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

Friday, September 18, 2015

8702 - Is the Aadhaar Card Voluntary? It’s Not Yet Clear - The Wire

Is the Aadhaar Card Voluntary? It’s Not Yet Clear


BY SURABHI SHUKLA AND UPASANA GARNAIK 
ON 16/09/2015 

Collecting iris scans for the Aadhaar Card. 
Photo: Kannanshanmugham

“It is not mandatory for a citizen to obtain an Aadhaar card”, stated the Supreme Court on the 11th of August, 2015. 

The court was considering whether the Constitution guarantees a right to privacy and whether the Aadhaar card scheme infringes such right. While the state argued that the legal position regarding the existence of the fundamental right to privacy is “doubtful”, the petitioners submitted that “it is too late in the day for the Union of India to argue that the constitution of India does not recognise privacy as an aspect of the liberty under Article 21 of the constitution of India.” The three judge bench referred this “apparent unresolved contradiction” to a five judge bench which remains unresolved till date.

Directions of the Supreme Court
In the interim, the court gave the following directions –
  1. The Union of India shall give wide publicity in the electronic and print media including radio and television networks that it is not mandatory for a citizen to obtain an Aadhaar card;
  2. The production of an Aadhaar card will not be condition for obtaining any benefits otherwise due to a citizen;
  3. The Unique Identification Number or the Aadhaar card will not be used by the respondents for any purpose other than the PDS Scheme and in particular for the purpose of distribution of foodgrains, etc. and cooking fuel, such as kerosene. The Aadhaar card may also be used for the purpose of the LPG Distribution Scheme;
  4. The information about an individual obtained by the Unique Identification Authority of India 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.”
Gas subsidy and PDS
However the judgment is not as clear as the opening sentence suggests. Directions 1 and 2 point unequivocally to the conclusion that the Aadhaar card is not mandatory for a citizen and that the conferral of any benefit on citizens is not dependent on the Aadhaar card.

This means that I am eligible for my gas subsidy without linking my Aadhaar card to my gas connection. However direction number 3 seems to suggest not. It states that “The Aadhaar card may … be used for the purpose of the LPG Distribution Scheme”, which could mean that my service provider could demand an Aadhaar card for refund of subsidy. The direction no. 3 also states “The Unique Identification Number or the Aadhaar card will not be used by the respondents for any purpose other than the PDS Scheme and in particular for the purpose of distribution of foodgrain, etc. and cooking fuel, such as kerosene”. Extending the gas subsidy analogy, an argument could be made that the Government of India could impose a requirement for an Aadhaar card for the purposes of distribution of food grains etc, cooking fuel such as kerosene within the Public Distribution Scheme.

What, then, does this judgement really mean? Does this mean that the Aadhaar card is not a mandatory document for obtaining any benefits at all or does it mean that the Aadhaar card may become a mandatory document for the gas and the Public Distribution System? If the latter is true then the Court has effectively made the Aadhaar card mandatory despite clearly stating that it is not compulsory. 

After all, there is no house that does not need a gas connection! Additionally in so doing, the court has not clarified on any procedure that the government should follow for the collection and storage of the information. In other words, it is unclear what rules of procedure and rules of confidentiality bind the “private agencies” that collect information for the Unique Identification Authority of India.
However, if the former is true then direction no. 3 is redundant and should be struck off by the higher bench.

What about criminal investigations?
The Supreme Court has also stated that the Aadhaar information can be used for criminal investigation when directed by a court. 

This direction leaves at least 3 questions unanswered: 

1. when can a court issue such a direction- can a court suo motu ask the investigating authority to use the Aadhaar information in criminal cases or will such direction be given only on an application made by the investigating authority? 

2. Against whom can this direction be issued- just the accused or anyone connected with the case; 

3. How and at which stage will the information be used in the investigation?

Finally, consider the explicit wording of the Aadhaar form, which asks the applicant to say yes or no to the following:

“I have no objection to the UIDAI sharing information provided by me to the UIDAI with agencies engaged in delivery of public services including welfare services.”

The Aadhaar form thus gives the applicant an option to allow or to refuse the UIDAI to share his or her information for public and welfare services. Despite this, does the court (direction no. 4) then mean to say that irrespective of their permission, the court can make it public for investigation?

Clear stand needed
As of now, nothing has changed even while the Supreme Court has directed the union to publicise the fact that that it is not mandatory for a citizen to obtain an Aadhaar card. Most of the services do prompt a person to link their Aadhaar card to their service accounts. Even the e-filing of IT returns prompts the tax payer on the homepage to link the Aadhaar card for the purposes of e-verification without enlisting the other options of e-verification in the homepage itself.

The task of the 5 bench entrusted with the question of privacy is not just to rule on the Constitutional ambiguity surrounding the law but also to make a decision, being completely mindful of the implications of the Aadhaar card – a card that carries and needs the most intimate information about a person- biometric and iris scans – without any legal basis for its existence. If the right to privacy is indeed of any value, then the court cannot give with one hand (direction no. 1 and 2) what it takes away from the other (direction no. 3 and 4).

Upasana Garnaik and Surabhi Shukla are Assistant Professors at Jindal Global Law School, Haryana.


CLICK ON TITLE TO SEE ORIGINAL ARTICLE - Posted by
Labels: