Aadhaar card, once they know how much they stand to benefit.

The Government should implement Aadhaar with greater resolve, covering the entire population by 2018-19, as envisaged, if not earlier. More than 400 million have already been covered. Before full coverage, it should not insist on linking welfare payouts to the Aadhaar card (as attempted in the case of cash transfer of LPG subsidy); the Supreme Court is right here, as the citizen should not be penalised. But the petitioners have gone further — or rather, digressed — to question the merits of Aadhaar on flimsy grounds.

Fears of ‘illegal migration’, raised by the petitioner and the Home Ministry, are overblown. When residence proof and biometrics are taken into consideration, what’s the problem? Generally speaking, the ‘privacy’ argument lacks substance.

The state does not need Aadhaar to snoop into our lives. Besides, it is worth wondering whether an economy with such a low tax-to-GDP ratio needs more financial privacy or less. Therefore, the Supreme Court’s ruling on Aadhaar concerns itself with the modalities of disbursing subsidy rather than the petitioner’s exaggerated fears.

Aadhaar should indeed play a central role in subsidy payouts. It will ensure that millions of ordinary people get their entitlements without being harassed by intermediaries.

It is laudable that Aadhaar has been conceived as an unique card, rather than one that is restricted to a category of people, such as ration-card users, voters and taxpayers.

If Aadhaar brings fraudulent transactions to a stop and establishes a money trail, why complain?

Read also: Is Aadhaar the way for welfare payouts? - No

4713 - Role of Biometric Technology in Aadhaar Authentication- UIDAI

Role of Biometric Technology in Aadhaar Authentication- UIDAI

Click on Link above to read PDF

4712 - Narender Modis Tweets on Aadhaar

1. narendramodi_in @narendramodi_in 26 Sep
   Were all states on board on Aadhaar?But you spent so much money just to show political colours and you need to answer nation for that:Modiji
   
   Expand
   
   
2. narendramodi_in @narendramodi_in 26 Sep
   When SC has raised these points, PM must tell nation, were all his departments, Cabinet Ministers were on board: Narendra Modi
   
   Expand
   
   
3. narendramodi_in @narendramodi_in 26 Sep
   What SC raised today, I raised 3 years ago. I said call a National Security Card meet, consult CMs but he did nothing: Narendra Modi
   
   Expand
   
   
4. narendramodi_in @narendramodi_in 26 Sep
   I said Gujarat is a border state if you keep dolling out Aadhaar cards like this then illegal immigrants will get upper hand: Narendra Modi
   
   Expand
   
   
5. narendramodi_in @narendramodi_in 26 Sep
   I am placing one thing for the 1st time- For the last 3 years I am raising issues on Aadhaar card: Narendra Modi http://www.narendramodi.in/liveevent/social/index.html …
   
   Expand
   
   
6. narendramodi_in @narendramodi_in 26 Sep
   Nation wants to know how much money was spent on Aadhaar card? Who gained from it? What about the questions the SC raised: Narendra Modi
   
   Expand
   
   
7. narendramodi_in @narendramodi_in 26 Sep
   2 days ago a SC judgement came on Aadhaar, on which the Congress was dancing to the people. SC rebuked them: Narendra Modi
   
   Expand
   
   

4711 - Not-so-unique recipe for disaster - DNA

Not-so-unique recipe for disaster

Aadhaar, with several loopholes, has become an embarrassment for the government

On September 23, two judges of the Supreme Court directed that “no person should suffer for not getting the Aadhaar card”. Why did the court need to say this? In 2009 and 2010, when the project had just been launched, enrolment was promoted as being voluntary. It was marketed as a convenience for those who already had other forms of identity; and a boon to those without any identity document, with the poor as the primary constituency. It was presented as a means to practise ‘inclusion’, that is, those for whom benefits and subsidies had been out of reach because they had no means of identifying themselves to the State and other private entities would now have an identity.  Yet, the small print, even then, was saying something else. In April 2010, the Strategy Overview document of the UIDAI read: “UID will not be mandated: The UIDAI approach will be a demand-driven one, where the benefits and services that are linked to the UID will ensure demand for the number. This will not, however, preclude governments or Registrars from mandating enrolment.” So, making the UID mandatory was intended; only, the UID would work on, and with, Registrars to introduce the element of compulsion. This allowed the UIDAI to keep talking about ‘inclusion’, while governments and their departments would be egged on to bully people into enrolling for a UID on threat of exclusion from services. Take the proposed linking up between the UID and the PDS in a UIDAI document titled (no marks for guessing) UID and PDS. “To support enrolment, the central government will mandate that the UID numbers of each family member should be recorded in the ration card and the data base should be made available” to the UIDAI. That is quite unambiguous! Its document titled UID and Public Health has this: “Every citizen must have a strong incentive or a “killer application” to go and get herself a UID, which one could think of as a demand side pull. The demand side pull needs to be created de novo or fostered on existing platforms by the respective ministries. Helping various ministries visualise key applications that leverage existing government entitlement schemes such as the PDS and the NREGA will (1) get their buy-in into the project (2) help them roll out mechanisms that generate the demand pull....”. These are documents that have been around since 2009-10, and the UIDAI has been hard at work getting governments and agencies to link the UID number to all manner of services. Why does it matter that the UID is made mandatory? One, there is yet no law that covers this project. The UIDAI has been saying that should not matter because they were set up by an executive order, and that should be quite enough. That is a wholly questionable proposition, and it is, in fact, under challenge in court. But, the fact that a law was in fact introduced in Parliament in December 2010, and the Standing Committee on Finance rejected it in a scathing report that asked that both the project and the law be sent back to the drawing board, cannot be glossed over. There is also no law protecting privacy; the idea of data about individuals being the new property is helped by trivialising the right to privacy. Then, there is a startling fact that too few people have recognised: biometrics, which the UIDAI has been claiming can uniquely identify every individual, had not been tested when the project began. The decision was made on assumptions. This is not just a hypothesis. Take a look at this: In a ‘notice inviting applications for hiring of biometrics consultant’ issued by the UIDAI in January/February 2010, the UIDAI admitted complete ignorance about the effectiveness of biometrics: “there is a lack of a sound study that documents the accuracy achievable on Indian demographics (that is, larger percentage of rural population) and in Indian environmental conditions (that is, extremely hot and humid climates and facilities without air-conditioning). In fact, we do not have any credible study assessing the achievable accuracy in any of the developing countries.... The ‘quality’ assessment of fingerprint data (in the UIDAI’s ‘preliminary assessment’) is not sufficient to fully understand the achievable de-duplication accuracy.” It was in this state of ignorance that the decision to make biometrics the ‘unique’ factor was made. Today, three years later, it has become evident that old people and the poor are facing hurdles in authenticating themselves through biometrics. The UIDAI’s own authentication reports reveal how flawed the system is. More recently, the UIDAI has been talking of thousands of permanent enrolment stations, and people are advised to periodically re-enrol their fingerprints and iris. This is the first admission that biometrics are not forever, and that they change. Yet, the project refuses to pause. Making the UID mandatory in a system that cannot authenticate with any degree of certainty is only a prescription for massive exclusion. Why is no one in government verifying the field situation and asking the tough questions? Direct Benefit Transfer has shown itself to be a mere excuse for making the UID mandatory. In Delhi and Maharashtra, for instance, registering a will or a rent agreement or a sale deed, or getting married, needs a UID. Government servants, and high court judges, in Maharashtra are not to get their salaries unless they are enrolled. In Kerala, children cannot be enrolled in schools. In Delhi, EWS category were threatened with exclusion. Everywhere, gas subsidy is mandatorily linked with the UID number. And the list goes on. It is no wonder that the court was asked to step in to stop this rampant and irresponsible use of a number produced through a deeply defective process. The writer works on the jurisprudence of law, poverty and rights Usha Ramanathan Today, three years later, it has become evident that old people and the poor are facing hurdles in authenticating themselves through biometrics. The UIDAI’s own authentication reports reveal how flawed the system is

Published Date:  Sep 27, 2013

4710 - No Aadhaar required: Food security experts praise SC order - First Post

No Aadhaar required: Food security experts praise SC order 

by Pallavi Polanki Sep 24, 2013 

Right to food activists and civil society groups have welcomed Supreme Court’s order that Aadhaar is not mandatory for availing of government services and entitlements. They say the order comes as a huge relief to citizens who were being denied their rightful entitlements simply for not having an Aadhar card. “Certianly, for people who were being denied their entitlements simply because they did not have an Aadhaar card, this is going to be a very positive step. Whatever one might say, getting an Aadhaar card was not so easy for people who are migrants, destitutes, the homeless. And very often these are the very people who need to be covered in a food security scheme,” said Anjali Bharadwaj, founder of the citizen’s vigilance group Satark Nagarik Sangathan. 

The Sheila Dikshit government, despite the many questions raised over the legal basis for Aadhaar and the authority issuing it, made Aadhaar compulsory in Delhi this year. “Aadhaar Card is compulsory from 1st January 2013 for access to every government service” warned a public notice by the Delhi Government published in leading newspapers in December last year. (Read full report here) Despite the many questions raised over the legal basis for Aadhaar and the authority issuing it, the Delhi government made it compulsory in Delhi this year. PTI The food security scheme, which the Delhi government has taken the lead in launching, makes it mandatory for beneficiaries to have an Aadhaar card to avail of food entitlements. 

