13515 - Half of Parliament was disabled from amending Aadhaar law: Jairam Ramesh - Economic Times

Half of Parliament was disabled from amending Aadhaar law: Jairam Ramesh

PTI|

May 10, 2018, 09.36 PM IST

He sought setting aside of the Aadhaar law and said Parliament be allowed to have a re-look on it. 

NEW DELHI: The decision to tag the Aadhaar law as a money bill has "serious implications" as one half of the Parliament was disabled from making any amendment, the Supreme Court was told. 

A five-judge constitution bench headed by Chief Justice Dipak Misra was told by senior advocate P Chidambaram, appearing of party colleague Jairam Ramesh, that besides the Rajya Sabha, even the President was denied the opportunity to have a say on the law. 

"The Bill was passed without the effective participation of the Rajya Sabha and without the assent from the President. The court cannot save a legislation that is fundamentally unconstitutional," he told the bench, which also comprised Justices A K Sikri, A M Khanwilkar, D Y Chandrachud and Ashok Bhushan. 

"The implications of passing a non-money bill as a money bill are very serious. One half of the Parliament is virtually disabled from making any amendments. It even denuded the highest constitutional authority of the country, the President of India, of his powers," he said. 

Chidambaram also referred to section 57 of the Aadhaar Act and said it empowered any private corporate body to use Aadhaar data for authentication and this has nothing to do with the constitutional scheme dealing with a Money Bill. 

He sought setting aside of the Aadhaar law and said Parliament be allowed to have a re-look on it. 

Earlier, the court had said it would examine whether the courts can scrutinise the decision of the Lok Sabha Speaker to specify a Bill as a Money Bill, as was done during the passage of the 2016 Aadhaar Act. 

Chidambaram had said that Lok Sabha members cannot question the decision of the Speaker outside the House, but the courts are empowered to examine the validity of the decision. 

The apex court, on December 15 last year, had sought a response from the Centre on the plea of Jairam Ramesh challenging the government's decision to treat Aadhaar bill as a money bill and getting it passed in the budget session last year after rejecting amendments to it by the Rajya Sabha. 

After issuing notice to the Centre, the top court had tagged the plea with the clutch of petitions against the Aadhaar scheme itself for hearing today by the constitution bench. 

Prior to this, it had said that it was "tentatively not convinced" about the grounds cited by the Congress leader to challenge Lok Sabha Speaker's decision to certify a bill to amend Aadhaar law as a money bill. 

The Aadhaar (Targeted Delivery of Financial and Other Subsidies, Benefits and Services) Bill, 2016 was passed by the Lok Sabha on March 11, 2016. 

It was taken up in the Rajya Sabha on March 16, where several amendments were made to it. The bill was then returned the same evening to Lok Sabha which rejected all the amendments proposed by the Upper House and passed it. 

A money bill contains provisions for various taxes and appropriation of funds and can be introduced only in the Lok Sabha. The Rajya Sabha cannot make amendments to such bills after passage by the Lok Sabha. The Rajya Sabha can suggest amendments but it depends on the Lok Sabha to accept or reject them. 

The NDA government allegedly chose to categorise the bill as a money bill as it lacked a majority in the Rajya Sabha, the opposition had argued. 

Read more at:

//economictimes.indiatimes.com/articleshow/64114071.cms?utm_source=contentofinterest&utm_medium=text&utm_campaign=cppst

13514 - [Aadhaar] Indian Supreme Court Reserves Verdict On The Second-longest Hearing After 38 Days - Live Law

[Aadhaar] Indian Supreme Court Reserves Verdict On The Second-longest Hearing After 38 Days 

BY: MEHAL JAIN MAY 10, 2018 10:11 PM 

Supreme Court of India has concluded the 38 days long ...

Read more at: http://www.livelaw.in/aadhaar-indian-supreme-court-reserves-verdict-on-the-second-longest-hearing-after-38-days/

13513 - Aadhaar lacks regulatory oversight: Supreme Court - Economic Times

Aadhaar lacks regulatory oversight: Supreme Court

By Samanwaya Rautray

NEW DELHI: After a marathon hearing lasting 38 days, the Supreme Court expressed concern over the lack of regulatory oversight in the Aadhaar superstructure and reserved judgement on the legality of the all-pervasive, mandatory nature of the unique identity scheme for residents of India. 

A five-judge bench led by Chief Justice of India Dipak Misra was hearing a bunch of petitions against the ‘Aadhaar (Targeted Delivery of Financial and Other Subsidies, Benefits and Services) Act, 2016.’ 

“What Aadhaar lacks is a hierarchy of regulators. The law seems to have many parameters, norms and offences but no intervening regulatory mechanisms,” Justice DY Chandrachud observed on Thursday, the concluding day of arguments. 

The hearing was the longest running after the Kesavananda Bharti case, which culminated in the court barring successive governments from changing the basic structure of the Constitution through amendments. 

Chandrachud was responding to arguments by senior advocate Gopal Subramanium that the Aadhaar scheme left residents at the mercy of the government. Although data leaks are punishable under the Act, only the Unique Identification Authority of India, which administers the identity programme, could file a complaint regarding this. 

There is no mechanism to appeal against UIDAI’s decisions and the complaint mechanism against the authority was equally tenuous. 

Subramanium argued that the benefits, subsidies and services for which Aadhaar was mandatory were mostly in the nature of entitlements or rights of the people rather than largesse. 

Even if they were to be largesse in the strict sense — something the state grants by way of charity — the state cannot insist on stripping a person of his dignity, an essential part of his constitutional identity, as a pre-condition to granting such largesse, he contended. “The benefit, if any, must manifest in a way that dignity is not taken away,” he said. 

Subramanium urged the court to strike down Section 7 of the Act on the grounds that the people’s right to say no is taken away. 

Read more at:

//economictimes.indiatimes.com/articleshow/64117381.cms?utm_source=contentofinterest&utm_medium=text&utm_campaign=cppst

13512 - SC reserves judgment on pleas challenging Aadhaar - Times of India

SC reserves judgment on pleas challenging Aadhaar

PTI | May 10, 2018, 17:18 IST

NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court on Thursday reserved its verdict on a batch of petitions challenging the constitutional validity of Aadhaar and its enabling 2016 law.

A five-judge constitution bench headed by Chief Justice Dipak Misra directed all the parties concerned to file their written submissions to put forth their case. 

The judgment was reserved after a marathon hearing which went on for 38 days spanning four months. 

A battery of lawyers including Attorney General KK Venugopal, who represented the Centre and senior advocates like Kapil Sibal, P Chidambaram, Rakesh Dwivedi, Shyam Divan, Arvind Datar, Rakesh Dwivedi had appeared for various parties. 

