http://ibnlive.in.com/news/why-the-parliamentary-panel-rejected-the-uid-bill/211597-3.html
42
STANDING COMMITTEE ON FINANCE
(2011-12)
FIFTEENTH LOK SABHA
Ministry of Planning
THE NATIONAL IDENTIFICATION AUTHORITY OF INDIA
BILL, 2010
FORTY-SECOND REPORT
LOK SABHA SECRETARIAT
NEW DELHI
December, 2011/ Agrahyana, 1933 (Saka)
1
FORTY-SECOND REPORT
STANDING COMMITTEE ON FINANCE
(2011-2012)
(FIFTEENTH LOK SABHA)
Ministry of Planning
THE NATIONAL IDENTIFICATION AUTHORITY OF
INDIA BILL, 2010
Presented to Lok Sabha on 13 December, 2011
Laid in Rajya Sabha on 13 December, 2011
LOK SABHA SECRETARIAT
NEW DELHI
December, 2011/ Agrahyana, 1933 (Saka)
2
CONTENTS
PAGE
Composition of the Committee .............................….…………………………(iii)
Introduction ..................................................…………………….…………… (iv)
REPORT
A.
Introduction
1
B.
Objectives and Salient Features of the Bill
2
C.
Evolution of the UIDAI
3
D.
Issuance of aadhaar numbers pending passing the Bill by
5
Parliament
E.
UID scheme
7
F.
Global Experience
9
G. Existing Identity forms vs need for aadhaar number
10
H.
Identity and Eligibility
11
I.
Aadhaar Number and National Population Register (NPR)
12
J.
Coordination between the agencies involved in the UID
13
scheme
K.
Civil Liberties Perspective
16
L.
Financial Implications
17
M. Technology
20
N.
National Security vs the UID scheme
21
Part-II
Observations/Recommendations of the Committee
28
APPENDICES
I. Dissent notes submitted by S/Shri Prem Das Rai, MP, Manicka Tagore,
MP and Raashid Alvi, MP………………………………….. 36
II. Minutes of the sittings of the Committee held on 11 February, 2011,
29 June, 2011, 29 July, 2011 and 8 December, 2011……………… 39
III. The National Identification Authority of India Bill, 2010…………. 49
3
COMPOSITION OF STANDING COMMITTEE ON FINANCE – 2011-2012
Shri Yashwant Sinha - Chairman
MEMBERS
LOK SABHA
2. Shri Shivkumar Udasi Chanabasappa
3.
Shri Jayant Chaudhary
4.
Shri Harishchandra Deoram Chavan
5.
Shri Bhakta Charan Das
6.
Shri Gurudas Dasgupta
7.
Shri Nishikant Dubey
8.
Shri Chandrakant Khaire
9.
Shri Bhartruhari Mahtab
10. Shri Anjan Kumar Yadav M.
11. Shri Prem Das Rai
12. Dr. Kavuru Sambasiva Rao
13. Shri Rayapati S. Rao
14. Shri Magunta Sreenivasulu Reddy
15. Shri Sarvey Sathyanarayana
16. Shri G.M. Siddeswara
17. Shri N. Dharam Singh
18. Shri Yashvir Singh
19. Shri Manicka Tagore
20. Shri R. Thamaraiselvan
21. Dr. M. Thambidurai
RAJYA SABHA
22. Shri S.S. Ahluwalia
23. Shri Raashid Alvi
24. Shri Vijay Jawaharlal Darda
25. Shri Piyush Goyal
26. Shri Moinul Hassan
27. Shri Satish Chandra Misra
28. Shri Mahendra Mohan
29. Dr. Mahendra Prasad
30. Dr. K.V.P. Ramachandra Rao
31. Shri Yogendra P. Trivedi
SECRETARIAT
1.
Shri A.K. Singh
-
Joint Secretary
2. Shri R.K. Jain
-
Director
3. Shri Ramkumar Suryanarayanan -
Deputy Secretary
(iii)
4
INTRODUCTION
I, the Chairman of the Standing Committee on Finance, having been
authorized by the Committee, present this Forty-Second Report on ―The
National Identification Authority of India Bill, 2010‖.
2.
The National Identification Authority of India Bill, 2010 introduced in
Rajya Sabha on 3 December, 2010 was referred to the Committee on 10
December, 2010 for examination and report thereon, by the Speaker, Lok
Sabha under Rule 331E of the Rules of Procedure and Conduct of Business in
Lok Sabha.
3. The Committee obtained background note, detailed note and written
information on various provisions contained in the aforesaid Bill from the
Ministry of Planning.
4.
Written suggestions / views / memoranda on the provisions of the Bill
were received from various institutions / experts / individuals.
5.
The Committee took briefing / oral evidence of the representatives of the
Ministry of Planning and the Unique Identification Authority of India (UIDAI) at
their sitting held on 11 February, 2011.
6.
At the sitting held on 29 June, 2011, the Committee heard the views of
the representatives of (i) the National Human Rights Commission (NHRC), and
(ii) the Indian Banks Association (IBA), and Dr. Reetika Khera, Visitor, Delhi
School of Economics, New Delhi. The Committee also heard the views of the
representatives of the Confederation of Indian Industry (CII), and experts
namely, Dr. Usha Ramanathan, Independent Law Researcher, New Delhi, Dr.
R. Ramakumar, Associate Professor, the Tata Institute of Social Sciences,
Mumbai and Shri Gopal Krishna, Member, Citizen Forum for Liberties, New
Delhi at the sitting held on 29 July, 2011.
7.
The Committee, at their sitting held on 8 December, 2011 considered
and adopted this Report.
5
8. The Committee wish to express their thanks to the officials of the Ministry
of Planning and the Unique Identification Authority of India (UIDAI) for
furnishing the requisite material and information which were desired in
connection with the examination of the Bill. The Committee would also thank
all the institutions and experts for their valuable suggestions on the Bill.
9.
For facility of reference, the observations/recommendations of the
Committee have been printed in thick type in the body of the Report.
New Delhi;
YASHWANT SINHA,
9 December, 2011
Chairman,
20 Aghrayana, 1933(Saka) Standing Committee on Finance
(iv)
6
REPORT
PART - I
A.
Introduction
1.
With a view to ensure that the benefits of centrally sponsored schemes
reaches to right person and not misused, the Central Government had decided
to issue unique identification numbers to all residents in India and to certain
other persons. The scheme of unique identification involves collection of
demographic and biometric information from individuals for the purpose of
issuing of unique identification numbers to such individuals. The Central
Government, for the purpose of issuing unique identification numbers,
constituted the Unique Identification Authority of India (UIDAI) on 28th January,
2009, being executive in nature, which is at present functioning under the
Planning Commission.
2.
It has been observed and assessed by the Government that the issue of
unique identification numbers may involve certain issues, such as (a) security
and confidentiality of information, imposition of obligation of disclosure of
information so collected in certain cases, (b) impersonation by certain
individuals at the time of enrolment for issue of unique identification numbers,
(c) unauthorised access to the Central Identities Data Repository (CIDR), (d)
manipulation of biometric information, (e) investigation of certain acts
constituting offence, and (f) unauthorised disclosure of the information collected
for the purpose of issue of unique identification numbers, which should be
addressed by law and attract penalties.
3.
In view of the foregoing paragraph, the Government has felt it necessary
to make the said Authority as a statutory authority for carrying out the functions
of issuing unique identification numbers to the residents in India and to certain
other persons in an effective manner. It is, therefore, proposed to enact the
National Identification Authority of India Bill, 2010 to provide for the
establishment of the National Identification Authority of India (NIDAI) for the
purpose of issuing identification numbers (which has been referred to as
aadhaar number) to individuals residing in India and to certain other classes of
individuals and manner of authentication of such individuals to facilitate access
7
to benefits and services to which they are entitled and for matters connected
therewith or incidental thereto.
B.
Objectives and Salient Features of the Bill
4.
The National Identification Authority of India Bill, 2010, introduced in
Rajya Sabha on 3rd December, 2010, inter alia, seeks to provide—
(a) for issue of aadhaar numbers to every resident by the Authority on
providing his demographic and biometric information to it in such manner
as may be specified by regulations;
(b) for authentication of the aadhaar number of an aadhaar number
holder in relation to his demographic and biometric information subject to
such conditions and on payment of such fees as may be specified by
regulations;
(c) for establishment of the National Identification Authority of India
consisting of a Chairperson and two part-time Members;
(d) that the Authority to exercise powers and discharge functions which,
inter alia,include—
(i) specifying the demographic and biometric information for
enrolment for an aadhaar number and the processes for collection
and verification thereof;
(ii) collecting demographic and biometric information from any
individual seeking an aadhaar number in such manner as may be
specified by regulations;
(iii) maintaining and updating the information of individuals in the
CIDR in such manner as may be specified by regulations;
(iv) specify the usage and applicability of the aadhaar number for
delivery of various benefits and services as may be provided by
regulations;
(e) that the Authority shall not require any individual to give information
pertaining to his race, religion, caste, tribe, ethnicity, language, income
or health;
(f) that the Authority may engage one or more entities to establish and
maintain the CIDR and to perform any other functions as may be
specified by regulations;
(g) for constitution of the Identity Review Committee consisting of three
members (one of whom shall be the chairperson) to ascertain the extent
and pattern of usage of the aadhaar numbers across the country and
prepare a report annually in relation to the extent and pattern of usage
8
of the aadhaar numbers along with its recommendations thereon and
submit the same to the Central Government;
(h) that the Authority shall take measures (including security safeguards)
to ensure that the information in the possession or control of the
Authority (including information stored in the CIDR) is secured and
protected against any loss or unauthorized access or use or
unauthorized disclosure thereof; and
(i) for offences and penalties for contravention of the provisions of the
proposed legislation.
