AADHAAR RELATED ARTICLES: 570 - No legal guarantees of food security for APL, NAC told- The Hindu

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

Saturday, September 25, 2010

570 - No legal guarantees of food security for APL, NAC told- The Hindu

Smita Gupta

Planning Commission, NAC to see whether they can narrow down differences

Sonia Gandhi

New Delhi: In a major setback to the National Advisory Council (NAC) and the Right to Food Campaign, the Planning Commission and the government made it clear on Friday that it would be difficult to provide legal guarantees as far as food security for those living above the poverty line (APL) was concerned. Nor would it be possible to guarantee the slew of additional entitlements that the NAC had envisaged for the most disadvantaged.

In short, they said the right to food security for all citizens was impossible.

Representatives of the Commission and the government also stressed that it would be tough to set aside more than the 55 million tonnes of foodgrains currently available for the food security programme, and that it would not be easy to provide the additional Rs 65,000-70,000 crore required for NAC's dream scheme.

After day-long discussions, at which “there was an extensive hearing out of positions on both sides,” the Planning Commission and the NAC agreed to see whether it would be possible to narrow down their differences. Planning Commission Deputy Chairman Montek Singh Ahluwalia, Union Food Secretary Alka Sirohi, Women and Child Development Secretary D.K. Sikri, and Housing and Urban Poverty Alleviation Secretary Kiran Dhingra made presentations. The NAC presentation was made by Harsh Mander, convenor of the Working Group on the framework of the proposed Right to Food Security Bill.

Sonia Gandhi, who presided over the meeting in her capacity as NAC chairperson, heard both sides out, but did not commit herself either way. At the meeting on August 30, Ms. Gandhi pointed out that the poor might wonder why the rich were being given the same entitlements as them.

Montek Singh Ahluwalia

The burden of the arguments put forward on Friday by the Commission and government representatives was that the food security programme, as envisaged by the NAC, would have to be trimmed. Keeping in mind the availability of foodgrains and the demands being placed on the government, the NAC had to be “realistic.”

However, there was agreement that those households living below the poverty line (BPL) would be legally entitled to 35 kg of foodgrains — at Rs. 3 per kg for rice and Rs. 2 a kg for wheat. There was also a consensus on pegging the BPL figure at a number higher than the 42 per cent suggested by the Suresh Tendulkar panel — it could now be close to 50 per cent.

The differences that remain centre round entitlements for those in the APL category. While the government was willing to provide 25 kg foodgrains at 75 per cent of the Minimum Support Price (MSP) to APL families, it was made clear that it would not be possible to provide a legal guarantee for this. Sources said Ms. Sirohi pointed out that it would be difficult to make provision for more than 55 million tonnes of foodgrains a year — the NAC wanted this figure to be increased to about 85 million tonnes a year, which is difficult given the inadequacy of storage facilities.

Ms. Dhingra, on her part, while expressing her commitment to the NAC's desire to secure the nutritional requirements of those at the bottom of the economic ladder, also said it would be difficult to provide legal guarantees for these entitlements.

The NAC had suggested eight entitlements apart from an inclusive and enhanced Public Distribution System (PDS) — for child (such as ICDS) and maternal nutrition, community kitchens for those suffering from TB and HIV/AIDS, homeless children and destitute people and old age pensions.

Among those present were M.S. Swaminathan, Ram Dayal Munda, Narendra Jadhav, Pramod Tandon, Jean Dreze, Aruna Roy, Anu Aga, N.C. Saxena, A.K. Shiva Kumar, Deep Joshi, Farah Naqvi, Harsh Mander and Mirai Chatterjee. The next NAC meeting will be held on October 23.