13911 - Here's what Prashant Bhushan and Usha Ramanathan have to say on #AadhaarVerdict - News Laundry

Here's what Prashant Bhushan and Usha Ramanathan have to say on #AadhaarVerdict

It's been an eventful day, we catch up with two people important to the fight against Aadhaar Act.

By Amit Bhardwaj | Sep 26, 2018 0 Comments

The Supreme Court today upheld the constitutional validity of the Aadhaar Act. The Bench comprising Chief Justice of India Deepak Misra and Justices AK Sikri, AM Khanwilkar, DY Chandrachud and Ashok Bhushan had reserved the verdict on the matter in May after a marathon 38-day-long hearing on a bunch of petitions challenging the constitutional validity of the law.

Today, all judges except Justice Chandrachud gave a concurring judgement.

We caught up with one of the petitioners in the case and Supreme Court (SC) lawyer Prashant Bhushan who told us that the judgement is in favour of the common masses.

Speaking to Newslaundry, he said, "In this judgement, they have struck down the provisions of the Aadhaar Act which allowed the government to permit private companies to make Aadhaar mandatory." He further added that the judgement says no one can be “denied their entitlement in any government schemes just because the biometric identification fails.”

12981 - From Rajasthan to UP, ration woes dominate public hearing in city - Indian Express

From Rajasthan to UP, ration woes dominate public hearing in city

From e-PoS machines failing to authenticate biometrics, and missing names in Aadhaar Cards to families waiting for ration cards to be issued for 15 years — the public hearing was a platform to share tales from remote areas of Gujarat, MP, Chhattisgarh, Jharkhand, Rajasthan, and Delhi.

Written by Somya Lakhani | New Delhi |

 Published: March 16, 2018 2:32 am

                                 At the hearing

In the last seven months, Bhanwari Devi (80) has received her share of five kg wheat from a Fair Price Shop (FPS) only once. “The shop is 1.5 km away from my home and the machine doesn’t recognise my thumbprint… I have to buy wheat from the market, which I cannot afford on my old-age pension of Rs 500,” she said.

From Harmada village in Rajasthan’s Rajasmand district, Devi was one of the many people from across 14 states who testified about the “situation of hunger and unemployment” at a national public hearing, organised by Right To Food campaign, at the capital’s Gandhi Peace Foundation on Thursday.

From e-PoS machines failing to authenticate biometrics, and missing names in Aadhaar Cards to families waiting for ration cards to be issued for 15 years and mothers fighting for maternity benefits — the public hearing was a platform to share tales from remote areas of Gujarat, Madhya Pradesh, Chhattisgarh, Jharkhand, Rajasthan, and Delhi.

With her baby in tow, Poonam Devi (22) sat at the hearing from 10 am till she finally got to speak at 4 pm. A resident of Mustafabad in UP, she said she has been running from pillar to post to get the first installment of the Pradhan Mantri Matru Vandana Yojana, a maternity benefit programme. “It’s Rs 5,000 in all, if I get it, I can save it for my baby’s future. He’s eight months old now and I haven’t got a rupee,” she said.

The hearing took place in front of a panel comprising activist Harsh Mander, advocates Usha Ramanathan and Prashant Bhushan, journalists Neha Dixit and Bhasha Singh, among others.

From Rewa district in MP, came Ram Bahadur (62). “Mine is one of the 155 families in my village without a ration card. We have been waiting for 15 years and did get a ‘token’ in 2014 through which we got ration once. I work at a stone quarry and get Rs 100 a day…by coming here, I have lost my wages but maybe we will get ration cards now,” he said.

