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, November 4, 2017

12243 - Centre proposes to extend Aadhaar linking deadline to those ‘willing to enrol’ - The Hindu


NEW DELHI , OCTOBER 25, 2017 16:56 IST

On a one-page note, the Centre on October 25, 2017 proposed extending the deadline for mandatory linking of Aadhaar with bank accounts and mobile phones. File photo   | Photo Credit: 

MORE-IN

Supreme Court seeks assurance on “no coercive action” against Aadhaar-holders who do not want to link.

The government proposed extending the deadline for mandatory linking of Aadhaar with bank accounts and mobile phones from December 31, 2017 to March 31, 2018, but only exclusively for those who are “willing to enrol for Aadhaar”.

A one-page note, with writing on both sides of it, passed on to a Bench led by Chief Justice of India Dipak Misra on October 25 contained the proposal. Offering the three-month leeway for the "Aadhaar-willing" citizens, the note however insisted that those already with Aadhaar will be “required” to sync their Aadhaar numbers with SIM cards, bank accounts, PAN and “other schemes where Section 7 (Aadhaar Act) notifications have been issued”.

The government’s suggestion created such a furore in court that Justice Misra asked the government to re-think its proposal to make it voluntary for Aadhaar-holders also.

The court asked Attorney-General K.K. Venugopal, for the Centre, whether it can assure that no “coercive action” would be taken against Aadhaar-holders who do not want to link their bank accounts and mobile phone numbers.

“Can we say you (government) will take no coercive action till March 31," Justice Misra asked Mr. Venugopal.

Mr. Venugopal gave a verbal assurance, but this did not satisfy the petitioners who have been challenging the constitutionality of the Aadhaar scheme since 2014.


ALSO READ



Senior advocate Shyam Divan, for one of the petitioners, pointed out that the government had made similar assurances in the Supreme Court since 2014 , but the Aadhaar had continued to “spread”.

Mr. Divan said the government’s note actually meant that Aadhaar-holders would continue to be “coerced” into parting with their bank details and mobile phones despite the extension till March 31, 2018.

He said the government’s attitude discriminated among those willing to enrol for Aadhaar, others without Aadhaar, and finally, a sizeable section of the population who have Aadhaar but are apprehensive about linking their bank accounts and mobile phones to Aadhaar.

“The way Aadhaar is spreading is unconstitutional. Now those who have Aadhaar are vulnerable. Recent reports of deaths of those who linked their Aadhaar and their bank accounts got wiped out. People who have Aadhaar do not want to link. They have to share their one time password... There is an immense drive to link," Mr. Divan submitted forcefully.

He submitted the petitions challenging Aadhaar has been “crying for a hearing” in the Supreme Court since 2014. “Please hear it in November. The Attorney-General had agreed to be ready for hearing in November,” Mr. Divan urged.

Mr. Venugopal said the government-appointed Expert Committee on Data Protection Law headed by former Supreme Court judge, Justice B.N. Srikrishna, has started working towards a robust data protection regime as per a suggestion made by Justice D.Y. Chandrachud in his majority judgment for the nine-judge Constitution Bench which had upheld privacy as a fundamental right on August 24.

The government's note said the Justice Srikrishna Committee had already, on October 16, deployed its several working groups to suggest amendments and specific comments to a draft Data Protection Bill circulated by the Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology.

The committee is also considering changes in the Aadhaar Act of 2016 and the Information Technology Act of 2000 as firm steps towards a cast-iron data-protection regime.

Mr. Venugopal said a final form of the law would be available by February 2018, and hence, the proposal for a three-month extension in the Aadhaar-linking deadline.

"Yes, it is not one of the easiest things to make a law. They should be given time to frame a robust data-protection law. No point rushing," Justice Chandrachud, who was on the Bench with Justice A.M. Khanwilkar, addressed the petitioners’ counsel.

“So, till they make that law, let them [the government] make it categorical that nobody would be coerced to link Aadhaar...” senior advocate Arvind Datar retorted.

Mr. Datar said the government’s move to link bank accounts and mobile phones with Aadhaar numbers violated the fundamental right to privacy and equated citizens, including the elderly, women and students, with money-launderers.

Seniors advocate Anand Grover submitted that the government could very well work on the data-protection law, but meanwhile, it should order a freeze on the Aadhaar-linking exercise.

They urged the court to immediately stay the notifications for mandatory linking of Aadhaar to welfare schemes, bank accounts and mobile phones.

“Now a school child cannot go for his 10th exam without putting his fingerprints for Aadhaar... is this the level of civil liberties in this country now?” Mr. Divan asked.

The petitioners repeatedly urged the Chief Justice to set up a Constitution Bench and decide, once and for all, the constitutionality of the Aadhaar scheme.

“You cannot command us... come back and mention on Monday,” Justice Misra replied.

The deadline for linking Aadhaar had earlier been extended from September 30, 2016 to December 31, 2017.