uid

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


Special

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

Quotes

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.


Search This Blog

Saturday, August 5, 2017

11715 - SC reserves verdict on right to privacy as fundamental right -Free Press Journal

— By From Our bureau | Aug 03, 2017 12:07 am

Once the privacy question is settled by the Constitution Bench, the remaining issues related to Aadhaar will be heard by a smaller Bench of the Supreme Court.

New Delhi : A nine-judge Constitution Bench on Wednesday concluded a fortnight-long hearing on whether the right to privacy is deemed a fundamental right or not, but reserved the verdict without setting a date for delivering its verdict.

The said Bench was set up on July 18 and headed by Chief Justice Jagdish Singh Khehar. The Bench heard arguments over three days each week by lawyers representing the Centre, state governments and individual petitioners who contended that the collection of personal data under the Aadhaar infringed on the right to privacy.

Is the right to privacy a fundamental right guaranteed under the Indian Constitution was the limited question that had cropped up in the context of legal challenges to the Aadhaar number, which has now become the bedrock of government welfare programmes, tax administration network and online financial transactions.

Arguments to this effect were opened by senior advocate Gopal Subramanium with a strong contention that privacy was not a shade of a fundamental right but as one that was “inalienable and quintessential to the construction of the Constitution.” He insisted that the concept of privacy was embedded in the right to liberty/dignity.

Shyam Divan, a senior advocate appearing for one of the petitions, sought to define “privacy” as one that includes bodily integrity, personal autonomy, protection from state surveillance and freedom of dissent/movement/thought. Starting its arguments on July 26, the Centre for the first time conceded that privacy is certainly a fundamental right under the Constitution, but with a caveat that it is neither absolute nor could it be extended to “every aspect” of privacy.

Attorney general K.K. Venugopal submitted that privacy was at best a “sub-species of liberty and every aspect could not qualify as being fundamental in nature.”

Following this, four state governments — Karnataka, Punjab, West Bengal, Himachal Pradesh — and the Union Territory of Puducherry backed the constitutionality of the right to privacy. The states of Haryana and Kerala also joined the proceedings.

Even as the privacy debate raged in the Apex Court, the Information Technology Ministry appointed an expert group headed by former Supreme Court judge B.N. Srikrishna to put in place a data protection legislation in the wake of the leakage of the Aadhaar data.

The Unique Identification Authority of India (UIDAI) that issues Aadhaar card providing Indian residents unique ID number took the stand through additional solicitor general Tushar Mehta that privacy need not be elevated as a fundamental right since it was already duly protected under statutes as a valuable common right.

Once the privacy question is settled by the Constitution Bench, the remaining issues related to Aadhaar will be heard by a smaller Bench of the Supreme Court. The first constitutional challenge to Aadhaar had come from former Karnataka High Court judge Justice K.S. Puttaswamy in 2013 and Divan has been appearing in the Aadhaar matters on behalf of him and others since then.

Various Benches of the Apex Court have been wriggling out from deciding the Aadhaar cases, all referring them to the Constitution Bench that went on since August 11, 2015. The CJI decided not to keep the matter hanging when Divan appeared along with Attorney General K.K. Venugopal to jointly plead for early establishment of the Constitution Bench.

He constituted a nine judge Bench to decide the matter since there were already two earlier Constitution Benches of eight judges in 1954 and six judges in 1964 ruling that the right to privacy is not a fundamental right.


http://www.freepressjournal.in/india/sc-reserves-verdict-on-right-to-privacy-as-fundamental-right/1114558