However, linking Aadhaar to food security was only adding to the difficulties of the beneficiaries, said Dipa Sinha, an activist with the Right to Food Campaign in Delhi. Speaking about the Aadhaar-related problems that beneficiaries of the food security scheme were facing, Sinha said, “The SC order that Aadhaar is not necessary to get entitlements is a very positive development because it has already been creating a lot of confusion in Delhi. With the launch of the food security scheme, every member of the family is required to get an Aadhaar card because now the entitlement has become individual. Many families have had problems with getting their Aadhaar numbers, there’ve been problems with biometrics, in cases where there is a disabled member in the family, they haven’t been able to go. So based on the experience so far, it is not right for it become a condition.” Added Sinha, “Also, with Aadhaar there was also a concern that it would become an additional excuse to keep people out of the scheme. Earlier, it was BPL. As far as that goes, it is a good thing it is not compulsory.” Describing how the Aadhaar linkage to the food security scheme was affecting rightful beneficiaries, Bharadwaj said, “A lot of families had members who didn’t have Aadhaar cards. Since the food security scheme is an individual entitlement of 5 kg of grain per person, names of family members were not being accepted for the ration cards because they didn’t have an Aadhaar card. For example, a family of five with two members without an Aadhaar card was getting only 15 kg instead of their rightful entitlement of 25kg of grain. Now with the Supreme Court order, such people will be covered and will be able to get their entitlements.” On the broader positive impact of the Supreme Court order on the scope of the food security scheme, Bharadwaj said, “The purpose of the food security legislation is to bring in the homeless, the destitute and the poorest of the poor. Now a lot of those people are having tremendous difficulty in getting Aadhaar cards because they don’t have an identity proof, an address to share and so on. We now hope that they will be covered under scheme more easily even though they don’t have Aadhaar card.” 

But is there a danger that the Supreme Court order could halt the implementation of the scheme, leading to beneficiaries being denied entitlements? “To halt the scheme would imply a violation of the Supreme Court order because the order clearly states that benefits must flow to people. And Aadhaar can’t be used be used an excuse for to giving them that entitlement,” said Bharadwaj. Explaining why there shouldn’t be any problems identifying beneficiaries in the absence of Aadhaar cards, Sinha said, “In Delhi, currently the food entitlements are being given to those who are existing ration-card holders. And so the government already has the database. With the Aadhaar-linkage what is happening is that those who have ration cards but don’t have Aadhaar cards are worried that they might be removed from the list. 

Legally, there should be no reason to deny anyone their rightful entitlement.” Taking on the government’s often repeated claim that Aadhaar will check leakages and corruption in the PDS system, Bharadwaj said, “There are many ways to reduce pilferage and enhance transparency….If there is an effective and functioning grievance redress machinery and there is accountability mechanism that is in-built, which is entirely dependent on political will, you don’t need Aadhaar.”

4709 - No Aadhaar in Aadhaar cards - Free Press Journal India,

No Aadhaar in Aadhaar cards

September 25, 2013 12:01:00 AM

The Supreme Court order on Monday ruling out the Aadhaar card as mandatory for availing various government services has not come a day too soon. For, the way the scheme was conceived and implemented, it had left a lot to be desired. 

Vast amounts of taxpayer money were wasted on a scheme whose usefulness is still in question. Basically, providing all comers a unique identity number, or Aadhaar card, without in anyway verifying fundamental details, such as the person’s nationality, address, name, etc., was bound to prove problematic. Besides, the scheme lacked parliamentary approval, the government rushing to spend thousands of crores on a mere executive order. 

This could have been condoned if such a major expenditure was undertaken on a scheme which promised larger benefits to the society. That they still went ahead with Nandan Nilekani’s pet idea, even though the then Union Home Minister P Chidambaram had very serious reservations, reveals the confusion in the higher echelons of the government. 

Chidambaram had blocked the roll-off of Aadhaar on the very sound ground that the home ministry’s National Population Register aimed to achieve virtually the same objectives. The public scrap between Nilekani and Chidambaram had threatened to jeopardise Aadhaar even before its roll-out. But the prime minister intervened to effect a compromise. While Aadhaar was assigned major urban centres, the NPR was allocated the rest of the country. There was no doubt that the Aadhaar roll-out owed more to the fact that Nilekani had left his high perch at the IT major Infosys to implement the Aadhaar scheme, and no dispassionate analysis of its costs and benefits. 

Equally, the government seemed in a hurry to garner glory by investing the Aadhaar scheme with a host of yet-to-be-verified benefits. The provision of various benefits and services like subsidised gas cylinders, motor registration, scholarships, provident fund, salaries, etc. was crucially sought to be linked to Aadhaar cards. 

Further, in the name of financial inclusion, banks were ordered to open accounts on the basis of Aadhaar cards and do away with the mandatory `know-your-customer’ norms. Public sector banks were in a funk, but felt obliged to follow the orders since the government was deadset on exploiting the scheme for electoral purposes. 

The Direct Benefit Transfer scheme received a huge PR build-up before roll-out. Otherwise knowledgeable ministers like Chidambaram called the DBT a `game-changer’, little realising that the foundation it was based on, namely, the Aadhaar card, was shaky. It was sheer wastage of taxpayer funds that the Aadhaar and NPR schemes were duplicated in large parts of the country, including the national capital. 