C.
Evolution of the UIDAI
5.
The concept of a Unique Identification (UID) scheme was first discussed
and worked upon since 2006 when administrative approval for the scheme
―Unique ID for BPL families‖ was given on 3rd March, 2006 by the Department
of Information Technology, Ministry of Communications and Information
Technology.
6.
Subsequently, a Processes Committee was set up on 3rd July, 2006 to
suggest processes for updation, modification, addition and deletion of data
fields from the core database to be created under the said project. The
Committee appreciated the need of a UID Authority to be created by an
executive order under the aegis of the Planning Commission to ensure a pan-
departmental and neutral identity for the Authority.
7.
Thereafter, since the Registrar General of India was engaged in the
creation of the National Population Register (NPR) and issuance of Multi-
purpose National Identity Cards to citizens of India, it was decided with the
approval of the Prime Minister, to constitute an Empowered Group of Ministers
(EGoM) to collate the two schemes – the NPR under the Citizenship Act, 1955
and the UID scheme. The EGoM was also empowered to look into the
methodology and specific milestones for early and effective completion of the
scheme and take a final view on these. The EGoM was constituted on 4th
December, 2006 and a series of meetings took place as follows:-
a) First meeting of EGoM: 22nd November, 2007 :
Recognized the need for creating an identity related resident
database regardless of whether the database is created based on a
9
de-novo collection of individual data or is based on already existing
data such as the voter list.
Need to identify and establish institutional mechanism that will own
the database and be responsible for its maintenance.
b) Second meeting of EGoM: 28th January, 2008
The proposal to establish UID Authority under the Planning
Commission was approved.
c) Third meeting of EGoM: 7th August, 2008
Referred certain matters raised with relation to the UIDAI to a
Committee of Secretaries for examination.
d) Fourth meeting of EGoM: 4th November, 2008
It was decided to notify UIDAI as an executive authority. Decision on
investing it with statutory authority would be taken up later.
UIDAI would be anchored in the Planning Commission for five years
after which a view would be taken as to where the UIDAI would be
located within Government.
8.
The UIDAI was constituted on 28th January, 2009 under the
Chairmanship of Shri Nandan M. Nilekani as an attached office under the aegis
of the Planning Commission. The UIDAI was inter-aila given the responsibility
to lay down plan and policies to implement the UID scheme, own and operate
the UID database and be responsible for its updation and maintenance on an
ongoing basis. The Prime Minister‗s Council of UIDAI and a Cabinet
Committee on UIDAI (called CC-UIDAI) were set up on 30th July, 2009 and 22nd
October, 2009 respectively for achieving the objectives of the Authority.
9.
Asked why the matter of conferring statutory status to the UIDAI was
deferred, the Ministry of Planning have submitted their written response as
under:-
―Based on the proposal that formation of the UIDAI under the Planning
Commission
would
ensure
better
coordination
with
different
departments, it was decided that initially the UIDAI may be notified as an
executive authority under the Planning Commission and the issue of
investing the UIDAI with statutory authority and the reconciliation of such
statutory role with National Registration Authority (NRA) can be
considered at an appropriate time‖.
10
10.
Justifying the extension of the UID scheme, which is initially intended for
BPL families, to all residents and other categories of individuals, the Ministry of
Planning in their written response have submitted as under:-
―The UID scheme was extended to all residents and other categories of
individuals to gradually do away the de novo exercises each time for
field level data collection. Simultaneously, it would also ensure that links
to more and more identity based databases are created by inclusion of
the UID number in their databases‖.
11.
In this regard, Dr. R. Ramakumar, Expert, in his post-evidence reply has,
among other things, added as follows:-
―…..it has been proven again and again that in the Indian environment,
the failure to enroll with fingerprints is as high as 15% due to the
prevalence of a huge population dependent on manual labour. These
are essentially the poor and marginalised sections of the society. So,
while the poor do indeed need identity proofs, aadhaar is not the right
way to do that….‖
12.
The Ministry in their written reply have stated, among other things, that :-
―While there may be a number of factors contributing to the failure to
enroll (like geography, age groups, occupasion etc.) and the figures
quoted…… may not hold good in all situations, failure to enroll is a
reality…. For enrolment purpose, UIDAI has already built in processes to
handle biometric exceptions.‖
D.
Issuance of aadhaar numbers pending passing the Bill by
Parliament
13.
Justice Dr. M. Rama Jois, MP (Rajya Sabha) in his representation
addressed to the Chairman, Standing Committee on Finance has inter-alia
pointed out since the NIDAI Bill is pending for consideration before the
Standing Committee on Finance, implementation of the provisions of the Bill,
issue of aadhaar numbers and incurring expenditure from the exchequer by the
Government is a clear circumvention of Parliament, and therefore, should be
kept in abeyance awaiting debate in and decision of both Houses of Parliament.
14.
On being asked about the legal basis under which the UIDAI is
functioning at present, and the mechanism that the UIDAI has adopted, since
its inception, to deal with any of the issues like security and confidentiality of
11
information and other offences related to issue of the aadhaar numbers, the
Ministry of Planning in a written reply have inter-alia stated that:-
―….The matter about commencement of operation of the UIDAI before a
legal framework was put in place was referred to the Ministry of Law &
Justice wherein opinion was sought on the issue whether in absence of
a specific enabling law, would there be any constraints in collecting the
data (including biometrics) and in issuing the UID numbers to residents
in accordance with the mandate given to the Authority. The Ministry of
Law & Justice, after examining the matter, had mentioned that it is a
settled position that powers of the Executive are co-extensive with the
legislative power of the Government and that the Government is not
debarred from exercising its executive power in the areas which are not
regulated by specific legislation. It had also been opined that till the time
such legislation is framed the Authority can continue to function under
the executive order issued by the Government and the scheme that may
be prepared by the UIDAI. It was also opined that the Authority can
collect information/data for implementation of the UID scheme. Such
implementation can be done by giving wide publicity to the scheme and
persuading the agencies/individual to part with necessary information.
The UIDAI has not faced issues such as breach of security and
confidentiality, manipulation of biometrics, unauthorized access to the
CIDR or other related offences since its inception…..till the time
Parliament passes the Bill, these matters will be covered by the relevant
laws‖.
15.
The opinion of the Attorney-General of India on the above mentioned
issues as obtained by the Ministry of Law & Justice (Department of Legal
Affairs) is furnished below:-
―The competence of the Executive is not limited to take steps to
implement the law proposed to be passed by Parliament. Executive
Power operates independently. The Executive is not implementing the
provisions of the Bill. The Authority presently functioning under the
Executive Notification dated 28th January, 2009 is doing so under valid
authority and there is nothing in law or otherwise which prevents the
Authority from functioning under the Executive Authorisation.
The power of Executive is clear and there is no question of
circumventing Parliament or the Executive becoming a substitute of
Parliament. On the contrary, what is sought to be done is to achieve a
seamless transition of the authority from an Executive Authority into a
statutory authority.
All the expenditure which is being incurred is sanctioned by Parliament
in accordance with the financial procedure set forth in the Constitution. If
the Bill is not passed by any reason and if Parliament is of the view that
12
the Authority should not function and express its will to that effect, the
exercise would have to be discontinued. This contingency does not
arise.
The present Bill being implemented without Parliaments‘ approval does
not set a bad precedent in the Parliamentary form of Government. On
the contrary, the fact that the Authority is sought to be converted from an
Executive Authority to a statutory authority, it underlines the supremacy
of Parliament‖.
16.
On this issue, Dr. Usha Ramanathan, Expert, in her post-evidence reply
has inter-alia stated that:-
―Article 73 of the Constitution delineates the extent of executive power of
the Union and describes it as extending to matters with respect to which
Parliament has power to make laws……
While the executive power of the Union, and of the States, is co-
extensive with the legislative power of the Union and the States, this is a
provision that sets out the limits of the power. These are not provisions
that are meant to make Parliament, or the legislatures, redundant. While
executive power cannot extend beyond the legislative power of the
Union and the States, Parliament and the legislatures can, and routinely
do, set out the terms on which the executive is to function. This is also
how 'delegated legislation' or 'subordinate legislation' has to be within
the extent of the 'parent statute'…..
