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

Friday, December 23, 2016

10599 - Teen mother, child must undergo DNA profiling, rules Madras HC - TNN

Mani Chitoor | TNN | Nov 12, 2016, 10.18 PM IST

CHENNAI: A 18 year old girl and her four month old child will now undergo DNA profiling to ascertain the child's paternity, under very strange circumstances. If paternity test is successful, the child's father will go to jail under Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (Posco) Act, 2012. 

Madras high court ordered the DNA profiling after seeing through the girl's (identified as 'X' by the court) attempts to sabotage the trial in order to save her 'husband' from Posco Act offence. "Administration of justice cannot be jeopardized in the hands of witnesses like "X" who have their own good reasons for not coming forward with the whole truth, despite the requirements imposed by Section 132 of the Evidence Act and Section 8 of the Oaths Act, 1969. Witnesses not speaking the truth is a cancer that is afflicting the health of the criminal justice system," the judge said. 

The girl, identified as 'X' by Madras high court, was made to live with her own uncle - Manikandan — by her family members and she became pregnant in March 2015, at the age of 17 years and some months. The case was brought out in the open by another woman, who had sexual relationship with Manikandan, as he had promised to marry her. After being dumped by him, she lodged a complaint and the pregnant 'X' was treated as a victim under the provisions of Posco Act. 

However, by the time trial started in a Perambalur court in January 2016, the girl had given birth to a child. She delivered the baby, identified by the court as 'Y', in September 2015 itself.

During trial, perhaps faced with the fact that narrating the fact would confirm the guilt of her 'uncle-husband' for rape and would land him in jail, she said she had married a person bearing the same name as that of her uncle. She said her 'husband' lived abroad, and that she had not married her husband.

Realising that the girl, who was a crucial prosecution witness to punish the man, was sabotaging the trial, the prosecution sought DNA profiling of the girl and her child so that the man's offence under Posco Act could be proved. After the Perambalur court acceded to the prosecution request, the present petition was filed on the ground that 'X' could not be directed to submit herself and 'Y' for DNA profiling. By doing that, it may have the consequence of bastardizing 'Y', which should not be permitted and that she has a right to privacy under Article 21 of the Constitution, her counsel argued.

"It is not the paternity of the child that is in issue. The issue before this court is whether Manikandan has committed an offence under the POCSO Act. The issue of legitimacy would only be incidentally involved. One has to see the picture on a larger canvas and if so seen, there can be no doubt that the harm that would befall the administration of criminal justice is far greater, if witnesses like "X" and her child cannot be subjected to DNA profiling. The harm that would befall if such a power is not recognised in the trial court will be far greater, because it will be easier for people to prey upon minor girls from downtrodden communities like predators and force them to turn turtle in the witness box. There is, therefore, an eminent need to subject "X" and her child to DNA profiling in order to arrive at the truth," the judge said.