5164 - Have you got President’s nod for Aadhaar, SC asks Centre - The Hindu

Have you got President’s nod for Aadhaar, SC asks Centre

J. VENKATESAN

Scheme infringes on right to privacy, says petition

The Supreme Court on Tuesday asked the Union government whether it obtained the nod from the President before the Aadhaar scheme was started.

A Bench comprising Justices B.S. Chauhan, J. Chelameswar and M.Y. Eqbal, hearing a batch of petitions challenging the validity of the Aadhaar scheme, asked Solicitor-General Mohan Parasaran to give an explanation in this regard on February 11, when the matter would be taken up for further hearing.

Senior counsel Shyam Divan, appearing for petitioners, K.S. Puttaswamy, retired judge of the Karnataka High Court, and others, contended that the scheme was unconstitutional as individuals obtaining an Aadhaar number were required to part with personal information such as biometrics, iris and fingerprints, which infringed on right to privacy, held to be part of the fundamental right to life under Article 21. He argued that there were no safeguards or penalties and no legislative backing for obtaining personal information.

The Bench told counsel: “If anybody says he wants to voluntarily give details can the court say no, you should not give? You can say, make the scheme voluntary. Those who do not want to give details let them not. Whether we follow the scheme or not it is for you to accept. It should be voluntary. He will not be discriminated against for non-possession of the card. But you tell us whether it should be banned at all. Your apprehensions and misgivings cannot be a ground for challenging the constitutional provisions. If it is done in the interest of security of a nation, is it unconstitutional? Even otherwise no fundamental right is absolute.”

Mr. Divan said, “But that is our grievance, they are giving the card to not only citizens but also illegal migrants. They have so far not changed the protocol of the scheme to bring in any safeguard.” He said the linkage of Aadhaar number with various governmental benefits and services such as food security under the newly enacted Food Security Act, LPG subsidy, the Employees’ Provident Fund, and other DBT benefits, made enrolment with the Aadhaar scheme and obtaining Aadhaar scheme mandatory, completely falsifying the government’s claim of it being voluntary.

Keywords: Aadhaar scheme, President approva, UPA government, Supreme Court

5163 - Apex court asks govt to clarify UIDAI's structure - Business Standard

Apex court asks govt to clarify UIDAI's structure

Observes that giving Aadhaar to non-citizens shouldn't be a problem

Surabhi Agarwal  |  New Delhi  February 4, 2014 Last Updated at 20:05 IST

Read more on:    Aadhaar | Uidai | Uid | Supreme Court | Ks Puttaswamy | Nandan Nilekani | Direct Benefits Transfer

The Supreme Court on Tuesday asked the government to clarify the structure of the Unique Identification Authority of India (UIDAI) in order to ascertain the legal validity of the agreements that the agency has entered with the states. The court, which was hearing a joint review petition by government agencies for its past order on linking the UID number or Aadhaar with government services, also made an observation that there was nothing wrong with giving legal migrants an UID number as it may help keep a better check on them.

During the second hearing of the review petition, which has been joined by over ten state governments, ministry of oil and petroleum, oil marketing companies along with UIDAI, senior advocate Shyam Divan (who was representing one of the petitioners) presented before the three-judge bench that UIDAI is collecting biometric - a sensitive personal information – and demographic data without any statutory backing. He argued that while biometrics of an individual were still being encrypted by the authority, there is no protection of the “demographic” data that is being collected by “private” operators – which can be misused for commercial gains.

While Divan reiterated that UIDAI has no statutory backing, he said that UID has entered into memorandum of understanding with state governments which have no legal binding and therefore in case of any misuse or foul play, the enrolling agencies can’t be legally held liable. To this, Justice J Chelameswar asked Solicitor General Mohan Parasaran whether UIDAI is a government agency or a “body corporate.” When Parasaran replied that UIDAI is an attached office of the Planning Commission, Chelameswar said that if that was the case then why were the contracts not in the name of President. Parasaran sought time to respond on the issue. 

