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, May 5, 2017


Thursday, 04 May 2017 | Pioneer News Service | New De

A day after Attorney General Mukul Rohatgi insisted that not a single Aadhaar card was duplicated out of the total database of 113 crore, the Government on Wednesday suffered a loss of face in the Supreme Court when the petitioners showed the Supreme Court how till September 1, 2016, more than 1.69 lakh Aadhaar cards were cancelled on complaints of duplication.

Rohatgi had on Tuesday submitted that duplication of Aadhaar cards is non-existent. He stated it was impossible to duplicate biometrics received under the UID programme and the Centre did not come across even a single instance to show Aadhaar can be duplicated.

Countering him on Wednesday, senior advocate Shyam Divan produced a copy of response under the RTI Act. It contained a query whether the Unique Identification Authority of India (UIDAI), the authority controlling Aadhaar services, received any complaint of duplication of Aadhaar cards. The RTI applicant sought details of number of cards cancelled due to duplication.

Diwan was appearing for two petitioners — retired Army Major General SG Vombatkere and Ramon Magsaysay awardee Bezwada Wilsonwho — wanted that the Government should not be allowed to mandatorily link Aadhaar with PAN.

Divan produced a copy of the RTI response to the court. It said, “A total of 1,69,563 Aadhaar cards as on September 1, 2016 were cancelled on complaints of duplication.” This came as a big blow to the Centre’s claim to vouch for Aadhaar being foolproof.

Diwan also questioned the A-G’s second submission that the Aadhaar (Targeted Delivery of Financial and Other Subsidies, Benefits and Services) Act 2016 made it mandatory for citizens to prepare their UID cards. He read out from the Act itself that state clearly that making an Aadhaar card is voluntary and left to the discretion of the citizen. He further established his argument by producing material from the UIDAI website, advertisements issued in print media, all stating that the Aadhaar service is voluntary and not mandatory.

“The language of Act is completely different from the submission by the A-G. I cannot imagine the Centre to have an argument contrary to what the Act says. If it was mandatory, the Act should have penal consequences for persons who do not have Aadhaar. There is nothing in the Act to this effect,” he added. He concluded that the submission of the A-G cannot be accepted and since an instrument of state will never play fraud with the people by misrepresenting information, it must be held that Aadhaar is a voluntary scheme.

Senior advocate Arvind Datar, appearing for the second petitioner, CPI leader Binoy Viswam, said that the question before the court concerns civil liberties and the arguments by A-G present a “frightening” scenario. According to him, the Centre lacked the competence to enact Section 139AA of Income Tax Act, requiring Aadhaar linkage with PAN and filing of income tax returns from July 1, 2017. He submitted that when Aadhaar Act is voluntary, IT Act cannot make Aadhaar mandatory.