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

Monday, January 15, 2018

12767 - After 4 Judges' Dissent, Lone Woman Judge Now Left Out of Sabarimala, Adultery Cases - News 18


Even though the cases include women-centric issues such as allowing menstruating women to enter Kerala's Sabarimala Temple and making adultery a gender-neutral law, the lone woman judge in the top court doesn't seem to be the part of the adjudication.

Utkarsh Anand | CNN-News18Updated:January 14, 2018, 1:09 PM IST

New Delhi: At a time when allocation of important cases among judges in the Supreme Court has resulted in four seniormost judges speaking out openly against Chief Justice of India (CJI) Dipak Misra, another development may rattle the ranks.

On Saturday afternoon, the Supreme Court registry notified eight Constitution Bench cases, which will be heard from January 17.

Even though the cases include women-centric issues such as allowing menstruating women to enter Kerala's Sabarimala Temple and making adultery a gender-neutral law, the lone woman judge in the top court doesn't seem to be the part of the adjudication.

Justice R Banumathi is presently the only woman judge in the Supreme Court, out of the working strength of 25 judges, but she is not likely to be a member of the five-judge bench, which will decide various issues pertaining to the rights of women.

Incidentally, Justice Banumathi was also left out of the previous Constitution benches, which were set up on orders of then CJI JS Khehar and had ruled upon validity of triple talaq and right to privacy. Although right to privacy was a nine-judge-bench matter, she was not included on the bench.

And now, she is again not going to be a voice in the eventual rulings in cases such as Sabarimala, adultery and also decriminalisation of homosexuality and the right of women to enter the Fire Temple for Parsis.

Notably, holding an unprecedented press briefing on Friday afternoon, four most senior judges — Justices J Chelameswar, Ranjan Gogoi, Madan B Lokur and Kurian Joseph — had questioned the CJI's mandate and manner of allocating cases across various benches in the top court.

According to a notification by the court registry, the list of eight cases begins with Aadhaar matter and the rest of the Constitution Bench cases have been listed in the same batch.

Since Aadhaar is a case which was last heard by a Constitution Bench on December 15, it can be anybody's guess that all eight matters in this batch will be heard by the same Constitution Bench – something that has many precedents too.

The Constitution Bench in Aadhaar case is headed by Chief Justice of India Dipak Misra and includes Justices AK Sikri, AM Khanwilkar, DY Chandrachud and Ashok Bhushan.

Therefore, the same composition of the judges will now hear the eight cases of vital importance for the nation, and for women, without including the only woman judge in the apex court.

Judgments in the Supreme Court are presumably delivered on constitutional touchstones, without any consideration of gender, caste or class.

Women judges, like all other judges in the court, also follow the same legal and constitutional principles and thus, they don't have to necessarily rule favourably on issues of gender.

Yet it is still ironic that an institution that has always upheld the gender rights and has stood up for equality and equal rights for women should put on display an apparent lack of gender diversity on constitution of benches, in particular for such cases.

This is also intriguing that the institution, which has only three days ago recommended appointment of another woman as a judge in the Supreme Court, has failed to accommodate the lone woman judge on the Constitution Bench that will arbiter women's rights.

The spirit of the law is that "justice should not only be done but seem to be done". And to realise this spirit, gender diversity must be on display.