The constitution bench also comprised Justices AK Sikri, AM Khanwilkar, DY Chandrachud and Ashok Bhushan.

During the arguments spread over four months, the Centre had strongly defended its decision to seed Aadhaar numbers with mobile phones, telling the top court that it could have been hauled up for contempt if the verification of mobile users was not undertaken by it.

However, the court had said that the government had misinterpreted its order and used it as a "tool" to make Aadhaar mandatory for mobile users.

Former Karnataka High Court judge Justice KS Puttaswamy and other petitioners had challenged the constitutional validity of Aadhaar.

The court had also not agreed with the government's contention that the Aadhaar law was correctly termed as a Money Bill by the Lok Sabha Speaker as it dealt with "targeted delivery of subsidies" for which funds came from the Consolidated Fund of India. 

13511 - Supreme Court reserves verdict on Aadhaar validity - TNN

Supreme Court reserves verdict on Aadhaar validity

Dhananjay Mahapatra | TNN | May 11, 2018, 06:08 IST

NEW DELHI: After a marathon 40-day hearing spanning five months, a five-judge bench of the Supreme Court on Thursday reserved its verdict on a bunch of petitions, led by ex high court judge K Puttaswamy, challenging the constitutional validity of Aadhaar on the ground that it violated citizens’ right to privacy.

The petition, filed in the SC in 2012 when Aadhaar was still in a nascent stage and had not become ‘mandatory’, has already achieved a milestone verdict from a nine-judge bench headed by then CJI J S Khehar and of which present CJI Dipak Misra was not a part of.

The nine-judge bench on August 24 last year had unanimously held that right to privacy was a fundamental right and part of every citizen’s right to life. After delivering the judgment, which overruled an eight-judge bench’s 1954 verdict in M P Sharma case, the ninejudge bench of then CJI Khehar and Justices J Chelameswar, S A Bobde, R K Agrawal, R F Nariman, A M Sapre, D Y Chandrachud, Sanjay K Kaul and S Abdul Nazeer had assigned the case to a five-judge bench.

After Justice Khehar’s retirement, CJI Misra constituted a five-judge bench. Justice Chandrachud is the only link between the five-judge bench and the nine-judge bench which had ruled on right to privacy.

Immediately after taking up the petitions for hearing on December 14 last year, the five judge bench was confronted with the petitioners vociferous opposition to the government’s decision to force citizens to compulsorily link their bank accounts and mobile phones with Aadhaar. On March 13, the bench extended the interim order till pronouncement of judgment on the petitions. 

13509 - Citing Mother's Example, Supreme Court Judge Says Aadhaar "Serious Issue" - NDTV

Citing Mother's Example, Supreme Court Judge Says Aadhaar "Serious Issue"

Justice Chandrachud is part of the 5-judge constitution bench which is hearing a batch of petitions challenging the Aadhaar's constitutional validity.

All India | Press Trust of India | Updated: May 10, 2018 02:13 IST

28SHARES

EMAIL

PRINT

20COMMENTS

Justice DY Chandrachud is the son of former Chief Justice of India YV Chandrachud

NEW DELHI:  Supreme Court judge Justice DY Chandrachud, the son of late Chief Justice of India YV Chandrachud, on Wednesday recalled a personal experience during a hearing on the Aadhaar issue, saying his mother, who was suffering from Alzheimer's disease, had faced difficulty in authentication to get pension.

Justice Chandrachud is part of the five-judge constitution bench headed by Chief Justice of India Dipak Misra, which is hearing a batch of petitions challenging the constitutional validity of the Aadhaar scheme and its enabling law of 2016.

During the hearing, the bench - also comprising Justices AK Sikri, AM Khanwilkar and Ashok Bhushan, said Aadhaar authentication failures could create problems for those in need and some solution had to be found to address the issue.

Recalling his experience, Justice Chandrachud said, "My mother, who was suffering from Alzheimer's disease, was entitled to family pension being the wife of a former Chief Justice of India (late Justice Y V Chandrachud). 
"She had to give a thumb impression for authentication. I recall, every month the bank manager or his representative would come home and affix her thumb print on certain documents and only then could she get the pension", Justice Chandrachud said.

"So it (authentication) is a serious issue. It's not largesse. It is not charity...we have to find answers for these problems," he said, adding that there was a class of needy people who may not get the benefits due to authentication failures.

The top court judge was responding to the arguments of senior advocate Shyam Divan, appearing for former High Court judge Justice (Retd) K S Puttaswamy, who said a 90-year-old woman suffering from various ailments is being threatened that her bank account could be closed for non-authentication by Aadhaar.
Mr Divan said that through that bank account, she was getting her pension and she uses that money for her treatment as she has no one else to look after her.
"There are numerous cases where the Aadhaar authentication failures of the elderly, people suffering from any disease or physical disability, leads to denial of benefits to those otherwise entitled to it," Mr Diwan said.

He said in many villages, young people have now migrated to cities or nearby towns and only the elderly residing there were dependent on their pension or other grants. But due to Aadhaar authentication failure, they were not getting the benefits.

Mr Divan sought to assail a World Bank report which had praised the Aadhaar project and which was relied upon by the government to bolster its case for the 12-digit unique identification number. He said the World Bank had partnered with a private entity for preparing the report titled 'Identification for Development'.

Mr Divan claimed that the same private entity was also the company with which UIDAI had partnered to facilitate Aadhaar.

He said there were 144 notifications issued by various ministries and departments of the government which covered 252 schemes. 

The senior lawyer concluded his rejoinder arguments saying that essential government schemes that apply to children or relate to citizen's rehabilitation, food, health and nutrition, should be excluded from the requirement of Aadhaar authentication.

The hearing remained inconclusive and will continue tomorrow.

On May 3, the centre had strongly defended its decision to seed Aadhaar numbers with mobile phones, telling the top court that it could have been hauled up for contempt if the verification of mobile users was not undertaken by it.

However, the court had said that the government had misinterpreted its order and used it as a "tool" to make Aadhaar mandatory for mobile users.
The petitioners had referred to the technical experts' views on the technical aspect of the Aadhaar architecture and said that a real time surveillance of citizens was possible.

20COMMENTS

For the first time in a democracy, something like CIDR has been implemented and the apex court has to balance the human rights and new technologies that is capable of being misused, they had said.

Earlier, the court also did not agree with the government's contention that the Aadhaar law was correctly termed as a Money Bill by the Lok Sabha Speaker as it dealt with "targeted delivery of subsidies" for which funds come from the Consolidated Fund of India.

