2206 - Bihar Government Should Put A Stay On The Execution Of The Aadhaar Related Projects By Gopal Krishna - Counter Currents

12 January, 2012
Countercurrents.org

Patna: A compelling logic has emerged for the Bihar Government to put a stay on the execution of the aadhaar related projects in the state following a revealing report of a multi-party Parliamentary Standing Committee (PSC) on Finance that considered the National Identification Authority of India (NIDAI) Bill, 2010 and following the grave concerns expressed by eminent citizens, former judges and academicians. Unique Identification Authority of India (UIDAI) had signed a MoU with Bihar Government on August 20, 2010 without any legal and constitutional mandate.

This disdain for the law has been characterised by the Standing Committee as `unethical and violative of Parliament's prerogatives'. Citizens have been protesting against the UID and NPR based MINIC project across the country from the very outset but prior to PSC’s report it was ignored. By now it is clear that it is an unnecessary project which must be stopped.

The Parliamentary Standing Committee on Finance considering the National Identification Authority of India (NIDAI) Bill, 2010 presented its report to the Parliament on December 13, 2011. The report rejects biometric data based identification of Indians. The report is a severe indictment of the hasty and `directionless' project which has been "conceptualised with no clarity of purpose". Even the functional basis of the Unique Identification Authority of India UIDAI is unclear and yet the project has been rolled out. The Standing Committee found the biometric technology `uncertain' and 'untested'. As early as December 2009, the Biometric Data Committee had found that the error rate using fingerprints was inordinately high. In a recent interview to the press, the Director General and Mission Director of the UIDAI had admitted that fingerprints are likely not to work for authentication. The error rate could end up excluding up to 15% of the population. Yet, the UIDAI has gone on with the exercise.

There is no data protection law in place. Even though the government had recognised the need for a law to deal with security and confidentiality of information, imposition of obligation of disclosure of information in certain cases, impersonation at the time of enrolment, investigation of acts that constitute offences and unauthorised disclosure of information, the Unique Identification (UID) project was allowed to march on without any such protection being put in place.

The Parliamentary Report has raised questions of great severity about the legality and constitutionality of the Unique Identification (UID) project. It has acknowledged the many concerns that have been voiced in the past two years about the absence of a feasibility study, no cost-benefit assessment, uncertain and untested technology, an enrolment process that has national security repercussions, the lack of data protection and privacy legislation and the disrespect for Parliament by going ahead with a project that was pending parliamentary approval. It is also noticed that the data that is being collected is not being held by a government agency, about which the National Informatics Centre has expressed anxiety.

Prof. D M Diwakar, Director, ANISS said, in the aftermath of this report of the PSC, the continuance of the project as also the ongoing collection of demographic and biometric data needs to be rigorously examined, as also its ramifications for the project in Bihar. UIDAI has been trying to push for the adoption of the UID through multiple committees of several ministries and for the re-engineering of current systems to fit the requirements of the UID. There have been attempts to withdraw services such as LPG if a person has not enrolled for a UID. The creeping of voluntariness into compulsion through threat of discontinuance of services has been roundly castigated by the Standing Committee.

There has been an extraordinary amount of duplication of work. The NPR is doing the same exercise, except that the Ministry of Home Affairs has found that the excessive outsourcing and the methods used by the UIDAI for enrolment make the data inaccurate and insecure. The multiplicity of Registrars with whom the UIDAI has entered into MoUs produces their own problems of duplication. The Standing Committee is categorical that the Empowered Group of Ministers (EGoM) constituted for the purpose of collating the two schemes namely, the UID and National Population Register (NPR), has failed.

The project has been replete with unanswered questions. The 17 eminent citizens, as also other civil society activists and academics, had asked that the project authorities acknowledge that many countries had abandoned identity schemes such as had happened in the UK, China, USA, Australia and the Philippines. The Standing Committee has taken on board studies done in the UK on the identity scheme that was begun and later withdrawn in May 2010, where the problems were identified to include "(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."