The bench is headed by Justice B S Chauhan and also comprises Justice M Y Eqbal. The court, which also asked for the distinction between UID and the home ministry’s National Population Register project said that if, “Aadhaar is permissible for citizens, it should also be for non-citizens” as it maybe helpful to keep a check on them. This comment came after Divan pointed out that UIDAI can be given to non-citizens as well.

The next hearing is slated for February 11 and the matter is expected to continue for sometime as five more petitioners have to present their case, before the government lawyers can respond.

During Tuesday’s proceedings, Divan also elaborated on how Aadhaar’s use for authenticating an individual at various points – such as ATMs, toll plaza, offices means that “central government has a method of tagging an individual,” through the electronic trail possible through the linkage. He called the authority unconstitutional and evoked the privacy concerns involved with the project.

The SC had passed an interim order on September 23 on the petition filed by retired judge of the Karnataka High Court K S Puttaswamy stating that no one should suffer due to unavailability of Aadhaar. Later, some central ministries, three public sector undertakings requested a modification of the order, along with UID Authority of India (UIDAI). Several activists like Aruna Roy joined the petition against the Aadhaar over issues such as privacy.

ALSO READ: Aadhaar's foundation questioned

5122 - UPA pleads with Supreme Court to save Rs 3,500 crore Aadhaar scheme - Daily Mail UK

UPA pleads with Supreme Court to save Rs 3,500 crore Aadhaar scheme

By HARISH V NAIR

PUBLISHED: 22:09 GMT, 29 January 2014 | UPDATED: 22:09 GMT, 29 January 2014

With just three months to go before the general elections, the UPA government is desperate to get its flagship Aadhaar scheme designed to bring benefits to the eligible back on track. 

The Supreme Court had ruled that an Aadhaar card is not mandatory for all citizens to have. 

The Centre on Wednesday pleaded with the court that it was essential for "good governance, transparent implementation of government programmes" and to ensure that benefits reach only those who qualify to get them. 

In its plea the government also said that Rs 3,494 crore has already been spent to enroll 53 crore Indians by the Unique Identification Authority of India, the nodal agency which issues the cards, and it had to ensure that the money isn't wasted.

The UIDAI said it had enrolled 53 crore citizens till September 30, 2013, spending Rs 3,494 crore

The bench is hearing PILs filed by a retired Karnataka High Court judge, K. Puttaswamy, and social activist Aruna Roy against making the cards mandatory for accessing government schemes and subsidies. 

They also argued that the manner in which information is extracted violates and transgresses individual rights of citizens including privacy. 

'Court misled'

In its strongly-worded plea in the apex court urging withdrawal of its September 23, 2013 ruling that the card cannot be made mandatory to enjoy government schemes and subsidies, UIDAI said it felt that court was being misled by PIL petitioners who seemed to have played into the hands of "unscrupulous elements" who stand to be identified and eliminated from the list of beneficiaries and who wanted the scheme to go. 

Citing an instance, the UIDAI claimed that PSU oil companies detected around 45,000 duplicate connections on the basis of the Aadhaar numbers and once these connections are blocked, it would save the exchequer around Rs 23 crores annually.

It said the court's interim order had "very serious implication" on the implementation of various welfare schemes. Though it insisted that the card should be made a must for subsidies, UIDAI termed the allegations of rampant denial of services as completely baseless. 

"Unfounded allegations of petitioners cannot be reason to put a question mark against the implementation of a well thought out scheme of the Government of India which is clearly in public interest. If anything, by doing so, the petitioners are playing in the hands of unscrupulous elements that stand to be identified and eliminated from list of beneficiaries of government programmes to which they have no rightful claim," UIDAI told the court. 