The shoddiness of the government was not limited to the misuse of Aadhaar cards by illegal immigrants for acquiring even voter cards or to draw all the benefits available to bona fide Indian citizens. Even the privacy concerns of citizens were not addressed when the scheme was rolled-out on an executive order, without due parliamentary approval. 

Bestowing primacy to Aadhaar cards for the provision of various services, as if that in itself would plug leaks of government funds and improve their implementation was one thing; even those tasks which did not require these cards were brought into its ambit. For instance, in Maharashtra, the Aadhaar card was made necessary for marriage registration.

In its order on a PIL, Justices B S Chauhan and S A Bobde, while granting an interim stay on the use of Aadhaar numbers for various government services, remitted the matter to a Constitution Bench. 

In a brief order, the court directed the Unique Authority of India to “verify whether the applicant is entitled to the card under the law and should not issue it to illegal immigrants.” How the authority will do it is unclear, since it lacks the wherewithal to undertake such background checks of applicants. The Aadhaar cards would lack credibility even for bona fide Indian citizens, unless there was some guarantee that the details mentioned had been cross-checked by an official agency. Or, at least, the detection of false details by applicants was made punishable under the law. 

Without a ring of credibility, its utility as an identity number of a bona fide Indian citizen would remain suspect. Since thousands of crores of public money have been wasted, maybe a via media can be found to salvage the well-intentioned but hastily implemented scheme.

4708 - Aadhaar should not be mandatory, Cong says - TNN

Aadhaar should not be mandatory, Cong says

TNN | Sep 25, 2013, 06.11 AM IST

NEW DELHI: Congress said Aadhaar should not be mandatory till its penetration reaches a satisfactory level, aligning itself with the Supreme Court which on Monday said unique identification number could not be the pre-requisite for providing government services. 

It said Aadhaar was facing teething problems in many states and its issuance had not reached a stage where it could be used as testimonial for identity. 

"Congress will go by the Supreme Court ruling because if made compulsory in the initial stages, there may be problems," AICC spokesman P C Chacko said. 

The ruling party's stance followed the realization that there were differences within the government over UID. With flagship "direct benefits transfer" failing to match the rollout schedule and delayed by months, Congress realizes there may be little gain in arguing over Aadhaar till elections. 

DBT is unlikely to reach the critical stage next year when it can be called a proven scheme depositing government entitlements directly in bank accounts of beneficiaries. The schemes under DBT are lagging behind schedule because of complications involved in aligning them with the modalities of direct transfer. 

By polls, it is expected to remain an ambitious proposal aimed at cutting red tape in providing subsidies. 

Given the situation, the ruling camp would prefer to steer clear of controversies, especially when insistence on Aadhaar can give rival BJP the opening to raise the bogey of 'illegal immigrants'. A section has argued that Aadhaar was being issued to non-citizens and was providing legal documents to Bangladeshis.

4707 - dna edit: Slipping Aadhaar past Parliament - DNA India

dna edit: Slipping Aadhaar past Parliament

Wednesday, Sep 25, 2013, 8:39 IST | Agency: DNA

The Supreme Court's order against the government on Aadhaar cards stems from the haphazard manner in which the project was allowed to take off.

In a belated intervention, the Supreme Court has restrained the government from denying benefits and services to citizens for non-possession of Aadhaar cards. The SC bench, acting upon a public interest litigation (PIL), has also forbidden the enrolment of illegal immigrants. While the two strictures spell trouble for the government, the order is certain to put the Centre in a fix for other reasons too. For a while now, civil society has been complaining about the government’s deceitful conduct with regard to Aadhaar. 

Even while maintaining that Aadhaar is not mandatory, state governments have preyed on the citizen’s fear of exclusion to get everyone into enrolling; even those ideologically opposed to sharing their private information. Already marriage registration, cooking gas subsidies, and employee provident funds are accessible in some states contingent on Aadhaar registration. The inference of more subsidies and schemes to be linked with Aadhaar is hardly lost on anyone even as the government exudes benevolence.

For over four years now, the Unique Identification Authority of India (UIDAI) that issues Aadhaar cards has been functioning under executive orders. A half-baked draft legislation intending to grant statutory recognition was rejected by the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Finance in December 2011. The committee also questioned the project’s implications to the exchequer, civil liberties, technological soundness and national security. In bypassing Parliament, the UPA government succeeded in launching its pet-project quickly. Questions about the project’s private vendors, misuse of personal information, and regulatory controls were thus never addressed. 

With the two-judge bench listing the PIL before a larger Constitutional Bench, the government must be aware of the risks. To pre-empt drastic judicial measures against the UIDAI, the government must move quickly to get statutory backing. In the UIDAI’s present form and mandate, the government will be hard-pressed to rebut the petitioners’ claims that the personal and biometric data collection breaches the right to privacy. Or that storing this data engenders fears of data theft and racial profiling against minorities.

