uid

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 scholar Usha Ramanathan describes 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

Special

Here is what the Parliament Standing Committee on Finance, which examined the draft N I A Bill said.

1. There is no feasibility study of the project]

2. The project was approved in haste

3. The system has far-reaching consequences for national security

4. The project is directionless with no clarity of purpose

5. It is built on unreliable and untested technology

6. The exercise becomes futile in case the project does not continue beyond the present number of 200 million enrolments

7. There is lack of coordination and difference of views between various departments and ministries of government on the project

Quotes

What was said before the elections:

NPR & UID aiding Aliens – Narendra Modi

"I don't agree to Nandan Nilekeni and his madcap (UID) scheme which he is trying to promote," Senior BJP Leader Yashwant Sinha, Sept 2012

"All we have to show for the hundreds of thousands of crore spent on Aadhar is a Congress ticket for Nilekani" Yashwant Sinha.(27/02/2014)

TV Mohandas Pai, former chief financial officer and head of human resources, tweeted: "selling his soul for power; made his money in the company wedded to meritocracy." Money Life Article

Nilekani’s reporting structure is unprecedented in history; he reports directly to the Prime Minister, thus bypassing all checks and balances in government - Home Minister Chidambaram

To refer to Aadhaar as an anti corruption tool despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary is mystifying. That it is now officially a Rs.50,000 Crores solution searching for an explanation is also without any doubt. -- Statement by Rajeev Chandrasekhar, MP & Member, Standing Committee on Finance

Finance minister P Chidambaram’s statement, in an exit interview to this newspaper, that Aadhaar needs to be re-thought completely is probably the last nail in its coffin. :-) Financial Express

The Rural Development Ministry headed by Jairam Ramesh created a road Block and refused to make Aadhaar mandatory for making wage payment to people enrolled under the world’s largest social security scheme NRGA unless all residents are covered.


Saturday, April 2, 2016

9718 - Wrong age in Aadhaar lands tribal child in jail - The Hindu

MALAPPURAM, April 1, 2016
Updated: April 1, 2016 05:45 IST



ABDUL LATHEEF NAHA


A tribal child who was recently rescued from the sub-jail at Manjeri by the District Child Protection Unit had landed there because of wrong age given in his Aadhaar card.

The child, whose age was later confirmed at 16 years, had voting right as well. The anomaly of age that led to illegal imprisonment of the child following his alleged involvement in a group crime was the result of a careless campaign to cover the Adivasis under the Aadhaar umbrella.

The police officers and jail officials said the age given in the Aadhaar card and the electoral rolls was not accurate. It is pointed out that officials were treating Adivasis and their issues with laxity. Age and details of several other young Adivasis have reportedly been given in approximation as many of them did not have birth certificates or school certificates.

It was during a visit to Manjeri jail that the Child Protection Unit officials found the tribal child amongst the adult convicts and under trials there. The Child Protection Unit approached the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Nilambur, seeking the child’s release.

Test ordered
The court ordered that an age determination test be done on the child. The test done by a medical board at the Government Medical College Hospital, Kozhikode, found that the child was below 18 years of age.

The released child was produced before the Juvenile Justice Board (JJB), which sent him to an observation home in Kozhikode and sought the help of the District Legal Services Authority to provide legal aid for him.

Imprisoning a child in jail along with adult convicts is a violation of the Juvenile Justice Act 2015 and denial of the child’s rights.
It is the first case in the district where a child was booked for a heinous offence after the enactment of Juvenile Justice Act 2015, which came into force in January this year. About a month ago, another child, incarcerated on wrong assumption of age, was saved from a jail in Kozhikode by the Child Protection Unit.

‘‘We cannot blame the police in these cases. The police went by the proof of age provided by the accused,’’ said District Child Protection Officer Sameer Machingal. The JJB will now study the case thoroughly and assess the mental and physical strengths of the child. The JJB can transfer the case to Children’s Court (Sessions Court I at Manjeri), if the offence committed is heinous and could evoke a minimum of seven years’ imprisonment.

We cannot blame the police in these cases. The police went by the proof of age provided by the accused.
Sameer Machingal, District Child Protection Officer