NDTV Beeps - your daily newsletter

13503 - Aadhaar should not be made mandatory to give benefits to vulnerable groups, SC told - Live Mint

Aadhaar should not be made mandatory to give benefits to vulnerable groups, SC told

Senior advocate Shyam Divan told the Supreme Court that it was required to be established whether Section 7 of the Aadhaar Act was being used as an overextension of the coercive powers of the state

Last Published: Wed, May 09 2018. 09 23 PM IST

Priyanka Mittal

Curbing terrorism, money laundering, and black money and targeting the delivery of subsidies and benefits have been listed by the Centre as ‘legitimate state interests’ in rolling out Aadhaar. Photo: Mint

New Delhi: Senior advocate Shyam Divan on Wednesday told the Supreme Court that Aadhaar should not be made mandatory to give benefits to vulnerable groups, provide mid-day meals to children or for medical treatments, among others.

Appearing on behalf of petitioners who have challenged the constitutional validity of the 12-digit unique identity number, Divan said it was required to be established whether Section 7 of the Aadhaar Act was being used as an overextension of the coercive powers of the state. Aadhaar cannot be used to create a second class citizenry, Divan added.

Taking the argument forward, Gopal Subramanium, also appearing for petitioners, told the court that since school admissions were being denied for lack of Aadhaar, the legislation was not an enabler.

“It falls on all grounds of Articles 14, 19 and 21 of the Constitution of India,” he remarked.

The matter is being heard by a constitution bench headed by Chief Justice Dipak Misra since January.

Subramanium also raised questions on whether Aadhaar was really meant for the oppressed since it was required to be linked with banks, mobile numbers etc. It was also highlighted that the Aadhaar scheme was implemented without a legal framework in place and that it was not possible to retrospectively enact a law.

Curbing terrorism, money laundering, and black money and targeting the delivery of subsidies and benefits have been listed by the Centre as “legitimate state interests” in rolling out Aadhaar.

The matter will be heard next on Thursday.

First Published: Wed, May 09 2018. 09 12 PM IST

13502 - Aadhaar case: No consent taken for biometrics, advocate Shyam Divan informs Supreme Court - The Hindu

Aadhaar case: No consent taken for biometrics, advocate Shyam Divan informs Supreme Court

STAFF REPORTER

NEW DELHI, MAY 09, 2018 22:00 IST

Counsel challenges Aadhaar Act.

The Supreme Court was on Wednesday informed by senior advocate Shyam Divan, who is representing a bunch of petitions challenging the constitutionality of the Aadhaar Act, that no counselling or written consent was taken before taking biometrics during Aadhaar enrolment.

The senior advocate, who concluded his arguments, said the absence of “express written authority in the notification dated January 28, 2009 to collect and store biometrics [fingerprints and iris scan] renders all collections prior to the Act illegal and incurable.”

Mr. Divan said the architecture and design of the programme enable tracking and profiling of individuals, apart from “full traceability.”

“The effect of being compelled to part with personal biometrics and demographic information and storing it in a central repository through which the State logs every authentication amounts to overreach of the coercive power of the State,” he submitted.

“The combined legislative scheme makes it impossible to live in India without Aadhaar,” said Mr. Divan as he concluded his submission urging the top court to test the Aadhaar Act based on the first five words of the Constitution, “We the people of India.”

Senior advocate Gopal Subramanium, who is representing some of the petitioners, questioned the logic behind linking Aadhaar with non–essential services.

A five judge Constitution Bench headed by Chief Justice Dipak Misra is hearing a clutch of petitions challenging Aadhaar and its enabling 2016 law. The other members of the Bench include Justices A.K. Sikri, A.M. Khanwilkar, D.Y. Chandrachud and Ashok Bhushan.

13456 - Aadhaar: Centre quotes SC order on seeding of mobile SIMs - The Hindu

Aadhaar: Centre quotes SC order on seeding of mobile SIMs

Krishnadas Rajagopal

NEW DELHI, MAY 03, 2018 21:58 IST

A-G insists that earlier move for seeding of mobile SIMs with Aadhaar was based on court directive

The Centre insisted on Thursday that its earlier move for mandatory seeding of mobile phone SIMs with Aadhaar was based on the Supreme Court’s initiative.

Recently, the Aadhaar Constitution Bench, led by Chief Justice of India Dipak Misra, had questioned the government’s line that its efforts to mandatorily link SIMs with Aadhaar was based on a February 6, 2017 order of the Supreme Court.

In response, Attorney-General K.K. Venugopal read out the February 6 order of a Bench of then Chief Justice J.S. Khehar and Justice N.V. Ramana. This order was based on a PIL petition filed by Lok Niti Foundation, highlighting the need for a “definite mobile phone subscriber verification scheme, to ensure 100% verification of the subscriber.” The petitioner had argued that such a scheme was necessary to prevent the use of unverified mobile phone SIMs in domestic crime and terror acts.

Mr. Venugopal said the February 6 order had the Bench “congratulating” Lok Niti Foundation for raising such a “commendable cause.” Mr. Venugopal said the court had realised the grave security risk posed by the casual distribution of SIMs to all and sundry without proper verification.

Demographic data

To buttress his point, Mr. Venugopal read out portions of the order which records the government’s response to Lok Niti Foundation. He said the order recorded that the government had launched the “Aadhaar based E-KYC for issuing mobile connections” on August 16, 2016 wherein the customer as well as Point of Sale (PoS) Agent would be authenticated from Unique Identification Authority of India (UIDAI) based on their biometrics and their demographic data received from UIDAI.

Mr. Venugopal said the government had also conveyed to the court that the Aadhaar-based e-KYC process would nullify the chances of delivery of SIMs to wrong persons and ensure “traceability” of the customer to a large extent.

But Justice A.K. Sikri, on the Constitution Bench, responded by saying that the February 6 order only records the plea of Lok Niti Foundation and the government’s response to it. There was no positive order from the Supreme Court, directing the government to seed SIMs with Aadhaar.

On this, Mr. Venugopal drew the court’s attention to the concluding paragraphs of the two-page order.

Existing subscribers

Here, he pointed out that the court had described the Aadhaar e-KYC process as an “effective’ one for new mobile phone subscribers. It had also further expressed “hope and expectation” that a “similar verification” would be completed in the case of existing subscribers soon, possibly within a year.

At this point, Justice D.Y. Chandrachud, on the Bench, asked why then did the government come out with a recent statement to telecom companies to not insist on Aadhaar from subscribers.

Mr. Venugopal said this was done in response to the recent statements from the Constitution Bench and the government has now decided to wait till the final judgment of the court on the validity of the Aadhaar scheme.

The Attorney-General concluded his rejoinder arguments by dismissing allegations of mass State surveillance and “conspiracy” using Aadhaar data. He said it was preposterous to allege that a democratically-elected government would “collude” with Aadhaar officers to mount surveillance on the doings of other political parties in order to “prevent them from going into a coalition.”