Appearing for UIDAI, Solicitor General Mohan Parasaran and his assisting lawyer Zoheb Hossain urged the court to modify its September order or issue a clarification that "any government department or public utility or PSU for purpose of ensuring good governance and transparent implementation of government programmes including grant of subsidies or scheme involving expenditure from public exchequer or provision of social security benefits may insist upon Aadhaar to ensure the benefits reach only the rightful, eligible persons, prevent wasteful and fraudulent leakages, bogus claims and corrupt practices". 

'No violation' 

Denying that citizens' right to privacy was being violated, the UIDAI said it does not in any way part with any confidential information of any applicant. 

"The details given by the applicant are not accessible even to the persons who seek verification of the identity of the Aadhaar card holder", it said. 

The PILs had said the manner in which biometric details are collected by private contractors and NGOs hired by UIDAI without any safeguard makes it prone to misuse. They claimed empirical research to show that the biometric identification denoted for UID, namely the iris scan and finger print identification, is faulty and is capable of being abused.

4973 - Aadhaar's foundation questioned - Business Standard

Aadhaar's foundation questioned

Seeks response of states for making Aadhaar mandatory for some schemes

BS Reporters  |  New Delhi  November 27, 2013 Last Updated at 00:36 IST

The Supreme Court (SC) on Tuesday asked major states that have linked government services or welfare schemes to the Unique Identity (UID) number to also present their "justification" for using Aadhaar. The apex court was hearing a review petition, filed by the government, of its past order on the petition filed by retired judge of the Karnataka High Court K S Puttaswamy.

The SC had passed an interim order on September 23, stating that no one should suffer due to unavailability of Aadhaar. Later, some central ministries, three public sector undertakings requested a modification of the order, along with UID Authority of India (UIDAI). Several activists like Aruna Roy joined the petition against the Aadhaar over issues such as privacy.

Around 11 states, including Delhi, Jharkhand, Karnataka and Maharashtra, have made Aadhaar mandatory for availing some government services. While hearing the arguments put forward by senior advocate Shyam Divan, who was representing one of the petitioners, the court said the states should also implead in the matter. The next hearing is slated for December 10. At the end of the almost daylong hearing, Justice S A Bobde said the court is inclined to "modify" and "save" the scheme. However, the challenge is that UIDAI which is a current party to the case has made Aadhaar voluntary. However, it is the states which have made the use of Aadhaar mandatory and so the "stings remain."

During the hearing, Divan presented before the court that UIDAI is "almost running a private show" and is collecting biometric - a sensitive personal information - without any statutory backing. He called the authority unconstitutional and evoked the privacy concerns involved with the project. The bench of judges, comprising B S Chauhan and Bobde, said the privacy arguments had to be made "keeping the harsh realities of life in mind", as somebody who doesn't have access to food and water may not be very much concerned about their privacy.

The next date of hearing may give a window of opportunity to the government to pass the National Identification Authority of India Bill, 2010 which will give UIDAI a legal backing. After being approved by the Cabinet, the Bill will be moved in Parliament during its winter session, which begins on December 5. This may dilute some of the arguments about the unconstitutionality of the authority.

Divan also said the Aadhaar project was based on untested and unproven technology and was being outsourced to private operators who could misuse the data by "duplicating and selling" it for commercial use.

While Solicitor General of India Mohan Parasaran said the allegations about misuse of data by private operators was incorrect, as there were enough checks and balances, the bench highlighted this issue needed to be addressed in detail when the government's lawyers present their counter-agreements.

4841 - Now UIDAI moves SC on Aadhaar card for not making it mandatory - Firstpost India

Firstpost India 

Now UIDAI moves SC on Aadhaar card for not making it mandatory 

Oct 15, 2013

New Delhi: Unique Identification Authority of India (UIDAI) has joined government and PSU oil firms against the Supreme Court order making Aadhaar card not mandatory for availing social benefits saying, its directive has “very serious implications” in implementation of welfare schemes. 

The UIDAI also contended that its order dated September 23, putting the onus on it to check that Aadhaar card should not be given to illegal immigrants, impinges on the jurisdiction of the appropriate authorities that are entrusted with the task of veryfying citizenship.

