In 2009, I became extremely concerned with the concept of Unique Identity for various reasons. Connected with many like minded highly educated people who were all concerned.
On 18th May 2010, I started this Blog to capture anything and everything I came across on the topic. This blog with its million hits is a testament to my concerns about loss of privacy and fear of the ID being misused and possible Criminal activities it could lead to.
In 2017 the Supreme Court of India gave its verdict after one of the longest hearings on any issue. I did my bit and appealed to the Supreme Court Judges too through an On Line Petition.
In 2019 the Aadhaar Legislation has been revised and passed by the two houses of the Parliament of India making it Legal. I am no Legal Eagle so my Opinion carries no weight except with people opposed to the very concept.
In 2019, this Blog now just captures on a Daily Basis list of Articles Published on anything to do with Aadhaar as obtained from Daily Google Searches and nothing more. Cannot burn the midnight candle any longer.
"In Matters of Conscience, the Law of Majority has no place"- Mahatma Gandhi
Ram Krishnaswamy
Sydney, Australia.

Aadhaar

The UIDAI has taken two successive governments in India and the entire world for a ride. It identifies nothing. It is not unique. The entire UID data has never been verified and audited. The UID cannot be used for governance, financial databases or anything. It’s use is the biggest threat to national security since independence. – Anupam Saraph 2018

When I opposed Aadhaar in 2010 , I was called a BJP stooge. In 2016 I am still opposing Aadhaar for the same reasons and I am told I am a Congress die hard. No one wants to see why I oppose Aadhaar as it is too difficult. Plus Aadhaar is FREE so why not get one ? Ram Krishnaswamy

First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win.-Mahatma Gandhi

In matters of conscience, the law of the majority has no place.Mahatma Gandhi

“The invasion of privacy is of no consequence because privacy is not a fundamental right and has no meaning under Article 21. The right to privacy is not a guaranteed under the constitution, because privacy is not a fundamental right.” Article 21 of the Indian constitution refers to the right to life and liberty -Attorney General Mukul Rohatgi

“There is merit in the complaints. You are unwittingly allowing snooping, harassment and commercial exploitation. The information about an individual obtained by the UIDAI while issuing an Aadhaar card shall not be used for any other purpose, save as above, except as may be directed by a court for the purpose of criminal investigation.”-A three judge bench headed by Justice J Chelameswar said in an interim order.

Legal scholar Usha Ramanathan describes UID as an inverse of sunshine laws like the Right to Information. While the RTI makes the state transparent to the citizen, the UID does the inverse: it makes the citizen transparent to the state, she says.

Good idea gone bad
I have written earlier that UID/Aadhaar was a poorly designed, unreliable and expensive solution to the really good idea of providing national identification for over a billion Indians. My petition contends that UID in its current form violates the right to privacy of a citizen, guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution. This is because sensitive biometric and demographic information of citizens are with enrolment agencies, registrars and sub-registrars who have no legal liability for any misuse of this data. This petition has opened up the larger discussion on privacy rights for Indians. The current Article 21 interpretation by the Supreme Court was done decades ago, before the advent of internet and today’s technology and all the new privacy challenges that have arisen as a consequence.

Rajeev Chandrasekhar, MP Rajya Sabha

“What is Aadhaar? There is enormous confusion. That Aadhaar will identify people who are entitled for subsidy. No. Aadhaar doesn’t determine who is eligible and who isn’t,” Jairam Ramesh

But Aadhaar has been mythologised during the previous government by its creators into some technology super force that will transform governance in a miraculous manner. I even read an article recently that compared Aadhaar to some revolution and quoted a 1930s historian, Will Durant.Rajeev Chandrasekhar, Rajya Sabha MP

“I know you will say that it is not mandatory. But, it is compulsorily mandatorily voluntary,” Jairam Ramesh, Rajya Saba April 2017.

August 24, 2017: The nine-judge Constitution Bench rules that right to privacy is “intrinsic to life and liberty”and is inherently protected under the various fundamental freedoms enshrined under Part III of the Indian Constitution

"Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed citizens can change the World; indeed it's the only thing that ever has"

“Arguing that you don’t care about the right to privacy because you have nothing to hide is no different than saying you don’t care about free speech because you have nothing to say.” -Edward Snowden

In the Supreme Court, Meenakshi Arora, one of the senior counsel in the case, compared it to living under a general, perpetual, nation-wide criminal warrant.

Had never thought of it that way, but living in the Aadhaar universe is like living in a prison. All of us are treated like criminals with barely any rights or recourse and gatekeepers have absolute power on you and your life.

Announcing the launch of the # BreakAadhaarChainscampaign, culminating with events in multiple cities on 12th Jan. This is the last opportunity to make your voice heard before the Supreme Court hearings start on 17th Jan 2018. In collaboration with @no2uidand@rozi_roti.

UIDAI's security seems to be founded on four time tested pillars of security idiocy

1) Denial

2) Issue fiats and point finger

3) Shoot messenger

4) Bury head in sand.