It is a plain misconception to think that the executive can do what it
pleases, including in relation to infringing constitutional rights and
protections for the reason that Parliament and legislatures have the
power to make law on the subject‖.
E.
UID scheme
17.
A resident who seeks to obtain an aadhaar number shall provide his /
her demographic and biometric information to enrolling agencies appointed by
Registrars. A resident who does not possess any documentary proof of identity
or proof of address can obtain an aadhaar number by being introduced by an
introducer.
18.
The UIDAI has executed Memoranda of Understanding (MoU) with the
partners including all the States and Union Territories, 25 financial institutions
(including LIC) to act as Registrars for implementing the scheme. The roles
and responsibilities of the partners flow from the MoU.
13
19.
The UIDAI requires only basic identity data such as name, age, gender,
address and relationship details in case of minors, for issue of unique identity
number. This is commonly known as ‗Know your Resident (KYR). The partner
registrars are using this resident interface as an opportunity to update their own
selected data bases such as ration card number, MGNREGS job card number,
PAN card etc. This is commonly known as ‗Know your Resident Plus‘ (KYR+).
Collection of these information is purely an initiative of respective Registrars
and not mandatory for issue of aadhaar number.
20.
The UIDAI is collecting bare minimum demographic information from the
residents; any other kind of information, viz., rural, semi-urban and urban areas,
persons with disabilities, migrant unskilled and unorganized workers, nomadic
tribes and others who do not have any permanent dwelling house, is not
available with UIDAI. Asked how the coverage of marginalized sections of
population, without having the data of aadhaar numbers issued to them, could
be achieved, the Ministry has submitted that the Authority proposes to cover
the marginalized and poor sections of the population through special enrolment
camps organized for them.
21.
In a news item dated 6th September, 2011, it has been reported that the
Ministry of Home Affairs have identified flaws in the enrolment process followed
by the UIDAI, citing cases where people have got aadhaar numbers on the
basis of false affidavits.
22.
Further, an expert has brought to the notice of the Standing Committee
on Finance that issues of liability and responsibility for maintaining accuracy of
data on the Register, conducting identity checks and ensuring the integrity of
the overall operation of the UID scheme have not been resolved. On being
asked to comment on this, the Ministry of Planning have submitted a written
reply as follows:-
―……Registrars have to put processes in place to ensure that the data
collected is accurate. It is also the responsibility of the Registrars to
appoint verifiers (for verifying the documents presented by the resident)
and introducers to handle cases where the residents do not have any
documents‖.
14
23.
It has been reported in a news item that the Ministry of Home Affairs
have alleged that some of the registrars have not adhered to the laid down
procedures under UIDAI. It has also been noticed that the Government of
Kerala vide G.O.(MS)No:16/2011/ITD dated 3rd June, 2011 has inter-alia stated
that the MoU was signed between UIDAI and Government of Kerala for
implemenation of the UID project subject to condition that the clauses on the
standards, protocol, criteria etc. in the MoU shall be in accordance with the
State IT policy.
F.
Global Experience
24.
It has been brought to the notice of the Standing Committee on Finance
that on the basis of the findings of London School of Economics (LSE) report,
the Government of United Kingdom has abandoned its ID project (repealed its
Identity Cards Act, 2006) citing a range of reasons, which includes high cost,
unsafe, untested and unreliable technology, and the changing relationship
between the state and the citizen etc.
To a specific issue of relevance of any of the above mentioned factors in
the Indian context, it has been informed by the Ministry as follows:-
―There are significant differences between the UK‘s ID card project and
the UID project and to equate the two would not be appropriate. The
differences are as follows:-
a) The UK system involved issuing a card which stored the information
of the individual including their biometrics on the card. UID scheme
involves issuing a number. No card containing the biometric information
is being issued. UK already has the National insurance number which is
used often as a means to verify the identity of the individual.
b) The statutory framework envisaged made it mandatory to have the UK
ID card. Aadhaar number is not mandatory.
c) The data fields were large and required the individual to provide
accurate information of all other ID numbers such as driver‗s license,
national insurance number and other such details thereby linking the UK
ID card database to all other databases on which the individual was
registered. UID Scheme collects limited information and the database is
not linked to other databases.
15
d) In UK, the legislative framework and structure approached it from a
security perspective. The context and need in India is different. The UID
scheme is envisaged as a mean to enhance the delivery of welfare
benefits and services‖.
25.
When asked as to whether any analysis has been carried out on the
experience of countries where National IDs are in use as well as countries
where it has been discontinued, the Ministry have inter-alia informed the
Committee in a written reply as follows:-
―In some countries the use of smart cards to store significant data about
the resident added to concerns about ID fraud and duplication…….
The comparisons between developed countries, which are looking at
additional ID forms from a security perspective, versus India, a
developing country which, like Brazil and Mexico, is attempting to, build
the basic identity and verification infrastructure essential to delivering
welfare benefits, and promoting inclusive growth, is not a reasonable
one‖.
G.
Existing identity forms vs need for aadhaar number
26.
A view has been expressed that adding another form of identity (i.e.
aadhaar number) without studying the possibility of using the existing forms of
identity, for example, Voter ID card, to solve the current problems appears to be
a waste of resources.
27.
The Ministry of Planning in a written submission have inter-alia stated
the following:-
―……in the current framework there is no single document which is
uniformly acceptable as proof of identity across India – irrespective of
age, gender and familial connections. Establishing identity is a
challenge for the poor, particularly when they move from place to place
as a consequence lack of proof of identity makes it difficult for the poor
to access benefits and services.
…..Aadhaar number is an enabler…... The benefits of aadhaar number
are:-
“For residents: The aadhaar number will become the single source of
identity verification. Once residents enroll, they can use the number
multiple times – they would be spared the hassle of repeatedly providing
supporting identity documents each time they wish to access services
such as obtaining a bank account, passport, driving license, and so
on…. the number will also give migrants mobility of identity.
16
For Registrars and enrollers: The UIDAI will only enroll residents after
de-duplicating records. This will help Registrars clean out duplicates
from their databases, enabling significant efficiencies and cost savings.
For Registrars focused on cost, the UIDAI‗s verification processes will
ensure lower Know Your Resident (KYR) costs. For Registrars focused
on social goals, a reliable identification number will enable them to
broaden their reach into groups that till now, have been difficult to
authenticate. The strong authentication that the aadhaar number offers
will improve services, leading to better resident satisfaction.
For Governments: Eliminating duplication under various schemes is
expected to save the Government exchequer a substantial amount. It will
also provide Governments with accurate data on residents, enable direct
benefit programs, and allow Government departments to coordinate
investments and share information‖.
28.
The Ministry have further added that:
―….reason for starting the project is not for overriding existing Ids…..All
the above documents are relevant to a domain and for a service.
Aadhaar number is to be used as a general proof of identity and proof of
address‖.
H.
Identity and Eligibility
29.
According to a news item dated 7th July, 2011, the operationalisation of
aadhaar, the unique identification number, will make it possible to link
entitlements to targeted beneficiaries. But it will not ensure beneficiaries have
been correctly identified. Thus, the old problem of proper identification that
bedevils the present system will continue.
30.
It has also been brought to the notice of the Standing Committee on
Finance that a key issue in targeted welfare schemes is said to be of eligibility
and not identity. Government entitlements are unavailable to the poor, primarily
due to the eligibility determination process having many loopholes and lacunae.
One identity like aadhaar number has nothing to do with such entitlements.
31.
Asked to furnish comments, the Ministry of Planning in a written reply
have stated that-
―….With aadhaar number integration in various Government schemes,
the identity of the beneficiary gets established, by which it is ensured
that the government scheme benefits reach the intended beneficiaries.
Availability of identity and eligibility information together provides an
important tool to plug the loopholes in the eligibility determination
process, and in managing the eligibility life cycle for a beneficiary‖.
17
32.
Dr. Reetika Khera, Expert, while deposing before the Committee has
inter-alia stated as follows:-
―………exclusion is more on account of poor coverage of these
schemes. Say, for instance, in the Public Distribution System, the
Planning Commission says that only ‗x‘ per cent of the rural population
will get the BPL cards and because of that cap that is set at the Central
level, we find that lots of people are excluded‖.
I.
Aadhaar Number and National Population Register (NPR)
33.
The Standing Committee on Finance, during briefing on the Bill held on
11th February, 2011, raised inter-alia the issue of possibility of dovetailing the
UID exercise with the census operation. In this regard, the Ministry of Planning
in their written reply have, among other things, stated as follows:-
― ….the UIDAI is adopting a multiple registrar approach and the Registrar
General of India (RGI) will be one of the Registrars of the UIDAI. To
synergize the two exercises, an Inter Ministerial Coordination Committee
has been set up to minimize duplication. The UIDAI is making all efforts
to synergize with National Population Register (NPR) exercise….‖.
34.
According to a news item dated 6th September, 2011, the Ministry of
Home Affairs said that it would not be preferable to rely entirely on private
sector players‘ for biometric enrolments into the NPR since the population
register will form the basis on which citizenship would be determined in the
future. Unlike the UIDAI system, the NPR system follows an elaborate
procedure to verify and cover the entire population of every area; and the data
collected is subjected to ‗social vetting‘; and accountability can be fixed under
the NPR system.
35.
In an another news article it has been reported that while registration to
the NPR is compulsory and a National Identity Number is linked to each name,
the Citizenship (Registration of Citizens and Issue of National Identity Cards)
Rules, 2003 does not approve of linking biometrics with personal information.
However, according to, the annual reports of the Ministry of Home Affairs, it
said that integration of photographs and finger biometrics of 17.2 lakh out of
20.6 lakh records has been completed.
18
J.
Coordination between the agencies involved in the UID scheme
36.
In a detailed note on the NIDAI Bill, the Ministry of Planning have inter-
alia submitted that:-
―Implementation of a project of this size is challenging. It involves co-
ordination with multiple stakeholders and effective monitoring of
implementation at every level….‖.
37.
The Ministry of Finance (Department of Expenditure), however, while
commenting on embedding aadhaar numbers in databases to enable
interaction have stated that:-
―It must be done urgently by single agency, perhaps NPR. Cabinet has
approved (22.7.2010) outlay of Rs. 3,023.01 crore inter-alia for
assistance for
Information
Communication
Technology
(ICT)
infrastructure of Rs. 450 crore for integrating/ synergizing
Aadhaar
numbers with existing databases. Concerned about lack of co-rdination
leading to duplication effort and expenditure
with
at
least
6
agencies collecting information (NPR, MNREGA, BPL Census, UID,
RSBY and Bank Smart Cards)‖.
38.
It has been reported in a news item dated 3rd October, 2011 that the UID
project has become focus of the ire of various arms of the government for
rather disparate reasons. Asked to furnish the comments on the said news
item, the Ministry of Planning have submitted a written reply as follows:-
Views reported in the news item
Comments of the Ministry of
Planning
….the Finance Ministry rejected It is not correct that the Finance
UIDAI‘s request for Rs.14,000 crore Ministry have rejected the budget
expenditure programme.
expenditure. The proposal for phase
III has been recommended by the
EFC on 15 September, 2011 after
optimizing the cost estimates with
certain stipulations to be complied with
by the UIDAI to achieve economy of
scales, avoid duplication and avail
convergence in the programme.
…the
planning
commission
too Aadhaar programme is a complex
jumped
into
the
fray,
suddenly project of its kind launched first time in
awakening to the deficiency in the the country. EFC is an Inter-
structure and functioning of the Ministerial forum to appraise the
Authority.
proposal
rigorously
to
facilitate
decision making by the Competent
Authority. Planning Commission is
one of the nodal apprising agencies to
the EFC forum. On approval by
19
Planning Commission some issues
regarding design parameters, cost
estimates
and
manner
of
implementation were emerged, which
could not be visualized at project
formulation stage. These issues have
been deliberated in the EFC meeting
and
resolved
through
certain
stipulations to be adhered to by UIDAI
during execution of the project.
Adding to the confusion were the While responding to the EFC memo of
apparently negative comments made the UIDAI, the RGI (MHA) have
by the Ministry of Home Affairs(MHA) observed as follows:-
on the flaws in the enrolment process A security audit of the entire process
and the security of the biometric data. of UIDAI including enrolment process
The Home Ministry‘s apparently in UIDAI, the enrolment software, data
nervous of the UIDAI‘s efforts to storage, data management, etc.
extend
its
aadhaar
enrolment should
be
conducted
by
an
mandate, as the office of the Registrar appropriate agency.
General of India, an arm of the
Ministry, is simultaneously compiling a The Comments of the UIDAI on this
National Population Register (NPR) are:-
which is a comprehensive identity UIDAI is developing a monitoring and
database, as a part of the 2011 evaluation framework to provide a
census operations currently under comprehensive
mechanism
for
way.
continuously
monitoring
and
evaluating
the
UIDAI
program.
Considering that a formal structured
monitoring and evaluation framework
will
form
the
cornerstone
for
measuring the outcome of UIDAI
programme, a distinct component
‗Monitoring and evaluation‘ has been
included in the current EFC proposal.
Some of the audits planned on a
periodic basis are:- (i) Enrolment
Client Audit; (ii) Enrolment Process
(Field)
Audits;
(iii)
ASDMSA
Application Audits; (iv) Authentication
User Agency Audits; (v) Data Center
Audits; (vi) Security Audits; (vii) Impact
Assessment
(Grants
in
Aid
for
Research); and (viii) Other Third Party
Audit Services.
The confusion about the turf of UIDAI UIDAI has no comments to offer.
and the MHA is rather surprising,
20
given the fact that an EGoM was
constituted as early as 2006 to collate
the two schemes, namely the NPR
and the unique identification number,
as aadhaar was then known.
RBI made the waters murkier by first It is clarified that-
going against the Finance Ministry (i) aadhaar is sufficient KYC for
notification that was issued in 2010 to opening all bank accounts now. This
permit the use of Know Your includes no-frill accounts- as per
Customer (KYC) norms- by limiting the Reserve Bank‘s circular dated January
use of aadhaar numbers to ―small
accounts‖. It then retracted, by 27, 2011 – and any bank account as
per September 28, 2011 circular.
allowing use of aadhaar numbers to all
bank accounts without any limitations,
but only after again insisting that the (ii) Banks may ask for additional proof
banks must satisfy themselves about of residence if the current residence
the current address of the customer. is not the same as the address given
RBI‘s reluctance to fully accept the on the aadhaar document. This
aadhaar numbers for the KYC norms procedure is consistent with bank
is surprising, given that more than a policies applicable to all other officially
dozen leading banks in the country valid documents including passport,
are partnering with UIDAI to deliver driving license and is not specific to
aadhaar numbers to the citizens, and aadhaar.
also when the aadhaar number have
been accepted by the insurance
companies and SEBI for meeting KYC
norms.
K.
Civil Liberties Perspective
39.
In a detailed note on the Bill, the Ministry of Planning have stated that
issues like access and misuse of personal information, surveillance, profiling,
prohibiting other data bases from storing aadhaar numbers; and securing
confidentiality of information which is in the registrars domain need to be
addressed in larger data protection legislation. In this connection, the Ministry
have been asked to comment on the view that the Bill in its current form
appears to be unsafe in law as there is no law at present on privacy, and data
protection, therefore, it would be appropriate to consider the Bill for legislation
only after passing the legislation on privacy, and data protection so as to
ensure that there is no conflict between these laws. The Ministry in a written
reply have inter-alia stated as under:-
21
―UIDAI has taken appropriate steps to ensure security and protection of
data under this law and has incorporated data protection principles
within its policy and implementation framework……
Since appropriate steps have been taken, there is no dependency on the
general data protection law……when the data protection framework
comes into place the Authority will follow the same since a national data
protection law will apply to all agencies and institutions collecting
information.
Collection of information without a privacy law in place does not violate
the right to privacy of the individual….There is no bar on collecting
information, the only requirement to be fulfilled with respect to the
protection of the privacy of an individual is that care should be taken in
collection and use of information, consent of individual would be
relevant, information should be kept safe and confidential…
…..The proposed Privacy law should also seek to strike a balance
between the legitimate demands of protecting individual liberties
while recognizing the need for larger public interest to prevail in certain
well defined circumstances‖.
40.
Responding to a suggestion received from PRS Legislative Branch that
the existence of a unique identifier may facilitate record linkages across
separate databases, the Ministry in a written reply have submitted that issues of
linking and matching of databases need to be addressed through a data
protection legislation which is currently being considered by the Department of
Personnel.
41.
The National Human Rights Commission (NHRC), on being asked to
comment on the implications of the provisions of the Bill on the individual‘s right
to privacy, has inter alia informed the Committee in their post-evidence reply as
follows:-
….the right of privacy presupposes that such information relating to an
individual which he would not like to share with others will not be
disclosed. It may be mentioned that the right of privacy is not an
absolute right……‖
42.
On the same issue, Dr. Usha Ramanathan, expert, in her post-evidence
reply has stated that:-
―….The right to dignity, the right to privacy, personal security and safety,
the protection against surveillance, are constitutionally protected. The
production of a number accompanied by the use of methods such as
fingerprinting and iris scanning is even more invasive than is permitted to
be applied to alleged offenders. Article 20 (3) provides protection against
22
compulsory extraction of personal information. Denying services, and
rights, to persons because they are unwilling to part with the information
in a manner that is more than likely to result in convergence and
commodification of their personal information, surveillance, profiling,
tagging and tracking is compulsory extraction that clearly reduces the
constitutional rights of an ordinary citizen to less than that of an alleged
offender. And that this is being done without the protection of law
renders the exercise, per se, illegal. Apart from its 'uses', the potential for
abuse is undeniable. In a similar context, another court – the Philippines
Supreme Court – said: ……the data may be gathered for gainful and
useful government purposes; but the existence of this vast reservoir of
personal information constitutes a covert invitation to misuse, a
temptation that may be too great for some of our authorities to resist‖.