Echoing citizens’ concerns, the Parliamentary Committee has noted that the government has “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.” It discloses that while the UIDAI was constituted on January 28, 2009 without parliamentary approval, and UID numbers were begun to be rolled out in September 2010, the Detailed Project Report of the UID Scheme was done much later in April, 2011. The Standing Committee expressed its anxiety that, the way the project had been run, “the scheme may end up being dependent on private agencies, despite contractual agreement made by the UIDAI with several private vendors.” The report records the views of Dr Usha Ramanathan, a noted jurist saying, “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.” In view of the above, the Memoranda of Understanding (MoU) signed by UIDAI with the partners including all the States and Union Territories, 25 financial institutions (including LIC) to act as Registrars for implementing the UID scheme has become of doubtful legality.

Prof. (Dr) Mohan Rao, Centre for Social Medicine & Community Health, Jawaharlal Nehru University said, UID is dangerous for public health. It should be rejected unequivocally because it violates confidentiality and privacy which is considered sacred in medical practice and is sought to be used for accuracy in clinical trials". At the meeting J T Dsouza, Expert, Biometrics Technology, Mumbai said, "Both the UID and NPR project has been about technology that is flawed, with risks to national and individual security, ill conceived in its aims and uses, and has attempted to occupy a place where it can be above the law." In relation to biometrics, the NPR too is guilty of going beyond the mandate give to it by law. Neither the Citizenship Act 1955 nor the Citizenship Rules of 2003 permit the collection of biometrics. The Standing Committee, recognising this, has asked that the use of biometrics in the NPR be examined by Parliament. Till then the collection of biometrics must be suspended. “It is apprehended that once the database is ready it can be used to eliminate minority communities, migrants and political adversaries by some regime which finds them unsuitable for their political projects. The fact is a centralized electronic database and privacy both are conceptually contradictory; it is advisable to let it remain in decentralized silos something which even the central government’s Discussion Paper on Privacy implied,” said Gopal Krishna, Member, Citizens Forum for Civil Liberties.

Taking cognizance of these concerns, Indo-Global Social Service Society (IGSSS), a civil society organization based in Delhi working with the homeless, has disassociated itself from UID Number project which was being undertaken under Mission Convergence in Delhi. Withdrawal of IGSSS that works in 21 states of the country merits the attention of all the states and civil society organisations especially those who are unwittingly involved in the UID Number enrollment process. In its withdrawal letter IGSSS said, “we will not be able to continue to do UID enrolment, as we discussed in the meeting of 10th May 2011.” It is clear that both Mission Convergence and UIDAI have been hiding these crucial facts. The letter reads, “IGSSS like many other leading civil society groups and individuals are opposed to conditional cash transfers and the UID will be used to dictate it.”Most manual workers of both organised and unorganised sector lose their finger prints. The project claimed to work for them but it is they who would get excluded. It is not the question of onetime cost being incurred but also of the recurring cost of the UID and NPR project that reveals its character which does not have any constitutional or rational basis.
 
A Round Table on the PSC Report and its implications for the Unique Identification (UID) project and for the Union Home Ministry's National Population Register (NPR) and the issuance of Multipurpose National Identity Cards (MNIC) was organised on January 10, 2012 at AN Sinha Institute of Social Studies (ANISS), Patna. It was organised jointly by A N Sinha Institute of Social Studies, Indian Social Action Forum (INSAF) and CFCL. This meeting was a follow up to the Round Table on Unique Identification (UID) project & Bihar Govt's role held on 3rd January, 2011, the National Seminar on Idea of Unique Identification (UID) Project held on February 21, 2011 held in the state capital. Several eminent intellectuals from various sections of society expressed their concerns about the effect of this project on the liberty of citizens and sovereignty of the country.

It emerged that journalists appear to have been compelled to accept biometric identification in the offices where they work. They have been made to accept it as a fait accompli. As a consequence they have not reported about violation of privacy rights due to biometric identification of citizens and residents of India under UID and NPR.

For Details: Gopal Krishna, Member, Citizens Forum for Civil Liberties, E-mail:krishna1715@gmail.com