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, April 9, 2018

13239 - Difference of opinion doesn’t mean we can’t see eye to eye: Justice Chelameswar on SC tussle - Live Mint


Justice Chelameswar says the CJI has authority to allot cases to different benches but that must be exercised with responsibility
Last Published: Sat, Apr 07 2018. 09 24 PM IST


A file photo of Supreme Court justice J. Chelameswar. 
Photo: PTI

New Delhi: Amid growing concerns over the state of the Indian judiciary, justice J. Chelameswar said on Saturday that despite a difference of opinion between chief justice Dipak Misra and the four senior most judges of the Supreme Court, recommendations regarding judges’ appointments were going on.

“We do have difference of opinion. But that does not mean we cannot see eye to eye. We met two days back,” he said.
Chelameswar, branded as the ‘rebel’ judge of the apex court for publicly raising questions on the leadership of the CJI and administrative functioning of the institution, was being interviewed by renowned journalist and commentator Karan Thapar on the “Role of judiciary in a democracy” at an event organized by the Harvard Club of India.

On being questioned that despite a new system of allocation of cases being adopted, an important number of cases (Ayodhya land dispute, Aadhaar etc) were still being heard by CJI Misra’s court, Chelameswar said, “He is the ‘master of the roster’ and if he thinks he can handle all the cases himself, let him do it.”

When asked to explain what the term “master of the roster’” meant to him, he said that undoubtedly the CJI has authority to allot cases to different benches but that must be exercised with responsibility. “It must be exercised for the public good and not because you have it,” he said.

The unprecedented judges’ conference also raised questions on whether justice Ranjan Gogoi’s participation, who is next in line for the post of the chief justice, would lead to his superseding. To this Chelameswar said, “I’m not an astrologer. I hope it does not happen but if it does then it will only prove that whatever we said in the press conference, was true.

He also said that he was not aware of the government writing back to the collegium proposing a screening mechanism for appointment of judges.

The judge was also in agreement with the need to have a transparent system involving audit of the judiciary.

On 12 January, in an unprecedented move, the four seniormost judges of the Supreme Court broke ranks and publicly questioned the leadership of CJI Dipak Misra. The four judges—Chelameswar, Ranjan Gogoi, Madan B. Lokur and Kurian Joseph—alleged that the chief justice was not following established precedents in allocation of cases among the judges.

The apex court has since been in turmoil with regards to its administrative process and has taken steps to resolve the problem.

First Published: Sat, Apr 07 2018. 09 19 PM IST