In an application before the Supreme Court, the UIDAI submitted that Aadhaar is stated to be a proof of identity and there are other agencies to perform the task of verifying citizenship and detecting illegal immigrants. 

“UIDAI has been mandated to provide Aadhaar to resident of India as a matter of conscious policy decision of government. Aadhaar is upfront stated to be a proof of identity not citizenship. It may be mentioned the government has specific agencies to perform the task of verifying citizenship and detecting illegal immigrants,” it said. 

“The interim order of the court in directing UIDAI to check the citizenship status of a person applying for Aadhaar and identifying illegal immigrants impinges on the jurisdiction of the appropriate authorities under law that are entrusted with this task,” it said while pleading with the court to modify the interim order against which Centre and Oil PSUs have already approached the apex court. 

The Authority said it is following a sound verification method for enrolment for Aadhaar and there is no proof that it has opened the “floodgates for entry of illegal migrants into the system”. 

“Having enrolled over 53 crore residents, there is no empirical proof to suggest that the adopted methodology is not robust and has opened the floodgates for entry of illegal migrants into the system. Exceptions, aberrations and anecdotal cases cannot be reasons to doubt, malign or undo government schemes and administrative measures manifestly serving desired public policy ends,” said the UIADI application. 

The apex court had on September 23 said, “In the meanwhile, no person should suffer for not getting the Ada card in spite of the fact that some authority had issued a circular making it mandatory and when any person applies to get the Aadhaar card voluntarily, it may be checked whether that person is entitled for it under the law and it should not be given to any illegal immigrant.” 

The order had come during the hearing of a PIL filed by Justice K Puttaswamy, former high court judge, seeking to restrain the Centre, Planning Commission and UIDAI from issuing Aadhaar cards by way of an executive order of January 28, 2009. Citing various benefits of the Aadhaar card, the Authority submitted that “as part of its pro-poor approach the UIDAI focuses on enrolling India’s poor and under privileged community for many of whom Aadhaar may be the first form of identification but no one gets enrolled for Aadhaar without undergoing the prescribed method of verification.” 

It said that as on September 30, more than 53 crore residents have enrolled for Aadhaar and an amount of Rs 3494 crore has been incurred on the programme by the Center and Oil marketing companies have detected around 45,000 duplicate LPG connections on the basis of Aadhaar numbers which would save the exchequer around Rs 23 crore per annum. 

“The introduction of Aadhaar needs to be seen in the same vein and as a part of the continuing quest of the government to improve efficient and transparent delivery of public services. 

“The government recognises it as a strategic policy tool for social inclusion, public sector delivery reform and for managing the fiscal deficit,” the UIADI said. It submitted that Aadhaar is a technology driven effort of inducing efficiency and accuracy in identified government services and “Aadhaar is the official proof of identity programme of the Centre and its special identity programme needs to be acknowledged and preserved”. 

Pleading for modification of interim order, the Authority said, “The interim order has very serious implications in the implementation of the Aadhaar scheme and has created doubts in the minds of the several crores of residents of India who have already enrolled under the scheme.” It further submitted that no person is denied any service for want of Aadhaar and it is made conditional only for getting subsidies. 

“The instructions issued for implementation of Direct Benefit Transfer (DBT) clearly states that no person should be denied service for want of having Aadhaar or Bank Account. Care has been taken to ensure there is no denial of service by introducing this scheme only in districts with a reasonable coverage of Aadhaar,” it said. 

“There is no disruption of service (supply of LPG at market price) to consumers who do not provide Aadhaar as only subsidies and not service has been made conditional on providing Aadhaar number,” the Authority said. “An elected polity is responding to the felt needs of its constituency. This task has to be left to the wisdom and best judgement of a representative government which will ensure that adequate time and opportunity is given to individuals to obtain Aadhaar before its use is mandated for any government application,” it said. 

The Centre, on October 8, had failed to get any relief on Aadhaar card being made compulsory for availing social benefits, particularly gas cylinder subsidies, from the Supreme Court which turned down its plea to modify its interim order that no person be deprived of any schemes for want of Aadhaar. 

A batch of top government lawyers including Attorney General G E Vahanvati and Solicitor General Mohan Parasaran, who represented the Centre and various oil PSUs, tried unsuccessfully to convince the court to modify its order, saying that it would severely affect grant of gas subsidies and the entire distribution system in 97 districts would come to a standstill. PTI

Read more at: http://www.firstpost.com/india/now-uidai-moves-sc-on-aadhaar-card-for-not-making-it-mandatory-1173531.html?utm_source=ref_article

4765 - Centre moves apex court for modification of order on Aadhaar card - Hindu Businessline

Centre moves apex court for modification of order on Aadhaar card

NEW DELHI, OCT 4:  

The Centre today moved the Supreme Court seeking modification of an earlier order which said the Aadhaar card is not mandatory and no person should be deprived of any Government schemes for want it.

A bench headed by Chief Justice P. Sathasivam said the plea of the Centre would be taken up for hearing on October 8.

“We seek modification of the order which said that Aadhaar card is not mandatory,” Solicitor-General Mohan Parasaran, appearing for the Centre, said, adding that the order may come in the way of various welfare schemes.

Earlier, the Supreme Court had said the Aadhaar card being issued by the Unique Identification Authority of India (UIDAI), was not mandatory for availing of any Government services and nobody should be deprived of any such facilities for the want of the card.

It had asked the Centre not to issue it to illegal immigrants as it would legitimise their stay.

The Centre had also told the court that the Aadhaar card was optional and that it has not made it mandatory for the citizens.

The apex court had passed the earlier order while hearing a batch of pleas against decisions of some States to make Aadhaar cards compulsory for a range of activities including salary, PF disbursals and marriage and property registrations.

The petitioners had contended that the scheme was a complete infraction of Fundamental Rights under Articles 14 (right to equality) and 21 (right to life and liberty) and even as the Government claims it to be voluntary but it is not so.

(This article was published on October 4, 2013)

4655 - Don't issue Aadhar cards to illegal immigrants, Supreme Court tells Centre - NDTV

Don't issue Aadhar cards to illegal immigrants, Supreme Court tells Centre

Indo-Asian News Service | Updated: September 23, 2013 21:45 IST

New Delhi: Even as the government maintained that possessing an Aadhar card was optional, the Supreme Court today asked it not to issue the cards to illegal immigrants and not set them as a pre-condition for availing welfare schemes.

Alleging political gains to the ruling party in the issuance of Aadhar card, senior counsel Anil Divan told the top court bench of Justice BS Chauhan and Justice SA Bobde that indiscriminate issuance of Aadhar numbers to all residents, including illegal migrants, created a serious threat to national security.

Taking on the government's claim that taking Aadhar card was a voluntary choice, Mr Divan said that linking the Aadhar number to getting benefits of social welfare schemes under the food security bill, cooking gas subsidy, Employees Provident Fund and direct benefit transfer under social welfare schemes made it mandatory in nature.

Resisting the plea for interim directions by the petitioner, Solicitor General Mohan Parasaran told the court that Aadhar card was purely voluntary and there was no need for interim directions.

Mr Divan told the court that the individuals obtaining Aadhar number were required to give personal information that included biometrics, iris and fingerprints, which infringed the fundamental right to privacy under Article 21 of the constitution.

The senior counsel told the court that there was no legislative backing for obtaining personal information and the proposed legislation that government had introduced was rejected by the parliamentary standing committee on finance.

The court was told that there were no safeguard to protect the personal information of the citizens and there was no provision for penalties if the same comes to public domain.

The provision for collecting and retaining the biometric data had been held to be impermissible in by the top courts in Britain and France, the court was told.

The court was told that linking the flow of the benefits of several welfare schemes, including salaries to the teachers, had resulted in the denial of the same to the people who were otherwise entitled to it.