The UIDAI has taken two successive governments in India and the entire world for a ride. It identifies nothing. It is not unique. The entire UID data has never been verified and audited. The UID cannot be used for governance, financial databases or anything. It’s use is the biggest threat to national security since independence. – Anupam Saraph 2018

When I opposed Aadhaar in 2010 , I was called a BJP stooge. In 2016 I am still opposing Aadhaar for the same reasons and I am told I am a Congress die hard. No one wants to see why I oppose Aadhaar as it is too difficult. Plus Aadhaar is FREE so why not get one ? Ram Krishnaswamy

First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win.-Mahatma Gandhi

In matters of conscience, the law of the majority has no place.Mahatma Gandhi

“The invasion of privacy is of no consequence because privacy is not a fundamental right and has no meaning under Article 21. The right to privacy is not a guaranteed under the constitution, because privacy is not a fundamental right.” Article 21 of the Indian constitution refers to the right to life and liberty -Attorney General Mukul Rohatgi

“There is merit in the complaints. You are unwittingly allowing snooping, harassment and commercial exploitation. The information about an individual obtained by the UIDAI while issuing an Aadhaar card shall not be used for any other purpose, save as above, except as may be directed by a court for the purpose of criminal investigation.”-A three judge bench headed by Justice J Chelameswar said in an interim order.

Legal scholarUsha Ramanathandescribes UID as an inverse of sunshine laws like the Right to Information. While the RTI makes the state transparent to the citizen, the UID does the inverse: it makes the citizen transparent to the state, she says.

Good idea gone bad
I have written earlier that UID/Aadhaar was a poorly designed, unreliable and expensive solution to the really good idea of providing national identification for over a billion Indians. My petition contends that UID in its current form violates the right to privacy of a citizen, guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution. This is because sensitive biometric and demographic information of citizens are with enrolment agencies, registrars and sub-registrars who have no legal liability for any misuse of this data. This petition has opened up the larger discussion on privacy rights for Indians. The current Article 21 interpretation by the Supreme Court was done decades ago, before the advent of internet and today’s technology and all the new privacy challenges that have arisen as a consequence.Rajeev Chandrasekhar, MP Rajya Sabha

“What is Aadhaar? There is enormous confusion. That Aadhaar will identify people who are entitled for subsidy. No. Aadhaar doesn’t determine who is eligible and who isn’t,” Jairam Ramesh

But Aadhaar has been mythologised during the previous government by its creators into some technology super force that will transform governance in a miraculous manner. I even read an article recently that compared Aadhaar to some revolution and quoted a 1930s historian, Will Durant.Rajeev Chandrasekhar, Rajya Sabha MP

“I know you will say that it is not mandatory. But, it is compulsorily mandatorily voluntary,” Jairam Ramesh, Rajya Saba April 2017.

August 24, 2017: The nine-judge Constitution Bench rules that right to privacy is “intrinsic to life and liberty”and is inherently protected under the various fundamental freedoms enshrined under Part III of the Indian Constitution

"Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed citizens can change the World; indeed it's the only thing that ever has"

“Arguing that you don’t care about the right to privacy because you have nothing to hide is no different than saying you don’t care about free speech because you have nothing to say.” -Edward Snowden

In the Supreme Court, Meenakshi Arora, one of the senior counsel in the case, compared it to living under a general, perpetual, nation-wide criminal warrant.

Had never thought of it that way, but living in the Aadhaar universe is like living in a prison. All of us are treated like criminals with barely any rights or recourse and gatekeepers have absolute power on you and your life.

Announcing the launch of the#BreakAadhaarChainscampaign, culminating with events in multiple cities on 12th Jan. This is the last opportunity to make your voice heard before the Supreme Court hearings start on 17th Jan 2018. In collaboration with @no2uidand@rozi_roti.

UIDAI's security seems to be founded on four time tested pillars of security idiocy

1) Denial

2) Issue fiats and point finger

3) Shoot messenger

4) Bury head in sand.

God Save India

Monday, February 15, 2016

9364 - PIL challenges Govt move to make Aadhaar mandatory - Greater Kashmir

Citing the Supreme Court order that the government cannot deny service to anyone who does not possess Aadhaar as it is voluntary, the PIL seeks directions for making Aadhar non- compulsory for Salaries, Pensions, honorarium, LPG subsidies and other such beneficial entitlements.

Srinagar, Publish Date: Feb 13 2016 11:08PM | Updated Date: Feb 13 2016 11:08PM

File Photo

A Public Interest Litigation has been filed in Jammu and Kashmir High Court challenging the state government’s move making it mandatory for its citizens including employees to obtain Aadhaar card, in contravention of the Supreme Court ruling. 

Citing the Supreme Court order that the government cannot deny service to anyone who does not possess Aadhaar as it is voluntary, the PIL seeks directions for making Aadhar non- compulsory for Salaries, Pensions, honorarium, LPG subsidies and other such beneficial entitlements.

“The Government order no: 35-F of 2016, dated 10.02.2016 is directly in violation and contravention of the various direction issued by Supreme Court declaring that Aadhar is a voluntary Scheme and should not be made mandatory or compulsory, ” the petitioners plead. 

Petitioners Syed Musaib and Gulbaddin Ahmad Mir through the PIL seek to stay the government order whereby the state government has made it mandatory for all the government employees to get themselves registered for Aadhaar card or their salaries would be stopped from March this year.

On February 10, the Finance Department vide order number 35 of 2016, has made the Aadhaar based biometric system compulsory for employees of Jammu and Kashmir government.
“The State of Jammu & Kashmir has only 46.9% Aadhar enrollment, which is amongst the lowest number of Aadhar card holders in the entire country. Hence, such impugned government order is illogical and has been passed without any application of mind” the petitioners plead.

“Aadhar Scheme infringes the Right of Privacy and the same is subject matter of five Judge Constitutional Bench of the Supreme Court. Such impugned government order undermines and prejudices the case in hand before the Supreme Court as well” they plead. 

“The impugned government order suffers from infirmity with respect to the Constitution of India as rest of the citizen of the country in all other parts are exempted from compulsory disclosure and in the state of Jammu & Kashmir people are forced to disclose private information under the cloak of Aadhar Scheme,” the PIL reads. 

“ There have been various media reports earlier as well at present, that depict harassment on part of various government department towards the innocent masses on account of Aadhar being mandatory,” the PIL states. 

Pointing out that Unique Identification Authority of India (UIDAI), a central government agency was established on January 28, 2009 after the Planning Commission of India issued a notification, the petitioners plead that that UIDAI’s basic objective was to collect the biometric and demographic data of residents, store them in a centralized database, and issue a 12-digit unique identity number called Aadhar.

“The Parliamentary Standing Committee on Finance in December-2011, led by Yashwant Sinha, rejected the National Identification Authority of India Bill, 2010 in its then present form and suggested modifications. It termed the project "unethical and volatile of Parliament's prerogatives", they plead.
The petitioners plead that in an interim order on a PIL against Adhar card, the apex court observed that the government cannot deny a service to anyone who does not possess Aadhaar, as it is voluntary.

“The Supreme Court had directed the government to widely publicize in print and electronic media that Aadhaar is not mandatory for any welfare scheme. The Court also referred the petitions claiming Aadhaar is unconstitutional and infringes right of privacy matter to a Constitutional Bench,” they said. 
The PIL will come up for hearing, if approved by Chief Justice of J&K High court.