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, May 7, 2018

13484 - Challenge to supreme duty of neutrality & decisiveness - Telegraph India

An insider outside

Pratishtha Singh 
May 07, 2018 00:00 IST
=
Protocol dictates that we use the word "honourable" while talking about courts of justice. They are considered to be vital to the running and existence of a democracy.

Though the very fabric of democracy was intended in such a way that each of its three foundation stones, namely the legislature, judiciary and executive could be held responsible for discrepancies and unwarranted actions, the legislature has to go through the drill of being elected directly by the people (or by those who represent the people) every five years.

As much as we might point fingers at corrupt practices of the politicians, they do have to prove their worth in each round of election. Alarming are the situations when money or tampered voting machines change the fate of this powerful tool of putting a check on the legislature.

The executive has it easy: once selected for a job, they are hardly ever sacked from their positions.

Bureaucrats change their tunes according to the party in power, in many cases, overlooking and participating in the corruption. They are, in the worst case scenario, transferred to a distant location or given inadequate job responsibility.

But apart from that, they enjoy the most unhindered workplace.

And then comes the judiciary. In India, the judiciary is very closely connected to the legislature. Now, before the proverbial gun is jumped and I am termed an "anti-national", allow me to explain. Article 124 of the Constitution delineates the methods for the appointment of any of the 26 judges of the Supreme Court. It says that it must be done in "consultation" with the Chief Justice of India, who is a part of the collegium which sends its "recommendations" to the President. This system of recruitment is dubious for three major reasons:

• The party in power can influence the list of "recommended" candidates before it is sent to the President;
• The party in power can influence the list of "recommended" candidates after it is sent to the President;
• The collegium can make "recommendations" based on personal preferences.

In the above three points, in most cases, the word "can" is replaced by the word "does"! We are wary of nepotism in other spheres of public services but we unfortunately ignore the extreme nepotism present in the selection and appointment of judges in the country. 

By rough estimates, 30-35 per cent of Supreme Court lawyers and eventual judges are secondhird generation law graduates in their respective families.

The four Supreme Court judges who addressed a press conference in January 2018 tried to highlight the ills which plague the judiciary. This was the first time in the history of the country that judges had to speak up against their own fraternity in interest of the citizens of the country. They had, before the fateful day of the conference, brought the issues to the CJI's notice by means of letters and verbal communication. They said the death of special CBI judge Justice Loya and the roster of justices of the Supreme Court was the last straw, which led them to voice their concerns. Four unrelated judges pointed the "less than desirable" practices of the apex court in the recent years.

Their laments were largely about an enslaved judiciary unable to function without receiving approval nods from those in power. Many more judges and lawyers spoke in their support after the press conference. So, the question is, should we not reform the systems which govern the functioning of the honourable Supreme Court? Justice is one of the strongest pillars of a democracy and it must maintain autonomy. Along with the Supreme Court, other lower courts too need to review their selection processes.

When there is a single Constitution which is applicable to the whole of India, why are there state-level judiciary exams with different questions and divergent ideologies for the selection of candidates? Justice, in its very conception, must be equal for all and unbiased in all possible ways. The blindfold on the goddess of justice surely does not mean turning a blind eye to the public's genuine concerns. One wishes that the blindfold be taken off so that she can see how badly her scales are tipping in favour of those who are clenching power and money in their fists. The country does not need new laws. It needs better implementation of the existing ones.

With all this constructive criticism for the judiciary, one must applaud them for their stance on the Aadhaar Card. The honourable Supreme Court managed to get an admission from the government that it lied to the public by forcing the people to link Aadhaar to mobile phone numbers. Only one question remains: how do we de-link the Aadhaar from our phones?

The writer is lecturer, Delhi University, and author of Voter Mata Ki Jai