By mid-September, Aadhaar coverage has crawled to reach a third of the country despite wide publicity and huge budgetary allocation. But UP and Bihar, the largest and most backward states, have only enrolled a dismal 7 and 3 per cent of their respective populations. To compound the irony, despite Aadhaar’s primary purpose of ensuring that welfare schemes reach those below the poverty line, states with better development indices like Kerala and Delhi have notched up 80-90 per cent coverage.

The Supreme Court’s stricture on excluding illegal immigrants from Aadhaar is a wake-up call to the government and a direct outcome of dodging Parliamentary sanction. Aadhaar was visualised as an identification document for every resident. The lack of identification was identified as a cause of financial exclusion, and police brutality, for those who are landless, homeless, or work at sweatshops and in the informal economy as rickshaw-pullers and domestic maids. Good intentions aside, only legislation can align Aadhaar with the Constitution’s ideals. At a time when the gargantuan project has travelled too far to backtrack, the SC’s observations over “illegal migrants” and “citizens” is entirely a muddle of the government’s making. Between Parliament and the judiciary, it is Parliament that is better suited to take an informed decision on UIDAI.

4710 - Aadhaar stalled by S. G. VOMBATKERE - The Hindu

September 25, 2013

Aadhaar stalled

The interim order on not issuing the cards to undocumented migrants will come in the way of enrolling the poor

The Supreme Court issued an interim order on September 23, 2013, on a public interest litigation challenging certain aspects of the UID Aadhaar project. As reported by the media, the interim order brings out two main points: (1) Aadhaar enrolment of immigrants living in India without proper papers should not be done, and (2) Central and State governments must not deny essential services and benefits solely on the basis of non-enrolment in the project.

The introducer

The first point concerns the Aadhaar system itself. An Aadhaar applicant needs to provide proof of identity (including age) and address using one of several approved documents, such as an electoral photo identity card or passport, before his/her biometrics are captured. But very poor people, for example pavement dwellers, may have no identity document with proof of age, and certainly no address. However, the Aadhaar system caters to such people with the Registrar (State government) notifying a trained introducer who, in effect, contacts the enrolment centre staff, vouching for the person who states that he is Mr. X of so-and-so address is indeed Mr. X of that address.

Thus, the biometrics captured are shown to belong to Mr. X with those details. In practice, the introducer may know only a fraction of the people without such documents who apply for the Aadhaar card by sight or acquaintance, and he/she could unwittingly introduce an immigrant without proper documentation. Even if the introducer knows Mr. X by sight or acquaintance, he has really no means to know whether he is a citizen or a legal resident. The apex court’s order that immigrants without proper documentation must not be enrolled effectively puts introducers “out-of-business,” and thus the poor who have no documents cannot be enrolled. Clearly, the Aadhaar project has not foreseen the risk of immigrants without proper documentation getting themselves enrolled, with attendant security risks.

Benefits

The second point concerns benefits, since the court has said “the Centre and State governments must not insist on Aadhar cards from citizens before providing them essential services.” Thus, for example, oil companies will need to supply LPG cylinders by receiving the subsidised cost at delivery for customers who are not Aadhaar-enrolled, and Public Distribution System ration shops will need to provide rations to entitled persons on the basis of valid ration cards.

The UIDAI may appeal against the apex court’s order especially since Rs.50,000 crore has been spent. Meanwhile, the interim order requires the Central and State governments to provide essential services and benefits to the public without insisting on Aadhaar enrolment.

(Major General S.G. Vombatkere, who retired as Additional Director General, Discipline & Vigilance in Army HQ, New Delhi, writes on strategic and development-related issues.)

4709 - The man who intends to stop Aadhar in its tracks - Business Standard

Raghuvir Badrinath  |  Bangalore  September 24, 2013 Last Updated at 19:33 IST

The man who intends to stop Aadhar in its tracks

Retired Justice K S Puttaswamy feels Aadhaar is clear violation of citizens privacy; among various other reasons this program was rejected by Standing Committee on Finance

Retired Justice K S Puttaswamy at 88 years is not your habitual Public Interest Litigation filer.

This is the first time he has filed a PIL and with that he has shaken one of the most-ambitious programs rolled out by Government of India – the Unique Identification Authority of India.

The Supreme Court on Monday in its interim order said that that this Unique identity can only be issued to those with proven Indian nationality and cannot be mandatory for accessing public services and subsidies.

Referred as ‘Aadhaar’ and started in February 2009, it aims to provide a unique identity (UID) number to all Indians and the authority will maintain a database of residents containing biometric and other data.

Mention biometric and Justice Puttaswamy bristles.

“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. How can this awfully wrong program roll out without a clear legislation,” Puttaswamy argues passionately and on the reasons why he went ahead and filed the PIL for scrapping this project.

"It is a big surprise when the Centre can go ahead with this project when there is no Bill passed in the Parliament. What we want is that the executive and legislature must function within the frame work of the Constitutional provisions so that Government does not circumvent the legislature to avoid discussion, debate and voting in the Parliament and thereby render the legislature redundant or purposeless," he explained.

