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

Wednesday, April 11, 2018

13248 - Can't Distrust Chief Justice, Plea "Scandalous", Says Supreme Court: 10 Facts - NDTV

Can't Distrust Chief Justice, Plea "Scandalous", Says Supreme Court: 10 Facts

A bench comprising Chief Justice Of India Dipak Misra, Justice AM Khanwilkar and Justice DY Chandrachud was hearing the petition

All India | Reported by A Vaidyanathan, Edited by Anindita Sanyal | Updated: April 11, 2018 14:13 IST

51COMMENTS

Can't Distrust Chief Justice, Plea 'Scandalous', Says Supreme Court: 10 Facts

Justices J Chelameswar, Ranjan Gogoi, Madan B Lokur, Kurian Joseph held an unprecedented press conference

NEW DELHI: A petition seeking a transparent process for allocation of cases in Supreme Court was dismissed by a three-judge bench of the court today. Calling the petition "scandalous", a bench comprising Chief Justice Of India Dipak Misra, Justice AM Khanwilkar and Justice DY Chandrachud, said, "The Chief Justice of India is the highest authority and he can't be distrusted". The petition was filed after four senior judges of the top court went public in January, saying "things are not in order" in what they called the "administration of the Supreme Court".

Here's a 10-point guide to the big story:

"The role of the CJI (Chief Justice of India) in the allotment of cases and choice of benches can't be questioned. To undermine his authority and say he will exercise power arbitrarily is misconceived," the court said. The bench also said seniority in terms of appointment "has no bearing" on which cases a judge should hear.
The petition, filed by a Lucknow-based lawyer, had argued that "unfettered power was being exercised by the Chief Justices in the matter of formation of Benches", so, there should be specific and transparent rules to regulate the process.
The petitioner also sought a transparent, codified procedure for the constitution of benches and allocation of cases in the Supreme Court.
Rules should be changed so the three-judge bench in the Chief Justice's court may include two judges next in seniority to him, the petition said. A change to this effect would have included Justices J Chelameswar and Ranjan Gogoi in the bench.
Senior advocate Prashant Bhushan, whose father Shanti Bhushan has filed a similar petition, called the judgment "farcial". "Some lawyer from Lucknow filed this petition and the CJI bench takes this and delivers the verdict. One of the future CJI also in the bench... This is to pre-empt our petition," Mr Bhushan said.
The issue of allocation of cases was raised in an unprecedented press conference in January by four seniormost judges of the Supreme Court -- Justices J Chelameswar, Ranjan Gogoi, Madan B Lokur and Kurian Joseph.
The press conference came after a sensitive case, involving the death of Special Judge BH Loya, was assigned to Justice Arun Mishra, the number 10 in the Supreme Court hierarchy. The dissenting judges had implied that the Chief Justice was abusing his position as "master of roster".
Days later, the Chief Justice made the roster public for the first time. The matter indicated a huge rift within the senior judiciary, which was seen as a major crisis.
Speaking at a public event in Delhi last week, Justice Chelameswar had said there should be transparency in the allocation of cases, else there will be "suspicion".
In March, Justice Chelameswar had also written to the Chief Justice of India, flagging what he called the "bonhomie between judiciary and the government" and sought a full court discussion on the government's role in the appointment of judges, news agency Press Trust of India reported.