L.
Financial Implications
(i)
Feasibility Study
43.
The Ministry of Planning in a detailed note on the Bill have stated that
aadhaar number is cost-effective compared to other alternate targeted solutions
to the problems identified in delivering services and benefits such as eliminating
duplicate and fake identities. The Detailed Project Report (DPR) of the UID
scheme has been prepared and submitted by M/s. Ernst & Young Pvt.Ltd. in
April, 2011.
44.
Asked whether any committee has been set up to study the financial
implications of the UID scheme; and also to furnish the details of feasibility
study carried out, if any, covering all aspects of the UID scheme such as setting
up of the proposed NIDAI, and cost-benefit analysis, the Ministry in a written
reply have, among other things, submitted that:-
―No committee has been set up to study the financial implications of the
UID scheme. As per laid down guidelines/procedure the Expenditure
Finance Committee (EFC) reviews project proposals and its financial
implications wherein the views of all stakeholders/ministries are taken in
to account…
…..deliberations were held with all relevant stakeholders including
Planning Commission, Registrar General of India, Election Commission
of India, Ministry of Rural Development, Ministry of Urban Development
and State Governments. A Proof of Concept study was undertaken in
the States of Gujarat, Karnataka, U.P. and Orissa in four rural and one
urban locations to establish the feasibility of linking UID with partner-
databases and to validate the possibility of one-time linkage which once
23
established would be maintained on an ongoing basis by the UIDAI. An
assessment study was carried out in 10 Central Ministries and their
respective departments in four states (Karnataka, Uttar Pradesh, Gujarat
and West Bengal‖.
(ii)
Estimated cost of the UID scheme
45.
The UID scheme is a Central Sector Scheme. The estimated cost of the
Phase-I and Phase-II of the scheme spread over five years is Rs.3170.32 crore
(Rs.147.31 crore for Phase-I and Rs.3023.01 crore for Phase-II). The estimated
cost includes scheme components for issue of 10 crore UID numbers by March,
2011 and recurring establishment costs for the entire scheme up to March,
2014. The Budget for Phase-III of the scheme to the tune of Rs.8861 crore has
been approved.
46.
According to news items, the total cost of the UID scheme may run up to
Rs. 1,50,000 crore. Even after the commitment of such levels of expenditures,
the uncertainty over the technological options and ultimate viability of the
scheme remains.
(iii)
Comparative cost of aadhaar number and existing ID documents
47.
Asked to furnish the details of comparative cost of existing ID documents
(per individual), namely, Voter Id card, PAN card, driving license and aadhaar
number, the Ministry has inter-alia informed the Committee in a written reply
that the comparative costs of the documents mentioned above are not
available.
(iv)
Funding of other biometric projects
48.
It is noticed that a project namely, Bharatiya - Automated Finger Print
Identification System (AFSI), was launched in January, 2009, being funded by
the Department of Information Technology, Ministry of Communications and
Information Technology, for collection of biometric information of the people of
the country.
49.
Asked to clarify as to whether the biometric information (finger prints)
being collected under the Bharatiya – AFSI project could also be used by the
UIDAI, the Ministry have submitted that-
24
―The biometrics required for the aadhaar project are iris, ten finger prints
and photograph. To ensure uniqueness of the individual, it is essential
that the biometrics captured are as per the specifications laid down by
the Biometrics Standards Committee. The quality, nature and manner of
collection of biometric data by other biometric projects may not be of the
nature that can be used for the purpose of the aadhaar scheme and
hence it may not be possible to use the fingerprints captured under the
Bhartiya-AFSI project‖.
(v)
Revenue model of the UIDAI
50.
According to a detailed note on the bill furnished by the Ministry of
Planning, demographic data and address verification will be provided free of
cost till a separate pricing policy is announced in due course.
51.
However, in a news item dated 6th September, 2011, it has been
reported that the Ministry of Home Affairs pointed out uncertainties in the
UIDAI‘s revenue model.
M.
Technology
52.
The Biometrics Standards Committee set up by the UIDAI has
recognized in its report that a fingerprints-based biometric system shall be at
the core of the UIDAI‘s de-duplication efforts. It has further noted that it is:
―…conscious of the fact that de-duplication of the magnitude required by
the UIDAI has never been implemented in the world. In the global
context, a de-duplication accuracy of 99% has been achieved so far,
using good quality fingerprints against a database of up to fifty million.
Two factors however, raise uncertainty about the accuracy that can be
achieved through fingerprints. First, retaining efficacy while scaling the
database size from fifty million to a billion has not been adequately
analyzed. Second, fingerprint quality, the most important variable for
determining de-duplication accuracy, has not been studied in depth in
the Indian context‖.
53.
Asked to explain the reliability of technical architecture of the UID
scheme, the Ministry of Planning in a detailed note on the NIDAI Bill have,
among other things, stated as follows:-
―The UID project is a complex technology project. Nowhere in the world
has such a large biometric database of a billion people being
maintained. The frontiers of technology in biometrics are being tested
and used in the project……
The technical architecture of the UID scheme is at this point, is based on
high-level assumptions. The architecture has been
structured
to
25
ensure clear data verification, authentication and de-duplication, while
ensuring a high level of privacy and information security…..
The project team is learning and adapting to the challenges and
ensuring that the solutions that are being offered are the best in the
world to achieve the task….‖.
54.
Further asked as to given the high degree of assumptions on the
reliability of technology adopted by the UIDAI and probability of system failures
of different degrees, whether incurring huge costs on the UID scheme is
prudent and affordable, the Ministry have stated in a written reply, among other
things, as follows:-
―…..UIDAI is cognizant of the fact that biometric matching (which is a
patterns matching) by its very nature will suffer from inaccuracy.
However, these inaccuracy levels are less than 1%. This cannot be a
reason for not attempting to use the technology.
It is well acknowledged that there will be failures in authentication for
various reasons. After Proof of Concept studies on authentication,
appropriate policies and processes will be developed to take care of
situations where failure occurs for various reasons…..The choice of
using the authentication services is left to the third party service
provider…..Concerned agencies will have to develop policies and
procedures to handle such exceptional situations…...‖
55.
In a news article, one of the representatives of the UIDAI has admitted
that the quality of fingerprints is bad because of the rough exterior of fingers
caused by hardwork, and this poses a challenge for later authentication.
N.
National Security vs the UID scheme
(i)
Illegal residents
56.
A concern over the possibility of illegal residents getting aadhaar
numbers, and the safeguards in this regard has been raised by the Standing
Committee on Finance during the sitting held on 11 February, 2011. In a
written reply, the Ministry of Planning have stated as under:-
―Aadhaar number is not a proof of citizenship or domicile [Clause 6 of
the Bill]. It only confirms identity and that too subject to authentication
[Clause 4(3)]. This is clearly mandated in the NIDAI Bill and the
communication being sent to the resident.
It is the responsibility of the Registrars to enroll a resident after due
verification as per the procedure laid down by the UIDAI. If a person is
not a resident as per the Bill, the Authority is being vested with the power
26
to omit/deactivate the aadhaar number [Clause 23 (2) (g)]. Subsequent
attempts to enter the system can be detected‖.
(ii)
Involvement of Private agencies
57.
On the issue of security of proposed data of UIDAI, an unstarred
question (no.2989) was raised in Rajya Sabha. The Minister of State in the
Ministry of Planning and Minister of State in the Ministry of Parliamentary
Affairs tabled the answer to the above said question in Rajya Sabha on 22
April, 2010 as follows:-
―National Informatics Centre (NIC) had pointed out that the issues
relating to privacy and security of UID data, in case the data is not
hosted in a Government data centre may be taken into consideration.
UIDAI is of the opinion that the hosting of data in a private data centre
does not necessarily lead to a violation of privacy or security.
Appropriate contractual arrangement shall be put in place with the data
centre space provider to ensure security and privacy of the data.
At present, UIDAI does not have its own permanent facility to house its
data centre. Therefore, 75 sq.ft of data centre space has been hired
from M/s. ITI Ltd. for proof of concept and pilot on a rental basis‖.
58.
The Ministry of Home Affairs, according to a news item, have questioned
the security of citizens‘ biometric data in UIDAI‘s ‗outsourced service oriented
infrastructure‘ model.
59.
To a specific query as to could outside agencies be allowed to partake in
the UID scheme when doubts have been expressed on possible compromise
with the interests of the national security, the Ministry of Planning in a written
reply have inter alia stated that:-
―….the UIDAI has followed government procurement process and
engaged the appropriate agencies for the implementation of the UID
scheme….The UIDAI has also implemented a comprehensive
information security policy…..‖
60.
It is, however, reported in various news articles as late as dated 26th
November, 2011 that controversies between the Ministry of Home Affairs and
the UIDAI over the issues such as manner and processes followed by the
UIDAI, duplication of efforts between National Population Register and
aadhaar, and security of data remain unresolved.