Mr. Venugopal said he strongly objected to terms like “concentration camp,” “totalitarian regime” and “electronic leash” used by senior advocate Shyam Divan and advocate Vipin Nair, in relation to the Aadhaar scheme.

“No single person can be put on electronic leash… leash is a word used for dogs. I strongly object,” Mr. Venugopal concluded for the Centre.

13444 - SC questions government's justification for passing Aadhaar Act as Money Bill - The Hindu

SC questions government's justification for passing Aadhaar Act as Money Bill

Krishnadas Rajagopal

NEW DELHI, MAY 02, 2018 17:23 IST

MORE-IN

Aadhaar and cash transfers

Attorney General says the Act may have several “ancillary provisions”, but taken in its entirety, the Aadhaar Act comes within the ambit of the definition of Money Bill under Article 110 of the Constitution.

The Supreme Court on Wednesday questioned the government's justification for passing the Aadhaar Act as a Money Bill.

Countering the Central government's argument that the sole intent of the Aadhaar Act is to act as a weapon for delivering subsidies to targetted beneficiaries, the Constitution Bench led by Chief Justice of India Dipak Misra pointed to Section 57 of the Act.

This provisions contemplate the use of the Aadhaar card as an identification document not only by the government but also by "any body corporate or person".

"A body corporate? That is as far as you can go away from the concept of a Money Bill," Justice Chandrachud challenged Attorney General K.K. Venugopal.

Section 57 says “nothing contained in this Act [Aadhaar Act] shall prevent the use of Aadhaar number for establishing the identity of an individual for any purpose, whether by the State or any body corporate or person...”

Mr. Venugopal submittted that the Act's Preamble itself encapsulated its objective as a legislative “tool” to provide “good governance, efficient, transparent, and targeted delivery of subsidies, benefits and services”. The expenditure for these welfare activities would be drawn from the Consolidated Fund of India.

Mr. Venugopal said the Act may have several “ancillary provisions”, but taken in its entirety the Aadhaar Act came within the ambit of the definition of Money Bill under Article 110 of the Constitution.

The Attorney General countered that the Act contemplated the plight of 300 million people in the country living below the poverty line. “Money has to come necessarily from the Consolidated Fund of India to cover the expenditure of the delivery of targetted subsidies. Not a single provision in the Act is unneccessary or unrelated to the main purpose/pith and substance of the Act, which is giving subsidies,” he argued.

Jairam Ramesh's petition

Mr. Venugopal was countering arguments raised in a petition by Rajya Sabha member Jairam Ramesh that the Aadhaar Act of 2016 was passed as a Money Bill to “bypass the scrutiny of the Rajya Sabha.”

Mr. Ramesh, represented by senior advocate P. Chidambaram, had argued that a Bill is declared as a Money Bill only in six specific circumstances or matters incidental to them as enumerated in Article 110. The Aadhaar law does not relate to any of these circumstances. The petition had termed the passage of the Aadhaar law a “constitutional fraud”.

On March 11, the Aadhaar Bill was passed by the Lok Sabha after the Speaker ruled it as a 'MoneyBill'. It was then passed to the Rajya Sabha which, on March 16, returned the Bill with five amendments moved by Mr. Ramesh. These recommendations were rejected by the Lok Sabha, which passed the law called Aadhaar (Targeted Delivery of Financial and other Subsidies, Benefits and Services) Act, 2016.

Mr. Venugopal referred to Sections 7, 24 and 25 of the Aadhaar Act to show how closely the objective of the statute is linked to the Consolidated Fund. Section 7 says that the Centre or a State may use Aadhaar card to establish the identity of a person to provide him subsidy, benefit or service for which the expenditure is incurred from the Consolidated Fund.

Section 24 says that Centre could make grants of money to the authorities under the Act for the purpose of providing subsidies. Section 25 says that fees or revenue collected by the authority under the Aadhaar Act should be credited to the Consolidated Fund.

13443 - SC does not seem to agree with Aadhaar law being termed a Money Bill - TNN

SC does not seem to agree with Aadhaar law being termed a Money Bill

PTI | Updated: May 2, 2018, 21:09 IST

NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court on Wednesday did not seem to agree with the government's contention that the Aadhaar law was correctly termed as a Money Bill by the Lok Sabha Speaker as it dealt with "targeted delivery of subsidies" for which funds come from the Consolidated Fund of India. 

A five-judge constitution bench headed by Dipak Misra referred to Section 57 of the Aadhaar Act which says that "State or any body corporate or person" can use Aadhaar number "for establishing identity of an individual for any purpose". 

"The problem arises with regard to section 57 (of the Aadhaar Act). Section 57 snapped the link with section 7 and the targeted delivery of subsidies, benefits and services," the bench, also comprising Justices A K Sikri, A M Khanwilkar, D Y Chandrachud and Ashok Bhushan, said. 

The bench said allowing "any body corporate or person" to use Aadhaar for establishing identity for any purpose "snaps the link with Consolidated Fund of India", indicating that the Aadhaar legislation cannot be called a Money Bill. 

The remarks came when Attorney General K K Venugopal was advancing arguments in response to submissions of lawyers including senior advocate P Chidambaram that Aadhaar, by no standard, could have been certified as a Money Bill by Lok Sabha Speaker as it did not meet the conditions of Article 110 (definition of Money Bill) of the Constitution. 

Venugopal referred to the preamble and several provisions of the Aadhaar (Targeted Delivery of Financial and Other Subsidies, Benefits and Services) Act, 2016 and said the term "targeted delivery of subsidies" contemplated the expenditure of funds. 

"The expenditure has to go into thousands of crores of rupees from the Consolidated Fund of India. This itself brings it (law) into the ambit of Money Bill under Article 110 of the Constitution," he said. 

Responding to bench's observation on allowing even private bodies to use the Aadhaar architecture, Venugopal said even though the law has ancillary provisions, the main object was delivery of subsidies, services and benefits. 

"Not a single provision in the Act is unnecessary or unrelated to the main purpose or the pith and substance of the Act which is giving subsidies, services and benefits," the top law officer said. 

He said as of now, no such contract with private entities with UIDAI was before the court and when such issues are placed before the bench, then only it can be examined. 

However, the bench stuck to its observations on Section 57 and said "there is no distribution of benefits and subsidies under section 57." 

Venugopal also referred to Article 110 (1) (g) of the Constitution and said it contained words "any matter" and the Aadhaar Law fell under this definition and was rightly held as a Money Bill. 

His arguments remained inconclusive and will resume tomorrow before the bench, which is hearing a clutch of petitions challenging Aadhaar and its enabling 2016 law. 

Senior Congress leader and Rajya Sabhja MP Jairam Ramesh, represented by Chidambaram, had moved the apex court challenging the decision to treat Aadhaar bill as a money bill, which was passed during Budget Session in March 2016, overruling amendments moved in the Rajya Sabha. 

Earlier in the day, advocate Zoheb Hossain, appearing for the Maharashtra government, referred to international charters and covenants on harmonisation of socio-economic and civil political rights. 

The bench said the Directive Principles of State Policy (DPSP) of the Constitution was essential for good governance and a guarantee of reasonableness of a law. It said though DPSP was "justiciable", it has been read into Article 21 (Right to life and liberty). 

Dealing with data protection, Hossain said that framing a law on the subject was a positive obligation cast on the State and the Aadhaar scheme would ensure socio-economic rights of citizens and prevention of leakages of funds. 

Referring to judgements, he said when a law conferred discretionary powers to the executive, the validity of the statute cannot be judged by assuming that the executive would exercise its powers arbitrarily. 

Hossain referred to the UN General Assembly resolution which says that ideal of freedom can only be achieved if conditions are created so that everyone can enjoy socio-economic and civil political rights. 

He contended that right to privacy was an individual and personal right and its alleged infringement cannot be raised in a PIL by unconnected NGOs.

The lawyer then gave an example of Aadhaar being used for obtaining SIM card, opening bank account and getting PDS benefits and said the telecom companies will not know the details of a citizen's bank account or information about PDS.

"Similarly, the bank will not have information about the telecom and PDS details of the citizen. The UIDAI would not be have any of the three details," he said, adding there was no possibility of surveillance.

Earlier, lawyer Gopal Sankaranarayanan had opposed the seeding of Aadhaar with the Permanent Account Number (PAN) for income tax in the Supreme Court, saying in no way does it help in preventing financial frauds or curb black money. 

13376 - ‘Aadhaar-SIM linking based on SC orders’ - The Hindu

‘Aadhaar-SIM linking based on SC orders’

Legal Correspondent

NEW DELHI, APRIL 27, 2018 00:56 IST

Aadhaar and cash transfers

The government on Thursday insisted that the directives of the Department of Telecommunications to seed SIM cards with Aadhaar is based on “at least two Supreme Court orders”.

Attorney General K.K. Venugopal said one of the Supreme Court orders was from Justice D.Y. Chandrachud, who is a member of the five-judge Constitution Bench led by Chief Justice Dipak Misra hearing the challenge to the Aadhaar scheme.

Mr. Venugopal made the submission just before the Bench was rising at the end of the day.

He said he would expand the point in the next hearing.

The Supreme Court had on April 25 questioned the mandatory linking of Aadhaar-SIM and said the government is using an order passed by it on February 6 last year as a “tool” to seed Aadhaar with SIM cards.

Justice Chandrachud, after perusing the February 6 order in the Lok Niti Foundation case, had said the court had only asked the government to tighten the verification process of mobile phone users through Aadhaar linkage. “In fact there was no such direction from the Supreme Court, but you took it and used it as tool to make Aadhaar mandatory for mobile users,” the Bench observed orally.

13375 - Didn't Say It's Mandatory to Link Aadhaar With Mobile Numbers: Supreme Court - The Wire

LAW

Didn't Say It's Mandatory to Link Aadhaar With Mobile Numbers: Supreme Court

"In fact there was no such direction from the Supreme Court, but you took it and used it as a tool to make Aadhaar mandatory for mobile users."

The Wire Staff

GOVERNMENTLAW

26/APR/2018

New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Wednesday raised questions over the government’s decision ordering mandatory seeding of mobile numbers with Aadhaar and said its earlier order on mandatory authentication of users was used as a “tool”.

A five-judge constitution bench headed by Chief Justice Dipak Misra, hearing a clutch of petitions challenging Aadhaar and its enabling 2016 law, said its order on a PIL filed by Lokniti Foundation had said that mobile users needed to be verified in the interest of national security.

“In fact there was no such direction from the Supreme Court, but you took it and used it as a tool to make Aadhaar mandatory for mobile users,” the bench, also comprising Justices A.K. Sikri, A.M. Khanwilkar, D.Y. Chandrachud and Ashok Bhushan, said.

Senior advocate Rakesh Dwivedi, appearing for the Unique Identification Authority of India (UIDAI), said the Department of Telecommunication (DoT) notification talked about re-verification of mobile numbers by using e-KYC process and the Telegraph Act gave “exclusive power to central government to decide license conditions” of service providers.

“How can you (DoT) impose condition on service recipients for seeding Aadhaar with mobile phones,” the bench said, adding that license agreements were between the government and the service providers.

“In the Lokniti Foundation case, the SC has not directed linking of SIM with UID. But the Union government’s circular says so. There was no direction by the court…” Economic Times quoted Justice Chandrachud as saying during the hearing.

In September 2017, law minister Ravi Shankar Prasad too had said that the Supreme Court had made it compulsory to link Aadhaar with mobile numbers.

Writing in The Wire then, Gopal Krishna had pointed out how the media was misrepresenting the Supreme Court’s words.

Dwivedi said the direction to seed mobile with Aadhaar was taken in pursuance of TRAIs recommendation. Besides, the government was entitled and had legitimate state interest to ensure that a sim card is given to only those who applied, he said, seeking to allay apprehensions that the state will surveil the people 24×7.

“My submission is that the government had a legal basis to link Aadhaar with SIM by virtue of section 4 of the Telegraph Act and also, the measure is reasonable in the interest of national security,” the lawyer stressed.

Dwivedi, at the outset, alleged that the Aadhaar scheme was being unfairly targeted as nobody was questioning the banks and the telecom firms on collection of information.

The banks and telecom companies have much “bigger data base” about the citizens, he said, adding, “For example, Vodafone has much bigger data base of information even without Aadhaar. The Aadhaar data is immaterial for them.”

“Appreciate the fact as to how much information a bank possesses about its customers. Every transaction as to what I purchase by using cards, where and when, all this information is with banks. Aadhaar does not tell all this. This information are already there and is being used for commercial purposes,” he said, adding that a person starts getting numerous calls before their car insurances expire.

He said people are being “scared” about Aadhaar but “nobody questions the telecom companies, banks…. Their single target is Aadhaar”.

Dwivedi informed the bench about an app, available on Google Playstore and said it has so many personal information about a person. He gave details, procured by using the app, about him, his family members to the bench.

The bench was pleasantly surprised. Dwivedi said it has details regarding how much he charged the Jammu and Kashmir government for appearing in a case.

The lawyer referred to the control being enjoyed by the UIDAI over entities, private and government, which seek Aadhaar authentication for providing services and benefits to citizens.

These entities cannot track any individual by using these information and moreover, they themselves have enough information with them, he said, adding that Aadhaar cannot lead to surveillance as apprehended by the petitioners.

“Vodafone can do targeted advertising using the data which is already happening without Aadhaar. Vodafone has far more demographic data about an individual than UIDAI has,” Dwivedi said, adding that at the most, such details can lead to formation of a directory and targeted advertisements is happening already.

“Google and Facebook process tremendous data on a daily basis. UIDAI does not have that kind of algorithm,” he said and urged the court to save the Aadhaar law and suggest measures, if any, to make it work.

He referred to a list of entities and said most of them required one-time authentication and hence there was no question that State will surveil the people 24×7. He also referred to inbuilt security features in the law and system of Aadhaar authentication.

Dwivedi concluded his arguments on behalf of UIDAI saying that CIDR was safe, data was encrypted and was held offline and above all, the Aadhaar scheme was safer than smart cards as there was no chance of data breach.

Lawyer Gopal Shankarnarayan, who started his submissions, said the right to identity was an “absolute fundamental right” and Aadhaar provided a kind of proof of identification to all Indians.

(With PTI inputs)

13374 - Aadhaar linkages case: SC not happy with idea of Aadhaar as universal identity- India Legal Live

Aadhaar linkages case: SC not happy with idea of Aadhaar as universal identity

April 26, 2018

Hearing the case about Aadhaar linkages the Supreme Court bench of Chief Justice Dipak Misra and Justices A M Khanwilkar, D Y Chandrachud and Ashok Bhushan on Thursday (April 26) was told by senior counsel Gopal Shankaranarayanan that there could be a day when all other identities could lapse and only Aadhaar survive. The bench was not happy with that.

The counsel said:  “In order to avail of services I need to identify who I am.”

Justice Chandrachud said: “It does not affect constitutional rights as its the sole purpose is social welfare. He cited Justice Kaul’s judgment and said that it is a proof and evidence of identity. He said it affects in some manner the privacy, but if we look to it from an affirmative point of view. It does not affect the core identity of an individual.”

The counsel says identification is essential for availing of the services. “Now the question arises, for what all purpose is this identification is used? Identification of identity is essential to article 21. Right to identity is accepted internationally.”

Justice Chandrachud said: “There are two purposes of Aadhaar. They are:

1. Uplift the standard of living
2. Reasonableness

The counsel said that there is a disclosure in 3 (2) of the act. If at some stage Aadhaar becomes the universal identity, then all other schemes of human identity will lapse with time.

To this Justice Chandrachud said: “For travelling we will need passports, for driving we will need driving licenses. Aadhaar cannot substitute each and every document.”

To that counsel Shankaranarayanan said there was a balance in Aadhaar Act.

He said Aadhaar passes the tests of:

1. Being voluntary
2. Consent
3. Consolidated fund.

Justice Chandrachud immediately pointed out that “it’s not voluntarily but a mandatory requirement, and you are attracting 139(a). If you want to avail services you need to have Aadhaar”.

The issue of storage of information again came up, to which the counsel said that the object of the act is effective and secured information. “Therefore, in my view, the act passes the test of proportionality.”

Justice Chandrachud said: “There is no doubt that technology needs to be upgraded, but it does not mean that its consequential issues can be ignored.”

The counsel said that the authority must be a body corporate and that the information collected shall only be used for the purpose it was collected and not otherwise. He said that substantial protection has been provided under the act.

Another counsel made his submission. He said: “If we go to a private player the private player has the option of going to AUA and PUA which is governed by the act. Therefore private sector would be regulated.”“In chapter 6, it is provided that if information given for Aadhaar is used for any other purpose then requisite action will be taken. The information in Aadhaar sticks to Aadhaar Act and section 48 A of the IT Act.”

He said there are two things:

1. If you want to use Aadhaar, use the Aadhaar. There is no compulsion for this.”
2. About the security issue he said that the AUA or PUA carries out the authentication governed by the act or it can be suggested that a regulated body carries out the authentication process. There is no unregulated authentication and identification process.

He also said that it is wrong to say that there is a central depository body where all data is being collected. “Only basic demographic data is collected,” he said.

Justice Chandrachud said: “The problem is not with the UIDAI Act.”

The counsel again repeated what has been said before. He said other sites like Amazon, Facebook etc. have complex algorithms. Aadhaar does not enable such things and there is no such central regulatory authority.

Another counsel submitted that this is not the case of finding the reasonable balance between privacy and socio-economic rights, but here we need to assure the welfare of the society as a whole.

He said there are three kinds of duties:

1. Duty to respect
2. Duty to protect
3. Duty to fulfill

Aadhaar creates that infrastructure that will help in progress and welfare of the state and better imparting of duties, he said.

There will be more submissions in this on Wednesday.

—India Legal Bureau

13360 - Never directed Aadhaar-mobile number linkage, says Supreme Court - TNN

Never directed Aadhaar-mobile number linkage, says Supreme Court

Dhananjay Mahapatra | TNN | Updated: Apr 26, 2018, 05:09 IST

HIGHLIGHTS

• The apex court on Wednesday clarified that it had not ordered mandatory linkage of mobile phone numbers with Aadhaar
• The CJI-led bench pointed out that the February 6, 2017, order merely recorded then Attorney General’s submission on Aadhaar

NEW DELHI: The mad rush to link mobile phone numbers with Aadhaar supposedly to comply with a directive of the Supreme Court was uncalled for. The apex court on Wednesday clarified that it had not ordered mandatory linkage, and said the government misinterpreted its February 6, 2017, observation and insisted on doing it. 

“In the Lokniti Foundation case, the SC has not directed linking of SIM with UID. But the Union government’s circular says so. There was no direction by the court...” Justice D Y Chandrachud said during the hearing before a bench that included Chief Justice Dipak Misra and Justices A K Sikri, A M Khanwilkar and Ashok Bhushan. 

The CJI-led bench pointed out that the February 6, 2017, order merely recorded then Attorney General Mukul Rohatgi’s submission that Aadhaar was one of the documents used for verification of subscriber identity. 

Significantly, senior advocate Rakesh Dwivedi, who appeared for UIDAI, agreed with the bench and said the government appeared to have taken the SC’s observations for verification of mobile phone subscribers seriously. 

Drawing Dwivedi’s attention to the February 6 order, the bench said the court merely recorded the AG’s submission that “an effective programme for the same would be devised at the earliest and the process of identity verification will be completed within one year”. 

The bench set the record straight when Dwivedi argued that one-time seeding of mobile number with Aadhaar was not a big ask and would not lead to intrusion into citizens’ privacy as no call records were maintained through Aadhaar.

UIDAI’s insistence that the Supreme Court had mandated that all mobile connections be linked with Aadhaar had led to a scramble of sorts, with mobile service providers, nudged by the government, inundating subscribers with dire messages on the need to abide by the alleged order.

TOP COMMENT

linking Aadhar to mobile numbers will stop blackmails, threat calls and ransom calls by 99%.... it should be definitely implemented...

Romanov Avtachika

The SC on March 13 had indefinitely extended the deadline for linkage of Aadhaar with mobile numbers and bank accounts of individuals and asked the government to wait till the constitution bench decided the validity of Aadhaar to take further steps in this regard.

The Centre had in the interim agreed to extend the deadline for bank account linkage with Aadhaar till March 31. 

13355 - Aadhaar hearing: Why does UIDAI need to collect metadata of citizens, asks Supreme Court - Indian Express

Aadhaar hearing: Why does UIDAI need to collect metadata of citizens, asks Supreme Court

Senior advocate Rakesh Dwivedi, appearing for UIDAI and the Gujarat government, said UIDAI collected "limited technical metadata" to have control over the requesting entities that seek Aadhaar authentication for granting services.

The Supreme Court on Tuesday asked the Unique Identification Authority of India (UIDAI) why it needed to collect ‘metadata’ of personal transactions of citizens. (File)By: PTI | New Delhi | Published: April 24, 2018 10:18:22 pm

The Supreme Court on Tuesday asked the Unique Identification Authority of India (UIDAI) why it needed to collect ‘metadata’ of personal transactions of citizens which go for Aadhaar authentication to avail services and benefits. A five-judge Constitution bench headed by Chief Justice Dipak Misra, hearing a clutch of petitions challenging Aadhaar and its enabling 2016 law, was responding to the submission of UIDAI that it collected only “limited technical metadata”.

“Why do you (UIDAI) have to retain metadata of personal transactions of persons entered through Aadhaar authentication,” the bench, also comprising Justices A K Sikri, A M Khanwilkar, D Y Chandrachud and Ashok Bhushan, asked. 

Metadata is a set of data that describes and gives information about other data. Senior advocate Rakesh Dwivedi, appearing for UIDAI and the Gujarat government, said the petitioners, opposing the Aadhaar scheme, have completely “misunderstood the concept of metadata” and the UIDAI collected “limited technical metadata” to have control over the requesting entities (REs) which seek Aadhaar authentication for granting services and benefits.

He said that on one hand, the petitioners were saying that UIDAI had no control over requesting entities, but simultaneously, they were also alleging that UIDAI will have so much control over the metadata that may lead to surveillance. 

While it was important to exercise control over the REs, there was no data about the location or purpose of transaction or authentication which was being collected by UIDAI, he said. The bench then asked him, “So you are not collecting metadata about the person but only about the machine,” to which Dwivedi replied in affirmative.

The senior lawyer referred to foreign judgments and said there was reasonable and legitimate expectation of privacy, but the context was “very important”. “A criminal might not have any expectation of personal autonomy whereas a common man will,” he said, adding that there will be different levels of privacy rights when a person was inside the home and when he ventured out in “relational world”.

“Individuals live in communities and their personality is shaped by imbibing cultural and social values of the society. Regulations are designed to protect objective principles that define reasonable expectation of privacy,” he said. He said the possibility of data breaches cannot be a ground to strike down the Aadhaar law and efforts should be to make it work and not to strike it off.

He then referred to the example of doctors trying to save a patient and asked the court to adopt the same approach in saving the Aadhaar law and suggest it measures to strengthen the statute. The bench said there was one area which required consideration was the provision of remedies for the breaches. 

The lawyer said the Information Technology Act provided for penalties and recently, UIDAI had imposed penalties on Airtel and Axis Bank for the breaches. Dwivedi will conclude his submissions tomorrow.

Earlier, the bench had said it was not sure whether bringing people “face to face” with the authorities through Aadhaar was the best model as the state should reach them to accord the benefits of the welfare schemes. “We are not sure if that is the best model. The individual should not be a supplicant. The State should go to him and give him benefits,” the bench had said. 

The bench had also said that if biometric authentication is attached to every transaction entered into by a person, it would “form a wealth of information” necessitating the need for data protection.

13353 - Adopt doctor’s approach, try to save Aadhaar law: UIDAI - TNN

Adopt doctor’s approach, try to save Aadhaar law: UIDAI

Dhananjay Mahapatra | TNN | Updated: Apr 25, 2018, 02:56 IST

HIGHLIGHTS

• UIDAI on Tuesday urged the Supreme Court to test the constitutional validity of Aadhaar Act by adopting a doctor’s approach
• UIDAI’s counsel Rakesh Dwivedi said the Indian law was much more stringent in protection of data
• Aadhaar is a work under progress, so there is always scope for improvement, Dwivedi said

NEW DELHI: The Unique Identification Authority of India (UIDAI) on Tuesday urged the Supreme Court to test the constitutional validity of Aadhaar Act by adopting a doctor’s approach to make the best attempt to save the law rather than kill it. 

Responding to a five-judge constitution bench’s query about data safety measures, UIDAI’s counsel Rakesh Dwivedi compared Aadhaar (Targeted Delivery of Financial and Other Subsidies, Benefits and Services) Act, 2016, with the European Union’s General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR), which will come into effect from May 25, and said the Indian law was much more stringent in protection of data. 

Dwivedi said, “The EU data protection regime allows a host of purposes for which core biometrics of individuals can be shared. Under the Aadhaar Act, core biometrics can never be shared by the UIDAI. Anyone sharing it will be committing an offence and will be punished. The Aadhaar Act makes data more secure, sharing punishable and prescribes specific purposes for which only demographic data, which is in public domain, is used for authentication.”

Presenting submissions before a bench of CJI Dipak Misra and Justices A K Sikri, A M Khanwilkar, D Y Chandrachud and Ashok Bhushan, Dwivedi said the court, while examining validity of Aadhaar, must adopt a doctor’s approach and try to save the law as far as possible rather than guillotine it.

“The SC can provide more safety guidelines if it feels so but let Aadhaar work. While testing the requirement of safeguards, please keep in mind the context and purpose for which Aadhaar is being used,” he said.

TOP COMMENT

Link Aadhar to Voter ID first to see it's true credibility... surely the cat will be out of the bag..!

Radhakrishnan Nair

“A fine infrastructure has been built for establishing identity of citizens for a host of purposes. The court can suggest additional safeguards for making it more secure. The UIDAI is open to suggestions and will do its best to implement it. Justice Srikrishna Commission is looking into the working of Aadhaar and it is a work under progress. So there is always scope for improvement,” Dwivedi said.

Justice Chandrachud said one area the UIDAI would do well to focus was on how to retrieve the situation in case of data leak or accidental sharing of data by requesting agencies for authentication purposes. Dwivedi said such lapses were taken care of by the Aadhaar Act. 

13348 - Can’t profile Aadhaar user from authentication history: UIDAI analysis - TNN

Can’t profile Aadhaar user from authentication history: UIDAI analysis

Mahendra Singh and Rajeev Deshpande | TNN | Apr 23, 2018, 01:00 IST

HIGHLIGHTS

• Profiling an Aadhaar user is near impossible even if authentication record is known as information revealed is minimal, an analysis by UIDAI has shown.
• The analysis showed that data could not be accessed without the consent of the person concerned.

NEW DELHI: Profiling an Aadhaar user is near impossible even if authentication record is known as information revealed is minimal as compared to a person’s credit card history, an analysis carried out by UIDAI has shown. 

An authentication history can lead to some guesswork but is short of profiling as the record only mentions ‘KUA’ (KYC User Agency, which could be bank, mobile company) or AUA (Authentication User Agency) where authentication was done, modality of authentication (OTP or biometric) and date and timing of the authentication. 

Unique Identification Authority of India (UIDAI) sources said profiling was not possible from the authentication history. UIDAI CEO Ajay Bhushan Pandey submitted his transaction log to Supreme Court and officials said the submission was to demonstrate what a transaction log looked like. 

The UIDAI analysis using content willingly shared by some users showed that data could not be accessed without the consent of the person concerned. Trying to access data without authorisation is a criminal offence punishable under the Aadhaar Act. 

The analysis showed that a bank statement could reveal much more, right from purchasing history, purchasing power, stay in hotels, eating habits, mobiles phones, electricity bills, TV channel, liabilities on a monthly basis, credit worthiness and children’s school or college. 

In case of Aadhaar authentication history, the log has details of who authenticated and when and on what device but not details or location or type of transaction.

UIDAI can know about the AUA which in this case was a bank.

UIDAI will also know date and time of authentication and also if it succeeded or failed.

From the record, it can probably be inferred that the user did the authentication to link bank account to Aadhaar or for e-KYC at the bank. But UIDAI can’t know location of bank account, details and balance.

TOP COMMENT

I do not trust this government; why enforce linking?

Barinder Ahluwalia

As per record, another authentication with a mobile services provider shows AUA name, date and time of authentication and success. One could make a guess by studying the history that authentication was done for SIM purchase or KYC or SIM port from prepaid to postpaid or vice versa.

However, the record didn’t tell anything about the SIM card or number. It also didn’t reflect the location of the transaction. In an earlier transaction AUA was directorate of income tax. It could be guessed that this was for filing of income tax return but history shows nothing about tax amount or salary details. 

13347 - UIDAI Seeks to Assuage Aadhaar Discrimination, Privacy Concerns Before Supreme Court - Find Biometrics

UIDAI Seeks to Assuage Aadhaar Discrimination, Privacy Concerns Before Supreme Court

Posted on April 23, 2018

“…the UIDAI insists that the Aadhaar ID program does not require data concerning ethnicity, religion, or caste, ensuring that such factors cannot be used for discriminatory purposes.”

The Unique Identification Authority of India is clarifying how the Aadhaar national biometric ID program it manages uses citizens’ data for the country’s Supreme Court. The UIDAI is currently trying to reassure a panel of judges that Aadhaar does not allow for demographic discrimination, and that it adheres to last year’s Supreme Court ruling that privacy is a fundamental right for Indian citizens.

With respect to concerns about discrimination, the UIDAI insists that the Aadhaar ID program does not require data concerning ethnicity, religion, or caste, ensuring that such factors cannot be used for discriminatory purposes. Additionally, the UIDAI argued through its legal counsel, the omission of such information helps to ensure that Aadhaar safeguards citizens’ privacy.

The UIDAI’s legal counsel elaborated that there are four levels of data associated with Aadhaar: Core biometrics, biometrics, optional demographics, and demographics. The category of core biometrics, presumably referring to Aadhaar’s collection of fingerprint and iris data, is never shared with other organizations, the counsel argued, whereas expectations of privacy diminish with each layer beyond the core category.

The arguments in play could have far-reaching implications for Aadhaar, which is currently the world’s most extensive and ambitious biometric ID program, and is used in an increasing range of everyday activities in India. But privacy and discrimination aren’t the only issues with which India’s Supreme Court is concerned, with one judge gesturing during the proceedings to the dangers of centrally storing aggregated citizen data – a remark to which the UIDAI lawyer essentially shrugged, suggesting that such fears will prevent progress.

Source: The Hindu

–

April 23, 2018 – by Alex Perala

13345 - No indignity in submitting ID proof, UIDAI tells SC at Aadhaar hearing - Hindustan Times

No indignity in submitting ID proof, UIDAI tells SC at Aadhaar hearing

If the government asks for Aadhaar for every transaction, the court could step in, UIDAI said.

INDIA Updated: Apr 19, 2018 01:12 Ist

HT Correspondent  Hindustan Times, New Delhi

There was no aggregation of data at UIDAI, Unique Identity Authority of India’s counsel senior advocate Rakesh Dwivedi said.(Sonu Mehta/HT PHOTO)

There was no indignity in furnishing a proof of identity as it was only a regulatory procedure, UIDAI told the Supreme Court that on Wednesday which expressed concern that biometric authentication could lead to surveillance of Aadhaar users.

The court, which is hearing a set of petitions challenging the 12-digit number and its enabling law, said insisting to biometric authentication for every transaction could lead to aggregation of metadata of users, which could be used for various purposes, including surveillance.

“Fingerprint by itself does not disclose any information. But, when it attaches with all the other information, it forms a wealth of information and then comes the need for data protection,” said the bench, also comprising justice AK Sikri, justice AM Khanwilkar, justice DY Chandrachud and justice Ashok Bhushan.

There was no aggregation of data at UIDAI, Unique Identity Authority of India’s counsel senior advocate Rakesh Dwivedi said, once again seeking to allay fears that iris scan and finger prints collected for Aadhaar could be misused.

If the government asks for Aadhaar for every transaction, the court could step in, he said.

“The insistence of any form of identity must be relatable to its purpose,” the court said. Justice Chandrachud wanted to know if people could be given the choice of identity documents.

An institute and not the beneficiary would decide on the type of identity proof, Dwivedi said. These days every organisation asked for ID proof, he said, adding Aadhaar was one of the documents the top court asked for while accepting a petition.

“There is no indignity. These are regulatory procedures,” Dwivedi said, pointing to the SC-issued proximity cards that lawyers need to enter the court complex. “I don’t think my fundamental rights are breached if I am asked for proximity card.”

Aadhaar was universal and portable and use of biometrics made it safe. “All other cards are sectoral,” Dwivedi said.