God Save India

Saturday, October 26, 2013

4897 - Trying times for parliamentary system


Trying times for parliamentary system

GURUDAS DAS GUPTA

The legislature is bypassed; interruptions are on the rise; answers to questions are unsatisfactory; and the political standards of members have deteriorated.

Article 75 (3) of the Constitution provides that “the Council of Ministers shall be collectively responsible to the House of People.” This provision is the cornerstone of one of the most important functions of the Union Legislature, namely, legislative oversight of executive functioning. The Constitution, by making this provision, has empowered the legislature, the House of People, to hold the executive accountable for its acts of omission and commission, to monitor the actions of the executive with a view to ensuring that they are being carried out effectively and according to the legislative intent, in the main to ensure economic empowerment of the common people, and also to establish norms for participative democracy.

RULES OF PROCEDURE

There are provisions in the rules of procedure and conditions of business in the Lok Sabha that empower members to ask a Minister questions on all aspects of the functioning of the Ministry under him; give notice of an adjournment motion on a matter of urgent public importance of recent occurrence involving responsibility of the Government of India; or give notice of (a) resolutions (b) motions (c) short-duration discussions and (d) calling attention to discuss matters pertaining to executive functioning.

Besides, there are other parliamentary devices under which rules matters may be brought to the notice of the government by members demanding action. Then there are parliamentary committees which examine bills referred to them and scrutinise the demand for grants of all ministeries/departments.

All this would appear to paint a rosy picture that the principle of executive responsibility towards Parliament, enshrined in the Constitution, is a reality. But, unfortunately, the actuality is far from reality.

The fair play of the functioning of Parliament can be ensured only if the government willingly subjects itself to legislative scrutiny. Also, members must be proactively vigilant and must utilise all opportunities to bring the government to book whenever and wherever it is found to be wanting. But unfortunately, neither the government nor the members discharge their duties in the manner they are called upon to do.

LAMENTABLE

Most lamentably, the parliamentary system in the country is on the decline not only at the Centre but also in the States. Parliament is bypassed. Parliamentary scrutiny is avoided. The duration of the sessions is on the decline. Interruptions are on the rise. Answers to questions are unsatisfactory and incomplete. It is easier to extract full and fair information through the Right to Information Act than by raising questions in Parliament. Even a short-duration discussion or calling attention motion does not yield results.

On important executive decisions, Parliament’s sanction is not needed. The UPA government implemented the Aadhaar card but it does not enjoy any legislative sanction. A few years ago, a unanimous resolution was passed in the Lok Sabha calling upon the government to take effective measures to contain price rise. It did not implement the resolution. The members also could not haul up the executive for the failure. While Parliament is ignored by the government, members are not vigilant enough to enforce their rights.

Parliamentary oversight of the budgetary process has immensely weakened, leading to the executive wielding disproportionate power and acquiring clout over the process. There is no pre-budget scrutiny as in the U.S. Congress. Supplementary demands for grants are not referred to the Standing Committees. Nor are their recommendations binding on the government — they are merely an academic exercise. The demand for grants by most of the Ministries is guillotined without any discussion. The time allotted for a discussion on the Finance Bill and demands for grants is not adequate. Even after the budget is passed, the government is authorised to withdraw money from the Consolidated Fund of India, the allocation is changed, reduced, even withheld. In the current year, the government pruned the budget expenditure by at least Rs. 50,000 crore in the name of fiscal discipline, in violation of parliamentary mandate.

The jugglery of statistics in parliamentary papers is bewildering. More is covered up than what is on paper. While presenting a budget, the government gives a figure known as budgetary estimate for all departments. In the middle of the year, it is changed to revised estimates. It may be less or more than the budgetary estimate. Only at the close of the financial year, would we come to know what the actual expenditure is but there is hardly any scrutiny of the actual spending. There is wide variation among the three figures and they are manipulated by the executive to suit its political convenience, in disregard for the interests of the marginalised sections.

NO DISCUSSION

The political standard of the members has declined miserably; apathy towards parliamentary discussion is palpable. While members of the British Parliament forced the government to change its policy on Syria, in India there is no such parliamentary device to force our government to change its policies. Strategic policies are not discussed. The resource policy of the country, the mineral policy, the power policy, nothing is ever discussed. It is the executive that decides.

There are members who have not spoken even once in the House. Seventy six out of 543 members of the Lok Sabha have court cases pending against them. About 58 per cent of the Lok Sabha members are crorepatis. A large number of persons who have entered Parliament have not been political activists at all. We see more and more of the propertied class, businessmen and former bureaucrats entering Parliament. Parliamentarianism is looked upon more as a profession, unrelated to the discharge of a patriotic duty.

If the Indian parliamentary system is weakened, the political system will be in jeopardy. In South Asia, only the Indian democracy is a little deep-rooted. But if the decline of the parliamentary system continues unabated, if the executive becomes reckless, if public opinion is ignored, if fruitful democracy and participatory system are lamentably overpowered, the country will be in peril. Let the country take note of the impending disaster and look for the remedy.

(The writer is Member of Parliament.)


Keywords: Indian democracy, Parliamentray system, bicameral legislature, legislative sanction