27
PART – II
OBSERVATIONS / RECOMMENDATIONS
1.
The Committee have carefully examined the written information
furnished to them and heard the views for and against the National
Identification Authority of India (NIDAI) Bill from various quarters such as
the Ministry of Planning, the Unique Identification Authority of India
(UIDAI), the National Human Rights Commission (NHRC) and experts.
The clearance of the Ministry of Law & Justice for issuing aadhaar
numbers, pending passing the Bill by Parliament, on the ground that
powers of the Executive are co-extensive with the legislative power of the
Government and that the Government is not debarred from exercising its
Executive power in the areas which are not regulated by the legislation
does not satisfy the Committee. The Committee are constrained to point
out that in the instant case, since the law making is underway with the bill
being pending, any executive action is as unethical and violative of
Parliament‟s prerogatives as promulgation of an ordinance while one of
the Houses of Parliament being in session.
2.
The Committee are surprised that while the country is on one hand
facing a serious problem of illegal immigrants and infiltration from across
the borders, the National Identification Authority of India Bill, 2010
proposes to entitle every resident to obtain an aadhaar number, apart
from entitling such other category of individuals as may be notified from
time to time. This will, they apprehend, make even illegal immigrants
entitled for an aadhaar number. The Committee are unable to understand
the rationale of expanding the scheme to persons who are not citizens, as
this entails numerous benefits proposed by the Government. The
Committee have received a number of suggestions for restricting the
scope of the UID scheme only to the citizens and for considering better
options available with the Government by issuing Multi-Purpose National
Identity Cards (MNICs) as a more acceptable alternative.
28
3.
The Committee observe that prima facie the issue of unique
identification number, which has been referred to as “aadhaar number” to
individuals residing in India and other classes of individuals under the
Unique Identification (UID) Scheme is riddled with serious lacunae and
concern areas which have been identified as follows:-
(a)
The UID scheme has been conceptualized with no clarity of
purpose and leaving many things to be sorted out during the
course of its implementation; and is being implemented in a
directionless way with a lot of confusion. The scheme which
was initially meant for BPL families has been extended for all
residents in India and to certain other persons. The Empowered
Group of Ministers (EGoM), constituted for the purpose of
collating the two schemes namely, the UID and National
Population Register(NPR), and to look into the methodology and
specifying target for effective completion of the UID scheme,
failed to take concrete decision on important issues such as (a)
identifying the focused purpose of the resident identity
database; (b) methodology of collection of data; (c) removing
the overlapping between the UID scheme and NPR; (d)
conferring of statutory authority to the UIDAI since its inception;
(e) structure and functioning of the UIDAI; (f) entrusting the
collection of data and issue of unique identification number and
national identification number to a single authority instead of
the present UIDAI and its reconciliation with National
Registration Authority;
(b) The need for conferring of statutory authority to the UIDAI felt by
the Government way back in November, 2008, but was deferred
for more than two years for no reason. In this regard, the
Ministry of Planning have informed the Committee that till the
time Parliament passes the NIDAI Bill, crucial matters impinging
29
on security and confidentiality of information will be covered by
the relevant laws. The Committee are at a loss to understand as
to how the UIDAI, without statutory power, could address key
issues concerning their basic functioning and initiate
proceedings against the defaulters and penalize them;
(c) The collection of biometric information and its linkage with
personal information of individuals without amendment to the
Citizenship Act, 1955 as well as the Citizenship (Registration of
Citizens and Issue of National Identity Cards) Rules, 2003,
appears to be beyond the scope of subordinate legislation,
which needs to be examined in detail by Parliament;
(d) Continuance of various existing forms of identity and the
requirement of furnishing „other documents‟ for proof of
address, even after issue of aadhaar number, would render the
claim made by the Ministry that aadhaar number is to be used as
a general proof of identity and proof of address meaningless;
(e)
In addition to aadhaar numbers being issued by the UIDAI, the
issuance of smart cards containing information of the
individuals by the registrars is not only a duplication but also
leads to ID fraud as prevalent in some countries; and
(f)
The full or near full coverage of marginalized sections for
issuing aadhaar numbers could not be achieved mainly owing to
two reasons viz. (i) the UIDAI doesn‟t have the statistical data
relating to them; and (ii) estimated failure of biometrics is
expected to be as high as 15% due to a large chunk of
population being dependent on manual labour.
4.
The Committee regret to observe that despite the presence of
serious difference of opinion within the Government on the UID scheme
as illustrated below, the scheme continues to be implemented in an
30
overbearing manner without regard to legalities and other social
consequences:-
(i)
The Ministry of Finance (Department of Expenditure) have
expressed concern that lack of coordination is leading to
duplication of efforts and expenditure among at least six
agencies collecting information (NPR, MGNREGS, BPL
census, UIDAI, RSBY and Bank Smart Cards);
(ii)
The Ministry of Home Affairs are stated to have raised
serious security concern over the efficacy of introducer
system, involvement of private agencies in a large scale
in the scheme which may become a threat to national
security; uncertainties in the UIDAI‟s revenue model;
(iii)
The National Informatics Centre (NIC) have pointed out
that the issues relating to privacy and security of UID data
could be better handled by storing in a Government data
centre;
(iv)
The Ministry of Planning have expressed reservation over
the merits and functioning of the UIDAI; and the necessity
of collection of iris image;
(v)
Involvement of several nodal appraising agencies which
may work at cross-purpose; and
(vi)
Several Government agencies are collecting biometric(s)
information in the name of different schemes.
5.
The Committee are also unhappy to observe that the UID scheme
lacks clarity on many issues such as even the basic purpose of issuing
“aadhaar” number. Although the scheme claims that obtaining aadhaar
number is voluntary, an apprehension is found to have developed in the
minds of people that in future, services / benefits including food
entitlements would be denied in case they do not have aadhaar number.
31
It is also not clear as to whether possession of aadhaar number
would be made mandatory in future for availing of benefits and services.
Even if the aadhaar number links entitlements to targeted beneficiaries, it
may not ensure that beneficiaries have been correctly identified. Thus,
the present problem of proper identification would persist.
It is also not clear that the UID scheme would continue beyond the
coverage of 200 million of the total population, the mandate given to the
UIDAI. In case, the Government does not give further mandate, the whole
exercise would become futile.
6.
Though there are significant differences between the identity
system of other countries and the UID scheme, yet there are lessons from
the global experience to be learnt before proceeding with the
implementation of the UID scheme, which the Ministry of Planning have
ignored completely. For instance, the United Kingdom shelved its
Identity Cards Project for a number of reasons, which included:- (a) huge
cost involved and possible cost overruns; (b) too complex; (c) untested,
unreliable and unsafe technology; (d) possibility of risk to the safety and
security of citizens; and (e) requirement of high standard security
measures, which would result in escalating the estimated operational
costs. In this context, the Report of the London School of Economics‟
Report on UK‟s Identity Project inter-alia states that “…..identity systems
may create a range of new and unforeseen problems……the risk of failure
in the current proposals is therefore magnified to the point where the
scheme should be regarded as a potential danger to the public interest
and to the legal rights of individuals”. As these findings are very much
relevant and applicable to the UID scheme, they should have been
seriously considered.
7.
The UID scheme facilitates the UIDAI and the registrars to create
database of information of people of the country. Considering the huge
database size and possibility of misuse of information, the Committee are
32
of the view that enactment of national data protection law, which is at
draft stage with the Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances and
Pensions, is a pre-requisite for any law that deals with large scale
collection of information from individuals and its linkages across
separate databases. In the absence of data protection legislation, it
would be difficult to deal with the issues like access and misuse of
personal information, surveillance, profiling, linking and matching of data
bases and securing confidentiality of information etc.
8.
The Committee note that the Ministry of Planning have admitted
that (a) no committee has been constituted to study the financial
implications of the UID scheme; and (b) comparative costs of the aadhaar
number and various existing ID documents are also not available. The
Committee also note that Detailed Project Report (DPR) of the UID
Scheme has been done much later in April, 2011. The Committee thus
strongly disapprove of the hasty manner in which the UID scheme has
been approved. Unlike many other schemes / projects, no
comprehensive feasibility study, which ought to have been done before
approving such an expensive scheme, has been done involving all
aspects of the UID scheme including cost-benefit analysis, comparative
costs of aadhaar number and various forms of existing identity, financial
implications and prevention of identity theft, for example, using hologram
enabled ration card to eliminate fake and duplicate beneficiaries.
9.
The Committee are afraid that the scheme may end up being
dependent on private agencies, despite contractual agreement made by
the UIDAI with several private vendors. As a result, the beneficiaries
may be forced to pay over and above the charges to be prescribed by the
UIDAI for availing of benefits and services, which are now available free
of cost.
33
10.
