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

Monday, January 22, 2018

12744 - CJI takes judge Loya’s case in own hand - Herald Goa

CJI takes judge Loya’s case in own hand

21 JAN 201805:07AM IST

Team Herald

NEW DELHI: Chief Justice of India Dipak Misra has taken the case of controversial mysterious death of Mumbai's Special CBI judge Brijgopal H Loya for hearing by his Bench on Monday since Justice Arun Mishra recused last Tuesday.

Justice Mishra did not give any reason for withdrawing from the case, but it was obviously due to four senior-most rebel judges questioning assignment of such an important case to a junior judge. He, in fact, wept during the informal morning tea by the judges on Monday for the seniors questioning his capability.

The case has gained national importance only recently since BJP President Amit Shah, one of the accused in the Sohrabuddin Sheikh encounter of 2005 in Gujarat Judge Loya was hearing, got discharged by his successor within four weeks of his death in December 2014. Judge Loya's doctor sister Anuradha Biyani raised questions on his death in a Delhi magazine in November, bringing into focus the death buried as heart attack.

The PILs of social activist Tehseen Poonawalla and Mumbai-based journalist Bandhuraj Sambhaji Lone for an independent probe, monitored by the court, into Loya's death are now listed on Monday as item no. 45 before the 3-judge Bench headed by the CJI.

The CJI had last week assigned the PILs for hearing to a Bench of Justices Arun Mishra and M M Shantanagoudar, which held two hearings on January 12 and 16 and directed the Maharashtra government to provide all papers concerning the death to the petitioners.

Since Justice Mishra has pulled out, a lawyer mentioned early listing of the case before the CJI who ordered the listing on Monday before an "appropriate" court, without saying his Bench will now handle it.

Judge Loya had died in Nagpur he had gone to attend the wedding of a colleague's daughter. Though authorities declared it as death due to heart attack, doubts were expressed on his sudden death by his family members, including his sister, who said neither the judge nor anybody in the family had history of heart ailments and she became suspicious on the authorities hiding his post mortem report and the treatment given to him.

CONSTITUTION BENCH: The CJI chose to take up the case himself since he as well as Justices Khanwilkar and Chandrachud are free on Monday from the Constitution bench hearing the Aadhaar case. It meets the dissent of the four rebel judges that important cases be heard by the CJI himself or assigned to the senior judges and not to the juniors.

Meanwhile, a petition filed by the West Bengal government, challenging mandatory Aadhaar number in the Income Tax returns, has also been appended on Tuesday when the Constitution Bench resumes hearing on Aadhaar.

The West Bengal has challenged an amendment last year in the Income Tax Act by inserting Section 139AA, which provides, inter alia, that every person who is eligible to obtain AAdhaar Number is required to quote it in the PAN application form and Income Tax Return. It sought to declare the amendment as unconstitutional, illegal, arbitrary and in violation of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution.