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

Wednesday, May 31, 2017

11494 - Finance Bill 2017: Does Modi’s Government Hate Transparency? - Fair Observer

Ankita Mukhopadhyay is a journalist based in New Delhi, India. She has worked at various Indian publications for the past two years as an editor. She

India’s Finance Bill 2017 seems to create more problems than it sets out to solve.

Ever since Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) swept the polls in India’s most populous state, Uttar Pradesh (UP), earlier this year, it seems like the BJP will be unstoppable in the 2019 national polls. Out of 403 seats in UP, the BJP won 312, setting a new record after beating the one set by former Prime Minister Indira Gandhi. The Indian National Congress party is in a lull, with its reliance on the Gandhi scion Rahul fading into the recesses of India’s vibrant democracy with every failure.

Amidst this impressive victory stand, the people who have been most affected by Hindu right-wing rule — students, liberals, atheists — are those who oppose the worldview harbored by the BJP. While Modi’s charisma woos many, there are others affected by his party’s my-way-or-the-highway style of politics.

The BJP created a stir in March by passing the 2017 Finance Bill, touted by many as being purposefully exclusive. The Rajya Sabha — the Council of States, the upper house of India’s parliament — where the opposition has a stronghold, was bypassed by tabling the bill as a money bill. In this type of legislation, the Rajya Sabha can only recommend changes, which may or may not be accepted by the lower house, the Lok Sabha (Council of the People), while passing the bill.

The Rajya Sabha is an important institution in India as it is a representative of the states, not the people. Most members are indirectly elected through state and territorial legislatures, and the house has the power to stop the passage of or suggest amendments to bills that may have problematic clauses.

The Lok Sabha is wary of swaying to populism, as its representatives are directly chosen by the public. The way Arun Jaitley, the finance minister, made sure that the bill was passed with limited opposition brought a very important question out to the fore: Are the provisions of this bill so problematic that it mandated it to be passed through a legislative loophole?


The Finance Bill, if studied in its true form, brings up many questions and answers few. It has been labeled a “regressive” bill by the media in India. To understand the bill, one needs to understand its most problematic clauses.

First of all, it makes the Aadhaar card mandatory for a Permanent Account Number (PAN) card – a personal ID for tax payment in India. The Aadhaar, on the other hand, is a unique identification system introduced by the government, akin to a National Insurance Number in the UK or Social Security Number in the US. The Indian government proposes to link integral information such as fingerprints and retina scans of each individual to their Aadhaar number, creating a central database of all citizens. According to the new bill, all individuals who now apply for a PAN card have to link their Aadhaar card details to it. Not doing so makes it a criminal offense. The Finance Bill also mandates those currently holding a PAN card to link their Aadhaar details to it.

However, speculation about data breaches are rife, even after top government officials like Amitabh Kant — the chief executive officer of NITI Ayog, the National Institution for Transforming India — have come out in support of the Aadhaar, saying that it has “strong privacy provisions.” Aadhaar card details are reportedly being used by some companies, with users complaining that their details are appearing on company databases, prompting concerns about whether consumer data can now be collected at the click of a button.

When the government implemented its controversial demonetization policy in 2016, the aim was to get rid of black money. While it saw some initial success, demonetization also made life easier for tax evaders by introducing the 2,000-rupee note. Notes of a higher denomination make the illegal hoarding of larger amounts of money much easier.

The Finance Bill now proposes to remove the clause that mandates income-tax officers to provide a reason for raiding a person’s home or assets if suspected to be hoarding black money. The bill also allows the government to seize any property if it is in “the interest of revenue,” meaning the government can requisition a property for up to six months. The bill mandates no provision to explain if the property will be returned after that timeframe.

The issue of tax compliance is complex, for it can be seen that the higher the degree or need for compliance, the higher the probability of evasion. Also, the higher the income, the higher the chances of evasion. According to an industry executive, the Finance Bill now gives power to authorities to target those people with higher income, and not giving a reason for the this will allow a thorough investigation.

However, at the other end of the spectrum lies the argument that innocent people will be subjected to arbitrary checks and, in certain cases, arrest, which is a violation of a person’s privacy.

For the first time in India, a bill has mandated a policy for political donations, albeit with its share of controversy. Political donations have always troubled parties in India. Now, thanks to the Finance Bill, any individual or company that wishes to donate to a party’s cause can do so via electoral bonds issued by a bank. While the bank will maintain a record of the bond, it is not bound to disclose the person’s identity. The cap on funding, which was previously set at 7.5% of a company’s net profit in a timeframe of three years, has also been removed.

This can have two consequences: Either it can systematize donations to political parties through a legal channel, or shield certain politicians and political parties who receive bloated donations from industrialists. Finance Minister Jaitley has argued that this clause was necessary to protect companies on the basis that, if it is revealed that a company has donated to a particular party, other parties will pressurize it to donate to them as well. Yet the reason why the cap on funding has been removed was not elaborated. A plausible explanation for why the reason was not disclosed can be the fact that the BJP government is trying to rationalize political donations through a known channel, or it is trying to shield itself and others from scrutiny over the money it receives from big industrialists.
Indian media have picked up this particular point of political donations as extremely problematic, but donations to political parties are controversial in almost every country. Former South Korean President Park Guen-hye was impeached after it was revealed that she and her close friend, Choi Soon-sil, took donations from conglomerates such as Samsung and Lotte in exchange for political favors. In India, Modi was accused by Rahul Gandhi of seeking support for his electoral campaign.

Post-independence, tribunals were introduced in India to expedite the resolution of administrative and tax-related disputes. However, their purpose was not served as courts became bogged down by bureaucracy. The Finance Bill has proposed the merger of certain tribunals, such as airports and highways authorities.
According to a senior lawyer, the move to merge certain tribunals could be to streamline their activities. But the rationale behind the merger seems very unclear. For example, the logic to merge the Airports Economic Regulatory Authority of India with the Telecom Disputes Settlement and Appellate Tribunal makes little sense.
The National Highways Tribunal is also proposed to be replaced by the Airport Appellate Tribunal — another merger that makes no sense. The appointment and removal of tribunal members under the government’s control is also a problem: This can mean an assault on their independence. Tribunals are important as they are autonomous bodies that expedite the redressal process.
The government has not revealed the logic behind these proposed mergers, and if they come through, these could create more problems than they solve. It is possible that certain disputes will go unnoticed or overlooked. For example, an issue related to environmental concerns over the construction of an airport may go unaddressed or delayed.

The merger should have been straightforward enough to escape criticism. But, like many measures, the BJP government’s move is under scrutiny for not explaining measures clearly.
Every democratically-elected government is required to provide a basic service to it citizens — a transparency in the workings of government structures. Modi’s government may have passed the Finance Bill by bypassing the Rajya Sabha, but its clauses will have an impact on people’s everyday life. Citizens are now liable to become tax evaders if they do not register for an Aadhaar card, and their property is subject to legal requisition if the government feels so.

The BJP government has steamrolled its opponents and has had its way ever since it took power in 2014. But its reputation as a transparent party has been tarnished owing to moves that have discarded the opposition’s input. The weakness of the Indian National Congress party may benefit the BJP in the short term, but, in the long run, only a party that believes in transparency, clarity and freedom of speech can survive in a democratic system.

Whether the Finance Bill will create more problems than it seeks to solve is a question that only time will answer. As it currently reads, the bill fails to do so.
*[This article was updated on May 30, 2017.]

The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect Fair Observer’s editorial policy.