The Committee find that the scheme is full of uncertainty in
technology as the complex scheme is built up on untested, unreliable
technology and several assumptions. Further, despite adverse
observations by the UIDAI‟s Biometrics Standards Committee on error
rates of biometrics, the UIDAI is collecting the biometric information. It is
also not known as to whether the proof of concept studies and
assessment studies undertaken by the UIDAI have explored the
possibilities of maintaining accuracy to a large level of enrolment of 1.2
billion people. Therefore, considering the possible limitations in
applications of technology available now or in the near future, the
Committee would believe that it is unlikely that the proposed objectives of
the UID scheme could be achieved.
11.
The Committee feel that entrusting the responsibility of verification
of information of individuals to the registrars to ensure that only genuine
residents get enrolled into the system may have far reaching
consequences for national security. Given the limitation of any
mechanism such as a security audit by an appropriate agency that would
be setup for verifying the information etc., it is not sure as to whether
complete verification of information of all aadhaar number holders is
practically feasible; and whether it would deliver the intended results
without compromising national security. As the National Identity Cards
to citizens of India are proposed to be issued on the basis of aadhaar
numbers, the possibility of possession of aadhaar numbers by illegal
residents through false affidavits / introducer system cannot be ruled out.
12.
The Committee take note that the Ministry of Home Affairs have
alleged that some of the registrars have not adhered to the laid down
procedures under UIDAI which renders the Memoranda of Understanding
(MoU) signed between the UIDAI and the registrars meaningless; and it
compromises the security and confidentiality of information of aadhaar
34
number holders. Even, according to the latest media reports,
controversies between the Ministry of Home Affairs and the UIDAI over
issues such as the manner and processes followed by the UIDAI,
duplication of efforts between NPR and aadhaar, and security of data still
remain unresolved.
13.
In view of the afore-mentioned concerns and apprehensions about
the UID scheme, particularly considering the contradictions and
ambiguities within the Government on its implementation as well as
implications, the Committee categorically convey their unacceptability of
the National Identification Authority of India Bill, 2010 in its present form.
The data already collected by the UIDAI may be transferred to the National
Population Register (NPR), if the Government so chooses. The
Committee would, thus, urge the Government to reconsider and review
the UID scheme as also the proposals contained in the Bill in all its
ramifications and bring forth a fresh legislation before Parliament.
New Delhi
YASHWANT SINHA
11 December, 2011
Chairman,
20 Agrahayana ,1933 (Saka)
Standing Committee on Finance
35
Appendix I
NOTE OF DISSENT
Shri Raashid Alvi, MP
I do not agree with the paragraph ―13‖ of the draft Report on ―The
National Identification Authority of India Bill, 2010‖.
I suggest to delete ―this para‖.
Sd/-
Dated: 7 December, 2011
(RAASHID ALVI)
36
NOTE OF DISSENT
Prem Das Rai, MP
The National Identification Authority of India Bill, 2010
At the outset I do not believe that the bill should be rejected in the
manner it has been. Since I have been inducted into the Committee recently I
do not have the inputs that went in when the stakeholders and other
Government departments were giving witness. I also do not know whether we
gave enough time to the UID implementers to give evidence and present their
point of view.
Hence, I would like to place on record that the issue of giving out Adhaar
numbers under the UID scheme, I believe, is one of the greatest import for
social and economic inclusion in this country. I personally am privy to the kind
of work that is needed at the grassroots as I was part of an organisation that did
such work in the North East of India and other backward regions using some
form of technology to bring in inclusion.
The linking of a person to a number and then being able to make give
access to the right to that person is transformational. It is the next phase of
transformation that technology can bring about in our own country. This has
never been done anywhere in the world and we should be rightly proud of this.
I do agree there may be serious issues that need to be factored in which
my esteemed colleagues have pointed out.
I recommend that the Bill may be discussed in Parliament bringing about
some of the changes so desired and do not concur that the Bill be brought
fresh.
Sd/-
Dated: 8 December, 2011
(PREM DAS RAI)
37
NOTE OF DISSENT
Manicka Tagore, MP
I could not attend this meeting on adoption of the draft report on the
National Identification Authority of India Bill, 2010 because a very important
discussion on the price rise was going on in the Lok Sabha. The Govt. of India
with a view to ensure that the benefits of centrally sponsored schemes reaches
to right persons and not misused, they had decided to issue unique
identification numbers to all residents in India and to certain other persons the
basic idea was to identification of the persons. The Adhar programme has
been launched first time in India. The UIDAI officials had taken all possible
precautions to make the exercise safe and secure. Both demographic and
biometric datas were collected and its method of collecting datas were
approved by the Demofic Standard and Verification Procedure Committee.
It is surprising to know that the committee members have not yet
recognized the value of UID. This system will cut down fraud and corruption in
every area of administration.
I dissent the observation and recommendation of the Standing
Committee on Finance regarding the Draft Report on the National Identification
Authority of India Bill, 2010. I request the Chairman that the UID bill may kindly
be considered by the Government with our views and not rejected.
Sd/-
Dated 10 December, 2011
(MANICKA TAGORE)
38
Appendix II
MINUTES OF THE THIRTEENTH SITTING OF THE STANDING COMMITTEE ON FINANCE
(2010-11)
The Committee sat on Friday, the 11th February, 2011 from 1130 hrs to 1400 hrs.
PRESENT
Shri Yashwant Sinha – Chairman
MEMBERS
LOK SABHA
2. Shri Bhartruhari Mahtab
3. Smt. Jaya Prada Nahata
4. Shri Rayapati Sambasiva Rao
5. Dr. Kavuru Sambasiva Rao
6. Shri Manicka Tagore
RAJYA SABHA
7. Shri S.S. Ahluwalia
8. Shri Raashid Alvi
9. Shri Piyush Goyal
10. Shri Moinul Hassan
SECRETARIAT
1. Shri A. K. Singh
–
Joint Secretary
2. Shri T. G. Chandrasekhar
–
Additional Director
3. Shri Ramkumar Suryanarayanan –
Deputy Secretary
4. Smt. B. Visala
–
Deputy Secretary
WITNESSES
Ministry of Planning
1.
Ms. Sudha Pillai, Member-Secretary
2.
Shri Pronab Sen, Pr. Adviser
3.
Shri Chaman Kumar, Addl. Secretary & FA
4.
Shri C. Muralikrishna Kumar, Sr. Adviser
5.
Shri T.K. Pandey, Joint Secretary (Admn.)
Unique Identification Authority of India (UIDAI)
1. Shri Nandan Nilekani, Chairman
2. Shri R.S. Sharma, Director-General
39
2.
The Committee took evidence of the representatives of the Ministry of
Planning and Unique Identification Authority of India (UIDAI) in connection
with the examination of the National Identification Authority of India Bill, 2010.
Major issues discussed with the representatives included, need for providing
statutory status to the Unique Identification Authority of India (UIDAI);
Definition of ‗Resident‘; provision for de-activating the Aadhaar Number;
collection of demographic information and biometric information; nature of
enrolment and special measures for enrolment of weaker sections. The
Chairman directed the representatives to furnish replies to the points raised
during the sitting within one week.
The witnesses then withdrew.
A verbatim record of proceedings was kept.
The Committee then adjourned.
40
MINUTES OF THE NINTEENTH SITTING OF THE STANDING COMMITTEE ON FINANCE
(2010-11)
The Committee sat on Wednesday, the 29th June, 2011 from 1130 hrs to 1400 hrs.
PRESENT
Shri Bhartruhari Mahtab
–
Acting Chairman
MEMBERS
LOK SABHA
2. Shri C.M. Chang
3. Shri Bhakta Charan Das
4. Shri Gurudas Dasgupta
5. Shri Nishikant Dubey
6. Shri Mangani Lal Mandal
7. Shri Magunta Sreenivasulu Reddy
8. Dr. Kavuru Sambasiva Rao
9. Shri Sarvey Sathyanarayana
10. Shri Dharam Singh
RAJYA SABHA
11. Shri S.S. Ahluwalia
12. Shri Raashid Alvi
13. Shri Moinul Hassan
SECRETARIAT
1. Shri A. K. Singh
–
Joint Secretary
2. Shri R.K. Jain
–
Director
3. Shri T. G. Chandrasekhar
–
Additional Director
4. Shri Kulmohan Singh Arora
–
Under Secretary
Part I
(1130 hrs. to 1145 hrs.)
2.
In the absence of the Chairman, the Committee chose Shri Bhartruhari
Mahtab, M.P. to chair the sitting under Rule 258(3) of the Rules of Procedure.
3.
XX
XX
XX
XX.
XX
XX
XX
XX.
41
Part II
(1145 hrs. to 1215 hrs.)
WITNESSES
National Human Rights Commission (NHRC)
1.
Shri Rajiv Sharma -
Secretary-General
2.
Shri A.K. Garg
-
Registrar (Law)
3.
Shri J.P. Meena
-
Joint Secretary (P&A)
4.
The Committee heard the representatives of the National Human Rights
Commission on ―The National Identification Authority of India Bill, 2010‖. The
major issues discussed during the sitting broadly related to nature, objective
and beneficiaries of aadhaar number; possible discrimination and specific
provisions that are required to be built in; safeguards needed for securing the
stored information by the proposed National Identification Authority of India;
implications of the provisions of the Bill on the individual‘s right to privacy, etc.
The Chairman directed the representatives of the National Human Rights
Commission to furnish replies to the points raised by the Members during the
discussion within a week.
The witnesses then withdrew.
Part III
(1215 hrs. to 1300 hrs.)
WITNESSES
Indian Banks‟ Association (IBA)
1. Shri M.D. Mallya
-
Chairman
2. Dr. K. Ramakrishnan
-
Chief Executive
3. Shri M.R. Umarji
-
Chief Advisor-Legal
5.
Subsequently, the Committee heard the representatives of the Indian
Banks‘ Association (IBA) on ―The National Identification Authority of India Bill,
2010‖. The major issues discussed during the sitting broadly related to
stipulations prescribed by the Ministry of Finance and the Reserve Bank of
India for using aadhaar numbers for opening bank accounts; new account
holders added through aadhaar numbers; and utility of aadhaar number in
42
financial inclusion, social sector lending, etc. The Chairman directed the
representatives of Indian Banks‘ Association (IBA) to furnish replies to the
points raised by the Members during the discussion within a week.
The witnesses then withdrew.
Part IV
(1300 hrs. to 1400 hrs.)
WITNESS
Dr. Reetika Khera, Visitor, Centre for Development Economics, Delhi School of
Economics
6.
The Committee then heard Dr. Reetika Khera, on ―The National
Identification Authority of India Bill, 2010‖. The major issues discussed broadly
related to nature of Aadhaar number; existing ID proof documents and need for
aadhaar number; usage and benefits of aadhaar number particularly in
Mahatama Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Scheme, Public
Distribution System, implications of the UID programme; relevance of Report of
London School of Economics on UK‘s Identity Act 2006 in the context of
aadhaar number etc. The Chairman directed the expert to furnish replies to the
points raised by the Members during the discussion within a week.
A verbatim record of the proceedings was kept.
The witness then withdrew
The Committee then adjourned at 1400 hours.
43
MINUTES OF THE TWENTY-SECOND SITTING OF THE STANDING COMMITTEE ON FINANCE (2010-11)
The Committee sat on Friday, the 29th July, 2011 from 1100 hrs to 1715 hrs.
PRESENT
Shri Yashwant Sinha
–
Chairman
MEMBERS
LOK SABHA
2. Dr. Baliram (Lalganj)
3. Shri C.M. Chang
4. Shri Gurudas Dasgupta
5. Shri Nishikant Dubey
6. Shri Bhartruhari Mahtab
7. Shri Mangani Lal Mandal
8. Dr. Kavuru Sambasiva Rao
9. Shri Manicka Tagore
RAJYA SABHA
10. Shri S.S. Ahluwalia
11. Shri Raashid Alvi
12. Shri Moinul Hassan
13. Shri Satish Chandra Misra
14. Shri Mahendra Mohan
15. Dr. Mahendra Prasad
16. Dr. K.V.P. Ramachandra Rao
SECRETARIAT
1. Shri A. K. Singh
–
Joint Secretary
2. Shri R.K. Jain
–
Director
3. Shri Ramkumar Suryanarayanan –
Deputy Secretary
4. Shri Kulmohan Singh Arora
–
Under Secretary
Part I
(1100 hrs. to 1130 hrs.)
2.
XX
XX
XX
XX.
.
XX
XX
XX
XX.
Part II
(1130 hrs. to 1300 hrs.)
WITNESSES
3.
XX
XX
XX
XX.
.
XX
XX
XX
XX.
The witnesses then withdrew.
44
Part III
(1400 hrs. to 1715 hrs.)
WITNESSES
Confederation of Indian Industry (CII)
1. Mr Arun Duggal,
Vice Chairman, International Asset Reconstruction Company (IARC)
and Chairman Shriram Capital Limited
2. Mr Chirag Jain,
Chief Operating Officer
Canara HSBC Oriental Bank of Commerce Life Insurance Company Limited
3. Mr Ravi Gandhi,
VP, Corporate Regulatory Affairs
Bharti Airtel
4. Mr Rameesh Kailasam,
Program Director
IBM India Pvt. Limited
4. The Committee heard the representatives of Confederation of Indian
Industry (CII) in connection with examination of ‗The National Identification
Authority of India Bill, 2010‘. The major issues discussed included, existing ID
proof documents and the rationale and necessity of aadhaar number; usage,
benefits and objects of aadhaar number; role of aadhaar number in planning
and formulation of social policies; collection of biometric and demographic
information; measures for enrolment of certain categories like persons with
disability; exploration of alternate and economical identity system; opening up
of Registrars and enrolment agencies to private sector; technological issues
involved in the UID project; financial implications of the UID project; impact of
the provisions of the Bill on the individual‘s right to privacy; potential of possible
use of aadhaar numbers by illegal residents; lessons learnt from global
practice and failures experienced in different countries in establishment of
identity system similar to aadhaar number especially relevance of report of
London School of Economics on UK Identity Act, 2006; legality of
implementation of the UID project before the law is enacted by the Parliament;
45
making the penal provisions of the Bill in line with IT Act, 2000 etc. The
Chairman directed the representatives of Confederation of Indian Industry (CII)
to give suggestions clause-by-clause along-with the replies to the points raised
by the Members within ten days.
The witnesses then withdrew.
WITNESSES
Experts
1. Dr. Usha Ramanathan,
Independent Law Researcher on the jurisprudence on Law,
Poverty and Rights, New Delhi
2. Dr. R. Ramakumar,
Associate Professor,
Tata Institute of Social Sciences, Mumbai
3. Shri Gopal Krishna,
Member, Citizen Forum for Civil Liberties, New Delhi
5.
The Committee then heard the experts on ―The National Identification
Authority of India Bill, 2010‖. The major issues discussed broadly related to
beneficiaries of aadhaar number including the eligibility of children; feasibility
study on the UID project; costs and benefits analysis of the UID project; global
experience in creation of a national data base of its citizens with biometrics;
convergence of data, its usage and its consequences; functioning of the UIDAI
under Executive order and implementation of the UID project before an
enactment of law; impact of the provisions of the Bill on civil rights and liberties;
implications of the provisions of the Bill on RTI Act, 2005; responsibilities of
‗Introducer‘ and liability of the UIDAI; outsourcing of works by the UIDAI and its
responsibilities; alternate system of identification etc. The Chairman directed
the experts to furnish replies to the points raised by the Members during the
discussion within ten to fifteen days.
A verbatim record of the proceedings was kept.
The witnesses then withdrew
The Committee then adjourned
46
Minutes of the Sixth sitting of the Standing Committee on Finance (2011-12)
The Committee sat on Thursday, the 08th December, 2011 from 1500 hrs. to 1615 hrs.
PRESENT
Shri Yashwant Sinha
–
Chairman
MEMBERS
LOK SABHA
2. Shri Shivkumar Udasi Chanabasappa
3.
Shri Harishchandra Deoram Chavan
4.
Shri Bhakta Charan Das
5.
Shri Nishikant Dubey
6.
Shri Chandrakant Khaire
7.
Shri Bhartruhari Mahtab
8.
Shri Prem Das Rai
9.
Dr. Kavuru Sambasiva Rao
10.
Shri Rayapati S. Rao
11.
Shri Magunta Sreenivasulu Reddy
12.
Shri G.M. Siddeswara
13.
Shri Yashvir Singh
14.
Shri R. Thamaraiselvan
15.
Dr. M. Thambidurai
RAJYA SABHA
16.
Shri S.S. Ahluwalia
17.
Shri Raashid Alvi
18.
Shri Vijay Jawaharlal Darda
19.
Shri Moinul Hassan
20.
Shri Satish Chandra Misra
21.
Shri Mahendra Mohan
22.
Dr. Mahendra Prasad
23.
Dr. K.V.P. Ramachandra Rao
24.
Shri Yogendra P. Trivedi
SECRETARIAT
1. Shri A. K. Singh
–
Joint Secretary
2. Shri R.K. Jain
–
Director
3. Shri Ramkumar Suryanarayanan
–
Deputy Secretary
47
2. The Committee took up the following draft Reports for consideration and
adoption:-
(i)
The Insurance Laws (Amendment) Bill, 2008;
(ii)
The National Identification Authority of India Bill, 2010; and
(iii)
The Banking Laws (Amendment) Bill, 2011.
3. The Committee adopted the above draft reports with some minor
modifications/changes as suggested by Members. The Committee authorised the
Chairman to finalise the Reports in the light of the modifications suggested and
present these Reports to Parliament.
The Committee then adjourned
48
Why this Blog ? News articles in the Wide World of Web, quite often disappear with time, when they are relocated as archives with a different url. Archives in this blog serve as a library for those who are interested in doing Research on Aadhaar Related Topics. Articles are published with details of original publication date and the url.
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
