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

Sunday, July 15, 2012

2659 - Sh. Sarbjeet Roy vs Planning Commission on 18 November, 2009 - Indian Kanoon


Sh. Sarbjeet Roy vs Planning Commission on 18 November, 2009
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Appeal No. CIC/ MA/C/2009/0000366/SS dated 5.03.2008 Right to Information Act 2005 - Section 19

Name of the Appellant : Sh. Sarbjeet Roy
Name of the Public Authority : Planning Commission
UIDAI, Planning Commission

Background
Sh. Sarbjit Roy filed a complaint via email before the Commission alleging that UIDAI, constituted by the notification of the Govt. of India , hence being a public authority has not implemented the RTI Act, 2005 and he requested the Commission to give appropriate directions to the UIDAI to implement the RTI Act in its true spirit. The Commission issued notices to the CPIO, Planning Commission and DG-UIDAI to appear before the Commission.
2. In pursuance of the notice of the Commission Shri Raj kumar, Deputy Adviser and Shri Naseem Ahmad, APIO appeared before the Commission on behalf of the Planning Commission. None appeared on behalf of the UIDAI.
3. During the hearing the complainant submits that UIDAI is a public authority under the RTI Act, 2005 as it has been constituted by a notification of the Planning Commission and it is substantially financed by the Government. He therefore requests the Commission to declare the UIDAI as a public authority and accordingly implement the provisions of RTI Act, 2005 in true spirit. In response to complainant's submissions, Shri R. S. Sharma, Director-General and Mission Director, UIDAI submits through his letter dated 16.11.2009 that the UIDAI is in the process of positioning staff and office accommodation. The UIDAI Cell shall comply with the Section 4 of the RTI Act once it becomes operational. He further submits that at present only two officers and one Sr, PPS are working in the Authority. He also submits that the CPIO, Planning Commission has been supplying information relating to the UIDAI to the applicants seeking information under the RTI Act and that the UIDAI has also requested the Planning Commission to designate an officer to work as CPIO for the UIDAI .
4. In response to the submission of the Public Authority, the complainant submits that the UIDAI has become operational as is clear from the statements made by authorities of the UIDAI before the media.
5. The matter was heard on 18.11.2009.
6. The appellant was present for the hearing.
7. Sh. Raj Kumar, Dy. Adviser and Sh. Naseem Ahmad, APIO represented the Planning Commission.
Decision
8. After hearing the parties and after considering the facts and circumstances of the case and also on consideration of the genuine problems of a new organisation i.e. the UIDAI, the Secretary, Planning Commission and Director General and Mission Director, UIDAI, are hereby directed to designate CPIO/AA to implement the provisions of the RTI Act, in regard to UIDAI, within two weeks. Respondents are also directed to implement Section 4 of the RTI Act, 2005, for matters related to the UIDAI
9. The complaint is disposed of subject to the above directions.
10. Decision announced on conclusion of the hearing. Notice of decision be given free of cost to the parties.
(Sushma Singh)
Information Commissioner
18.11.2009
Authenticated true copy:
(Prem singh Sagar)
US &Assistant Registrar
18.11.2009
Copy t o:
1. The Secretary, Planning Commission, Youjna Bhawan, New Delhi
2. Sh. Sher Singh, CPIO , Planning Commission, Yojna Bhawan, New Delhi
3. Sh. Ram Sweak Sharma, Director General, UIDAI, Yojna Bhawan, New Delhi.
4. Sh. Sarbjit Roy, B-59, Defence Colony, Delhi.
CLICK ON TITLE TO SEE ORIGINAL ARTICLE - Posted by