In 2009, I became extremely concerned with the concept of Unique Identity for various reasons. Connected with many like minded highly educated people who were all concerned.
On 18th May 2010, I started this Blog to capture anything and everything I came across on the topic. This blog with its million hits is a testament to my concerns about loss of privacy and fear of the ID being misused and possible Criminal activities it could lead to.
In 2017 the Supreme Court of India gave its verdict after one of the longest hearings on any issue. I did my bit and appealed to the Supreme Court Judges too through an On Line Petition.
In 2019 the Aadhaar Legislation has been revised and passed by the two houses of the Parliament of India making it Legal. I am no Legal Eagle so my Opinion carries no weight except with people opposed to the very concept.
In 2019, this Blog now just captures on a Daily Basis list of Articles Published on anything to do with Aadhaar as obtained from Daily Google Searches and nothing more. Cannot burn the midnight candle any longer.
"In Matters of Conscience, the Law of Majority has no place"- Mahatma Gandhi
Ram Krishnaswamy
Sydney, Australia.

Aadhaar

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 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

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, December 14, 2017

12496 - Supreme Court to hear challenge to validity of Aadhaar scheme - The Hindu


NEW DELHI, DECEMBER 13, 2017 11:31 IST


Constitution Bench may hear pleas.

Chief Justice of India (CJI) Dipak Misra on Wednesday informed the petitioners challenging the validity of Aadhaar scheme that their case from Thursday.

The announcement followed the issuance of a government notification amending the Prevention of Money-laundering (Maintenance of Records) Rules to discard the December 31, 2017 deadline for the linking of Aadhaar with bank accounts and PANs.

The notification, issued by the Department of Revenue of the Ministry of Finance , does not give any deadline for linking Aadhaar with banks accounts and PANs and leaves it open-ended, that is, until the government issues a notification in the future fixing a deadline.

In an urgent mentioning, one of the many done in the past few days, by the petitioners before the CJI Bench, Chief Justice Misra told senior advocate Shyam Divan and advocate Vipin Nair that “we will hear it tomorrow.”

A five-judge Constitution Bench, comprising the CJI, Justices A.K. Sikri, A.M. Khanwilkar, D.Y. Chandrachud and Ashok Bhushan, is likely to hear the petitions. It will take up pleas for clarifications on and interim reliefs from deadlines issued.

The right to choice of existing Aadhaar holders who do not want to link their bank accounts may come up for a decision. 

Similarly, the issue of extension of deadline of linkage of mobile phones with Aadhaar would also be pleaded before the Constitution Bench. The present deadline is February 6, 2018 in this regard.

Last week, Attorney General of India K.K. Venugopal submitted before the court that the government would notify the extension of deadline for mandatory Aadhaar linking from December 31, 2017 to March 31, 2018.

This extension included 139 government subsidies, benefits or services, which are funded out of the Consolidated Fund of India as per Section 7 of the Aadhaar Act of 2016.

Mobile phone linkage extension
Mr. Venugopal had, however, said the extension of mobile phone linkage deadline would require a judicial order from the Supreme Court itself. This is because the government was complying with a February 6, 2017 order of the court in the Lok Niti Foundation case to tighten up verification process of mobile phone users through Aadhaar linkage, citing national security.
The Chief Justice had then indicated that it would be left to the Constitution Bench to give dates for the final hearing of the Aadhaar petitions.
Mr. Divan had pressed for dates in the first or second week of January 2018, immediately after the Christmas holidays. He had submitted that the government should promise that no coercive steps would be taken by it or its agencies on Aadhaar holders till the court takes a final decision on the validity of the Aadhaar scheme.
“If that is the case, nobody will produce it [Aadhaar]. We have said that those with Aadhaar do not mind producing their Aadhaar,” Mr. Venugopal had responded, willing to argue the question before the Constitution Bench.
Mr. Divan had said the government’s stand was increasingly ambiguous on the plight of the existing Aadhaar holders who do not want to link their Aadhaar. He had urged the court to address this issue immediately.
The Aadhaar petitions have been in the Supreme Court since 2014. The petitions have challenged Aadhaar as a violation of the fundamental right to privacy.
In October, the Centre joined forces with Mr. Divan for an early hearing of the Aadhaar cases. Mr. Venugopal then said that falsehoods have been spread about Aadhaar linking, including how Aadhaar is a must for CBSE students to appear in Class 10 and 12 exams. He also said a Constitution Bench may be set up to decide all the Aadhaar issues once and for all.

Justice Rohinton Nariman’s separate judgment
The decision to set up a Constitution Bench comes despite Justice Rohinton Nariman’s separate judgment in the nine-judge Bench declaring right to privacy as a fundamental right. Justice Nariman’s judgment had directed that the Aadhaar petitions to be posted for hearing before the ‘original’ three-judge Bench.
This ‘original’ Bench led by Justice J. Chelameswar had referred the petitions for hearing before a five-judge Bench, which had found it necessary to first decide whether privacy was a fundamental right or not before hearing the Aadhaar petitions. It had referred the legal question to a nine-judge Bench, which came out with the historic judgment in favour of the common man’s fundamental right to privacy against State intrusions.
The nine-judge Bench verdict has a crucial bearing on the Aadhaar petitions, which have argued that Aadhaar’s use of biometric details like fingerprints and iris scans violate bodily and informational privacy.
The petitioners argue that mandatory requirement of Aadhaar for these schemes “constrict rights and freedoms which a citizen has long been enjoying unless and until they part with their personal biometric information to the government.”
The petitions have termed the Aadhaar Act of 2016 unconstitutional and contrary to the concept of limited and accountable governance.