AADHAAR RELATED ARTICLES: 13554 - Legal framework that governs Aadhaar issuing authority needs overhaul, says NIPFP study

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

Sunday, May 20, 2018

13554 - Legal framework that governs Aadhaar issuing authority needs overhaul, says NIPFP study - Business Today

Legal framework that governs Aadhaar issuing authority needs overhaul, says NIPFP study

Joe C Mathew

New Delhi

Last Updated: May 16, 2018 | 21:40 IST

A working paper published by Delhi -based think-tank National Institute of Public Finance and Policy (NIPFP) has called for a complete overhaul of the legal rules that bind the functioning of the Unique Identification Authority of India (UIDAI), the agency that issues the Aadhaar number. It says that the agency may have been delegated too many responsibilities without adequate checks and balances.

The paper evaluates the legal framework under which the Aadhaar Act and the Aadhaar Regulations operate. It seeks to understand whether the law and regulations are precisely and clearly drafted, if the law embeds accountability principles that shape the structure and functioning of the UIDAI and evaluates the grievance redress and enforcement provisions that are integral to the integrity of the system and are supposed to create a sufficient deterrent effect. However, it expresses no views on the constitutionality of the Aadhaar Project, which is presently sub judice before the Supreme Court and restricts itself to the evaluation of the Aadhar legal framework on issues of accountability, delegation, and grievance redress, purely from a policy perspective.

Titled 'A critique of the Aadhaar legal framework', the paper says that UIDAI has been delegated the setting of several standards and procedures to its future self, suggesting that that process is operating in a legal vacuum. It also points out that the accountability framework on the UIDAI remains weak as there are no statutorily mandated accountability standards. The authors, Vrinda Bhandari and Renuka Sane argue that this lack of statutory mandated accountability makes measuring the performance of the UIDAI difficult. It expresses concerns over the gaps in the privacy protections provided and states that the regulations relating to grievance redress and enforcement are weak. It also criticises the manner of notification of regulations, stating that it was not appropriate.

The paper notes that there was no public consultation or debate, even though the regulations significantly change certain provisions of the Act, make substantive additions, and have wide ramifications. "Regardless of where one stands on the desirability of a mandatory biometric based identification system for improving services delivery or tax compliance, it is hard to not demand that while the system is running it should clearly enumerate the rights of users, and provide mechanisms to safeguard those rights. In doing so it must provide for checks and balances on the behaviour of the State (i.e. the government and the UIDAI)", it said.

According to the authors, the reported stories on data leakages, filing of FIRs, failures of biometric authentication, mismatch between names on various cards, are all outcomes of the weaknesses in the legal framework. Vrinda Bhandari is a practicing advocate in Delhi, and is appearing for one of the petitioners in challenging the constitutionality of the Aadhaar Act and its Regulations. Renuka Sane is a faculty at the NIPFP.

DO Y