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.

Monday, July 10, 2017

11587 - Constitution bench should decide on Aadhaar one way or the other: SC - dna India

DNA CORRESPONDENT | Sat, 8 Jul 2017-06:35am , New Delhi , DNA

The observation was made when the Aadhaar issue came up for hearing in front of the full bench in pursuance of a June 27 order delivered by a vacation bench

A Constitution Bench should dispose of all matters arising out of the Aadhaar issue once and for all, a three-judge bench of the Supreme Court observed on Friday. It can be the Chief Justice of India JS Khehar's prerogative whether the matter would be heard by a Constitution Bench comprising five judges or more, Justice Jasti Chelameshwar observed.

The observation was made when the Aadhaar issue came up for hearing in front of the full bench in pursuance of a June 27 order delivered by a vacation bench. Senior Advocate Shyam Divan, representing the petitioners, and Attorney General KK Venugopal agreed to the court's suggestion and agreed to jointly mention the matter before the Chief Justice of India next week.

"My opinion is that once a matter has been referred to a Constitution Bench, then all the issues arising out of it should be with the Constitution Bench. I can only say that a matter can be disposed of by a nine-judge bench. You two can decide the possibility of nine judges hearing it," said Justice Chelameswar heading the three-judge bench, also comprising Justices AM Khanwilkar and Navin Sinha.

During the brief hearing, Divan recapped the orders delivered, starting from a 2015 October order which referred the Aadhaar matter to a Constitution Bench. During his submissions, Divan said the slew of notifications released by the Centre making Aadhar mandatory — a clear departure from the statute under which it is voluntary — was akin to making India a concentration camp.

The AG, however, took exception to this submission and observed that if Divan continued along the lines of this argument, he was not keen to pursue the matter further. "How can he (Divan) say India is like a concentration camp?" Venugopal observed.

However, responding to this, Divan said he stood by his submissions and reiterated that according to him, the provisions of Aadhar where one was required to give their biometrics was violative of his rights. "The current situation harks back to 1984 (George Orwell's book) and all other novels that speak of a totalitarian state," Divan said.

School children — minors who have not yet grasped the concept of choice — are being made to register their attendance via thumbprints, Divan said.

To this, Justice Chelameshwar agreed that thought the statement was bold, it was Divan's right to make his submissions as long as it was in a parliamentary language.
Various petitions challenging the constitutional validity of Aadhar are pending before the apex court. However, it has been almost two years and the apex court has not yet constituted a bench to hear the matter despite several appeals.


  • While arguing for the petitioners, Senior Advocate Shyam Divan said, “The current situation harks back to 1984 (George Orwell’s book) and all other novels that speak of a totalitarian state.”