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

Thursday, July 27, 2017

11653 - Aadhaar debate: Centre tells SC that not every aspect of right to privacy is fundamental - First Post

IndiaFP StaffJul, 26 2017 18:33:09 IST
Comment 1

During the hearing in the Supreme Court on the arguments of four states that are not ruled by BJP, including Karnataka and West Bengal on the privacy issue on Wednesday, Attorney General KK Venugopal stated that privacy as a fundamental right was 'deliberately avoided' from Article 21.

“Privacy, as a fundamental right, could have been mentioned in 21 but has been omitted. This was deliberate,” he said.
AG: Privacy, as a fundamental right, could have been mentioned in 21, but has been omitted. This was deliberate.

AG: Under Article 21, the concept of deprivation of rights is inbuilt, subject only to the condition that it be in accordance with law.

He also argued that the right to life transcends the right to privacy. "Claims to privacy that would destroy constitutional goals of social justice cannot be elevated to the status of a fundamental right," he said in the hearing. "The rights to life and personal liberty are neither unqualified nor absolute," Venugopal said.
The four states moved the Supreme Court seeking to intervene in the ongoing hearing on the issue of whether the right to privacy can be declared as one of the fundamental rights under the Constitution.
Besides Karnataka and West Bengal, two Congress-led states of Punjab and Puducherry took a stand opposite to the central government, which had said that the right to privacy is a common law right and not a fundamental right.
One of the more controversial comments that the attorney general made in the hearing was that the right has more credibility in 'developed countries that are socially, economically and politically developed', adding that in a developing country like India something as 'amorphous' as the right to privacy can never be a fundamental right. To this statement, the Supreme Court replied, saying, "Privacy isn't an elitist concept, it'll affect large masses. The state can't get blanket sanction to do whatever it wants."

SC on Right to Privacy: Privacy isn't an elitist concept,it'll affect large masses. State can't get blanket sanction to do whatever it wants
Additional Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, appearing for the Unique Identification Authority of India (UIDAI), the entity that issues Aadhaar cards, also argued that the right to privacy may be considered a fundamental right, but all aspects of privacy can't be put under fundamental rights category.

AG insists that his right to argue before the smaller bench that the facet of privacy in Aadhaar is not a fundamental right be left open.

UIDAI's counsel stands up and says that privacy is a right but not a fundamental right.

File image of Supreme Court. AFP
Senior advocate and Congress party leader Kapil Sibal, representing the four states that oppose the stance of the Centre, initiated his arguments before a nine-judge Constitution bench headed by Chief Justice JS Khehar and said that in the light of technological advancement, the court needs to take a fresh look on the right to privacy and its contours in the modern day.
Live Law has carried the written submission made by Sibal. In the submission, he states that right to privacy is a “quintessential right flowing out of the bouquet of rights under enshrined under Article 21.” He goes on to say that “present societal context where advances in technology and communication have transformed the relationship between stakeholders inter se and in particular the relationship between the State and its citizens.” The senior lawyer also urged the State to formulate a 'robust data protection law' to ensure that information of the citizens is secure.
"Privacy cannot be an absolute right. But it is a fundamental right. This court needs to strike a balance," he concluded before the bench, which also comprised justices J Chelameswar, SA Bobde, RK Agrawal, Rohinton Fali Nariman, Abhay Manohar Sapre, DY Chandrachud, Sanjay Kishan Kaul and S Abdul Nazeer apart from the chief justice.
Hearings related to the right to privacy and Aadhaar cards will resume on Thursday, where the respondents i.e. the State will resume its arguments. According to lawyer Prasanna S, hearings are likely to take place until next week.

Nariman J adamant that they will decide the issue once and for all for conceptual clarity for the nation.

To continue tomorrow. Bench rises. Respondents will take the whole of tomorrow. Likely to continue until next week.
The apex court had on 18 July set up the Constitution bench after the matter was referred to a larger bench by a five-judge bench.
The petitioners had claimed that collection and sharing of biometric information, as required under the Aadhaar scheme, was a breach of the "fundamental" right to privacy.
The Centre had on 19 July submitted in the apex court that right to privacy cannot fall in the bracket of fundamental rights as there are binding decisions of larger benches that it is only a common law right evolved through judicial pronouncements.
With inputs from agencies

Published Date: Jul 26, 2017 06:33 pm | Updated Date: Jul 26, 2017 06:33 pm