Puttaswamy along with a few like-minded people felt that it is time that ‘Aadhar’ has to be changed how it is being rolled out and hence moved the PIL in the Supreme Court.

“It is a very difficult proposition to get a PIL admitted in SC. The SC will not admit any sundry PILs and it is indeed heartening that SC admitted and we got the interim order yesterday,” Puttaswamy told Business Standard.

He said that what is more worrying from the ‘Aadhar’ project that is being pushed in as mandatory for accessing some of the essential services and that should not happen.

A man of immense integrity right through his career starting from 1952 in the Old Mysore Court in Karnataka, Puttaswamy has lived a sparkling career.

He was the Government of Karnataka counsel for over a decade during which he argued on various state development issues, but never took a leaning towards any political affiliations or ambitions.

People close to Puttaswamy hold him in high regard and say that there is not a single blemish on him during his career as an advocate or even post his retirement, when he was Vice Chairman of Central Administrative Tribunal, Bangalore Bench, Bangalore , Chairman of Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad and also Chairman, Andhra Pradesh Backward Class Commission.

4708 - Supreme Court of India - Record of Proceedings

4708 - Supreme Court of India - Record of Proceedings 


Please Click on Link to read as pdf

4707 - Government to approach Supreme Court for 'correction' of Aadhaar order

Government to approach Supreme Court for 'correction' of Aadhaar order

Press Trust of India | New Delhi | Updated: Sep 24 2013, 21:45 IST

AP.

SUMMARY

M Veerappa Moily said he has spoken to Solicitor General Mohan Parasaran on the issue.

A day after Supreme Court observed that Aadhaar card was not mandatory for availing of government services, the government plans to approach the court for a "correction".

Petroleum Minister M Veerappa Moily said he has spoken to Solicitor General Mohan Parasaran on the issue. "I think they are approaching the Supreme Court for a correction. I cannot say anything more now."

He, however, said the planned roll out of Aadhaar-based cash subsidy payout to cooking gas (LPG) will continue as planned.

"It will not be effected," he said. The Direct Benefit Transfer on LPG makes it mandatory for a household consumer to have an Aadhaar number for getting cash subsidy after a three month grace period in districts where it is being rolled out.

Hearing a petition against the Aadhaar scheme which petitioners had contended was unconstitutional, a two-judge bench of the Supreme Court had said that, "no person should suffer for getting the Aadhaar card inspite of the fact that some authority had issued a circular making it mandatory.

"And when any person applies to get Aadhaar card voluntarily, it may be checked whether that person is entitled for it under the law and it should not be given to any illegal immigrant."

Meanwhile, Minister for Planning Rajeev Shukla said a bill to provide statutory status to the Unique Identification Authority of India (UIDAI) that issues the cards, will be pushed in the winter session of Parliament.

4706 - Press Release- Supreme Court exposes complicity of Congress and opposition parties on 12 digits Biometric Aadhaar/UID Number

Press Release

Supreme Court exposes complicity of Congress and opposition parties on 12 digits Biometric Aadhaar/UID Number

States must withdraw from MoUs they signed with UIDAI
 

Manifestoes of political parties must make their stand clear on scrapping of Biometric Identification ahead of elections

Negative coalition of bankers and surveillance technology companies rearing its heads against citizens’ rights

September 2, 2013: Supreme Court has exposed the ulterior motives behind ‘voluntary’ 12 digits Biometric Aadhaar/ Unique Identification (UID) Number for creating a Central Identities Data Registry (CIDR) of ‘usual residents’ of India and for "doing government process re-engineering" through its order dated September 23, 2013. The questionable intentions of Planning Commission’s Unique Identification Authority of India (UIDAI) face yet another legal and constitutional scrutiny. UIDAI has failed in the earlier examinations. Indian National Congress, non-Congress parties and the opposition parties appear complicit in the unconstitutional, illegal and illegitimate exercise because they failed to demand its scrapping and maintained silence when in breach of trust Congress ruled states and centre attempted to make it mandatory.

It may be recollected that Punjab and Haryana High Court bench headed by Chief Justice A K Sikri passed an order on March 2, 2013 after hearing a matter challenging a circular making Aadhaar mandatory. The moment Court raised questions of laws, the circular was withdrawn by the central government. The decision underlined that UIDAI is legally assailable and indefensible.

UIDAI and related projects treats every Indian as a subject of surveillance unlike UK which abandoned a similar project (that used to be cited by Wipro Ltd in promotion of UID) because it is "untested, unreliable and unsafe technology” and the” possible risk to the safety and security of citizens.” It was recorded by Parliamentary Standing Committee (PSC) on Finance that submitted a report to both the Houses of Parliament on December 13, 2011 trashing the biometric identification project and the post facto legislation to legalize UIDAI and its acts of omission and commission since January 28, 2009
till the passage of The National Identification Authority of India Bill, 2010. Notably, UK Home Secretary explained that they were abandoning the project because it would otherwise be 'intrusive bullying' by the state, and that the government intended to be the 'servant' of the people, and not their 'master'.

