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
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
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.
Thursday, May 11, 2017
11306 - Supreme Court Refers Fresh Petition Against Aadhaar To Larger Constitutional Bench - Bloomberg Quint
Bhanvi Arora @bhanvi_1
May 10, 2017, 12:47 pmMay 10, 2017, 3:49 am
The Supreme Court on Tuesday referred to a larger constitutional bench a fresh petition challenging mandatory linking of Aadhaar with certain specific social beneficiary schemes, and seeking a stay on more than 17 such government schemes.
A two-judge bench comprising of Justice AK Sikri and Justice Ashok Bhushan directed the petition to a larger constitutional bench to ensure that there is some interim order before the Aadhaar enrolment deadline of June 30 for most of these schemes.
The fresh petition filed on Monday is in addition to a batch of petitions that were being heard by the apex court against Section 139AA of the Income Tax Act, 1961 making Aadhaar mandatory for filing income tax returns and for obtaining a Permanent Account Number. On May 4, the apex court had reserved its judgement on these petitions.
Also Read: Government Can’t Disregard Supreme Court Order Making Aadhaar Voluntary, Argue Petitioners
There have been a slew of notifications issued in the last three-four months under Section 7 of the Aadhar Act 2016 making it mandatory for, among others, mid day meals, public distribution system, benefits for people rescued from bonded labour, Bhopal gas victims, etc.
The fresh petition by Shanta Sinha and Kalyani Menon have challenged these notifications. In response the apex court directed the petitioners to approach the constitutional bench and voice their concerns before the Chief Justice of India to try and get an interim stay on making Aadhaar mandatory for these schemes, one lawyer with knowledge of the development said on the condition of anonymity.
In the past, there have been delays in setting up a larger constitutional bench since it is at the Chief Justice of India’s discretion, Senior Advocate Shyam Divan, counsel for one of the petitioners in the Aadhaar-PAN linkage matter said on Tuesday.
Speaking at an event discussing the legal aspects of Aadhaar in New Delhi, Divan explained that there is a roster for the Chief Justice of India to allocate judges for setting up benches for a hearing. There have been three Chief Justices who have come and gone in the Aadhaar case since October 2015, he added.
There is nothing that we can do except going up to the Chief Justice and say that this should be seen on priority.Shyam Divan, Senior Advocate
Divan said the reason the present Chief Justice of India JS Khehar has not been able to expedite the matter is probably lack of personnel to spare for the hearing. The government argued before an eight-judge bench that a citizen doesn’t have the right to privacy on certain issues, he said. “Now to overturn this, it needs to be referred to a nine-judge bench, which the Chief Justice of India is perhaps not ready to spare,” he added.
Also Read: Aadhaar Details Of 13.5 Crore People Available On Government Sites