The silence of Wipro Ltd which had prepared the ‘Strategic Vision on the UIDAI Project’ document and submitted to the processes committee of the Planning Commission set up in July 2006 is deafening. This document too seems to be missing from public domain.

Supreme Court order vindicates the Punjab and Haryana High Court order, PSC report and the Statement of Concern dated September 28, 2010 issued by 17 eminent citizens including Justice VR Krishna Iyer, Prof Romila Thapar, SR Sankaran, Justice AP Shah, KG Kannabiran, Bezwada Wilson, Aruna Roy and Prof Upendra Baxi seeking halting of the project. The Parliamentary Standing Committee on Subordinate Legislation is also seized with the compliant on “Subordinate Legislation for Biometric Identity Card NRIC and Aadhhar/UID IS illegal & illegitimate and Constitutional, Legal, Historical & Technological Reasons Against UID/Aadhaar Scheme on 18.3.2013."

State Governments especially those ruled by non-Congress party are so deaf they do not seem to hear even when the verdict shouts. In the aftermath of Supreme Court’s order State Governments must withdraw from the MoU they signed with UIDAI.

All the non-Congress ruled States are opposed to National Counter Terrorism Centre (NCTC) citing erosion of State’s autonomy but quite strangely so far they have failed to see the link between CIDR, National Intelligence Grid (NATGRID), National Counter Terrorism Centre (NCTC) and Sam Pitroda’s Public Information Infrastructure and Innovations (PIII) which are part of the same political culture that leaves intelligence agencies beyond the ambit of legislative scrutiny.

The entire issue is quite grave because the genocidal idea of biometric identification is linked with the holocaust witnessed in Germany. Such identification exercises have rightly been abandoned in UK, Australia, China, USA and France. Notably, Nandan Nilekani has admitted, "To answer the question about what is the biggest risk" of centralized database of biometric identification, he said "in some sense, you run the risk of creating a single point of failure also" in his talk at the World Bank in Washington on April 24, 2013. No one knows who would be held legally liable for such failures. Who is being
held accountable for leakage of data from UIDAI at present?

Notably, World Bank’s President who introduced Nilekani at the lecture expressed his patronage for the project. It is not surprising given the fact that essentially it is part of its eTransform Initiative launched in April 2010 for 14 developing countries in partnership with transnational companies like L1, IBM and governments of France and South Korea.

It is the inevitability of such failure that led to the exterminationof a large human population in Germany in the 1940s. In the case of
 CIDR and linked initiatives it is not the failure instead convergence of data, tracking, profiling, tagging and the violation of norms of privacy is embedded in its design. Nilekani explained at his lecture at the Bank, "First of all, this is not an ID card project. There is no card. There is a number. It's a virtual number on the cloud, and we don't give a physical card. We do send you a physical letter with your number, which you keep in your pocket, but the real value of this is the number on the cloud". The biometric number is an identifier which is used to "authenticate" and verify whether or not the person is what the person claims to be. The ridiculous thing about the Congressmen in general and supporters of the project in particular is that they do not even know as to what is aadhaar? On January 31, 2013, it came to light that members of Union Cabinet were unaware as whether it is a number or a card. Instead of facing the issue upfront, a Group of Ministers was set up to resolve it but no one knows whether it has been resolved.

It also reflects how undemocratic Indian National Congress is. The decision to impose biometric aadhaar number was autocratically and unilaterally decided without taking consent from even its own party members who are then expected to defend this indefensible project. Nilekani has misguided the party in this regard.

Almost five years of advertising and marketing by UIDAI with help of a negative coalition of bankers, biometric technology companies and a section of mainstream media that holds rights of citizens in contempt created an illusion among the uninformed citizenry that what
pre-existing 15 identity proofs could not do, this illegitimate and illegal biometric identifier will be able to do.

The advocates and supporters of biometric identification who are part of the negative coalition that unconditionally and blindly supports linking of fish baits for trapping the poor in the biometric database are game for turning the all the Indians into guniea pigs for an experiment that has resulted in incineration of human beings in the past. The fact of this experimentation is revealed from what Nandan Nilekani said in his speech at the Centre for Global Development,
Washington. He said, “Our view was that there was bound to be opposition. That is a given…we said in any case there is going to be a coalition of opponents. So is there a way to create a positive coalition of people who have a stake in its success? So, one of the big things here is that there is a huge coalition of, you know, organisations, governments, banks, companies, others who have a stake now in its future. So, create a positive coalition that has the power to overpower or deal with anyone who opposes it.” Positive coalition of progressive political parties, peoples’ movements and informed citizens must expose the collaborators of undemocratic biometric technology companies, bankers and NGOs and give a befitting reply to them. They lost in UK, Australia, China, France and USA; they will lose in India too.

Nilekani’s method of reasoning is a case study, he says, "We came to the conclusion that if we take sufficient data, biometric data of an individual, then that person's biometric will be unique across a billion people. Now we have to find that out. We haven't done it yet. So we'll discover it as we go along" on April 23, 2013. 

At his lecture at World Bank on April 24, 2013, he said, “nobody has done this
before, so we are going to find out soon whether it will work or not”. No one can tell as to what is his premise and what is the inference or how is inference is deduced from the premise he has articulated.

Notably, the Strategy Overview document of the UIDAI said that "enrolment will not be mandated" but added, "This will not, however, preclude governments or registrars from mandating enrolment". It must be noted that Nandan Nilekani headed several committees whose
recommendations made Aadhaar mandatory.

Tricked by the marketing blitzkrieg, some political parties are wary of taking a position that would appear to be against pro-poor schemes not realizing that come what may the real beneficiary of this biometric identification is UIDAI which wants to meet its target of 60 crores of Indians by 2014.

Amidst leakage of files from the Prime Minister’s office and leakage of public money in scam after scams in the Indian National Congress led Government, the claim of attempting to reduce leakage in the system by using questionable plumbers like Nilekani does not inspire even an iota of confidence. Nilekani admitted at his lecture the Centre for Global Development in Washington in April 2013 that UIDAI has "created huge opportunity for fingerprint scanners, iris readers".

The purchase of these machines with money is also a leakage that merits probe. Leakage can be plugged by rigorous implementation of Right to Information Act and decentralization of decision making instead of adopting a centralization approach and technological quick fixes.

The entire Indian and international media was taken for a ride regarding a so called turf war between the Ministry of Home Affairs and UIDAI which media was made to understand that got resolved by diving the Indian population in two parts of 61 crore and 60 crore for coverage under National Population Register (NPR) which also generates Aadhaar number and UIDAI. The fact is the terms of reference of the UIDAI mandated it "take necessary steps to ensure collation of National Population Register (NPR) with UID (as per approved strategy)", to "identify new partner/user agencies", to "issue necessary instructions to agencies that undertake creation of databases… (to) enable collation and correlation with UID and its partner databases" and UIDAI “shall own and operate the database". The executive notification dated January 28, 2009 that set up UIDAI mentions this. The entire exercise appears to have been stage managed.

Nilekani has recommended Radio Frequency Identification (RFID) for the "unique identification" of vehicles. If the real motive is not surveillance then how is that UIDAI Chairman wears several hats like an intelligence person to undertake unauthorized and illegitimate tracking.

On June 29, 2013, Nilekani reportedly revealed that they were in preliminary discussions with embassies to use the UID number to “simplify visa application procedures”. Isn’t passport a sovereign document? Notably, Nilekani refers to Aadhaar as akin to internal passport. For passport, there is Passport Act, under what Act is this ‘internal passport’ being promoted?

Supreme Court order must be looked at in the light of what of Government of India’s approach paper on privacy states. It says, “Data privacy and the need to protect personal information is almost never a concern when data is stored in a decentralised manner. Data that is maintained in silos is largely useless outside that silo and consequently has a low likelihood of causing any damage. However, all this is likely to change with the implementation of the UID Project.

One of the inevitable consequences of the UID Project will be that the UID Number will unify multiple databases. As more and more agencies of the government sign on to the UID Project, the UID Number will become the common thread that links all those databases together. Over time, private enterprise could also adopt the UID Number as an identifier for the purposes of the delivery of their services or even for enrolment as a customer. Once this happens, the separation of data that currently exists between multiple databases will vanish.” On this ground alone, the project should be abandoned as it concerns not only the present generation but future generations as well.

It is noteworthy that Attorney General of India had submitted to the Parliamentary Committee that UIDAI will function only till the passage of the UID Bill. The Bill was not passed. Now the UIDAI should seize to exist because it is legally invalid. How can a notification of Planning Commission be deemed legally valid when even the ordinance issued by the President of India become invalid if the Bill is not passed within six months.

Citizens Forum for Civil Liberties (CFCL) has been pursuing a campaign against the biometric based Unique Identification (UID)/Aadhaar
Number, National Population Register (NPR), National Intelligence Grid
(NATGRID), National Counter Terrorism Centre (NCTC), Radio Frequency
Identification (RFID) and Direct Cash Transfer since 2010. It had appeared before the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Finance that trashed the UID Bill on December 13, 2011 in its report to the Parliament. It was an applicant before the National Human Rights Commission (NHRC), which in an order date December 27, 2012 addressed to Secretary, Union Ministry of Home Affairs communicated human rights concerns regarding UID and RFID submitted to it by CFCL. CFCL is an applicant before the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Subordinate Legislation. CFCL is also an applicant before the Press Council of India on the complicity of some media organizations in the matter of enrolment for legally questionable biometric identification.


For Details: Gopal Krishna, Citizens Forum for Civil Liberties (CFCL),

Mb: 09818089660, 08227816731, E-mail:gopalkrishna1715@gmail.com