For all the latest Delhi News, download Indian Express App

12701 - If No Aadhaar, Does Person Not Exist For Government, Asks Supreme Court - NDTV

If No Aadhaar, Does Person Not Exist For Government, Asks Supreme Court

The Supreme Court court made the comments while hearing a case related not to Aadhaar, but to night-shelters for homeless people across the country in the deepening winter chill

All India | Reported by A Vaidyanathan, Edited by Deepshikha Ghosh | Updated: January 10, 2018 17:26

The Supreme Court will begin final hearing from 17 January on the validity of Aadhaar (File)

NEW DELHI: 

HIGHLIGHTS

1. Supreme Court hearing petition challenging validity of Aadhaar
2. How can homeless person get Aadhaar card, says top court
3. Court was hearing a case on night-shelters for homeless people

To the questions swirling around the Aadhaar or national identity cards, the Supreme Court today added a new one -- if a homeless person doesn't have it, will he not exist for the government?

The court made the comments while hearing a case related not to the biometric identification system, but to night-shelters for homeless people across the country in the deepening winter chill.

"How can a homeless person get an Aadhaar card? If he doesn't have an Aadhaar card, he doesn't exist in the eyes of the government?" the judges questioned.

This was when a lawyer representing the Uttar Pradesh government remarked that "some sort of identification like an Aadhaar" can be used while admitting people into the shelters.

There are "other cards like the voter ID", the lawyer replied, and received another tart reminder.

"To get a voter I-card you need address proof. Where will one get address proof if he is homeless?" the court asked.

The court wanted to know how many people have Aadhaar in the country.

Senior lawyer Prashant Bhushan, appearing in the case, said "90 crore people" had the cards that the government says must be linked to bank accounts, welfare schemes and mobile phones.

The exchange on Aadhaar comes at a time the court is hearing a petition challenging the validity of Aadhaar and the government is facing questions on data security after a journalist with The Tribune newspaper reported that she could access personal details of over a billion citizens for just 

Rs.500, paid through a digital wallet.

A five-judge constitution bench of the Supreme Court will begin final hearing from 17 January on the validity of Aadhaar.

UIDAI, the agency that oversees the world's largest biometric database, has issued new rules to address privacy concerns.

10394 - How Aadhaar is mandatory for minority students scholarships: HC - The Hindu

NEW DELHI, September 7, 2016

How Aadhaar is mandatory for minority students scholarships: HC

Delhi High Court today asked the Centre how it could make Aadhaar card mandatory for students from minority communities to apply for various scholarships meant to benefit them.

The court issued a notice to the Centre and asked it to file a reply to the plea which claimed the policy of making Aadhaar card mandatory for applying for pre-matric, post-matric and merit-cum-means scholarships meant to benefit students from minority communities was “arbitrary”.

“Why is this kind of instruction being issued? How can you (Centre) say that Aadhaar is mandatory? You take notice and the concerned officer shall file the reply by September 23,” a bench of Chief Justice G. Rohini and Justice Sangita Dhingra Sehgal said.

The PIL, filed by West Bengal-based Nasimuddin educational and charitable trust, has alleged that the policy was arbitrary and discriminatory as it benefited only those having Aadhaar cards.

Challenging the constitutional validity of the need for Aadhaar card and applying online for the scholarships, the plea alleged that it was a violation of Supreme Court’s judgement which had said that Aadhaar would not be mandatory for availing benefits of government’s welfare schemes.

The plea said that Muslims, Christians, Sikhs, Buddhists, Jains and Zoroastrians (Parsis) have been notified as minority communities under Section 2(c) of the National Commission for Minorities Act, 1992.

It claimed that the policy of “compelling” students to apply through online process “smacks of non-application of mind since the students most in need of scholarship might not have access to computer, internet or the requisite knowledge of online application”.

The petition, filed through advocates Prashant Bhushan and Neha Rathi, referred to the July 14, 2016 communication of the Ministry of Minority Affairs (MoMA) which had asked the chief secretary or administrators of the states to advertise for the various national scholarships of the ministry.

It said the letter had asked the states to make Aadhar card mandatory for all students to apply for scholarships and also to apply only through the online process.

“Many students belonging to non-affluent families do not have online facilities or the means to avail the scholarships through online means. Similarly, many students do not have Aadhaar cards,” the plea said.

“Such a rule forcing a student to apply only online and compulsorily submitting Aadhaar card is unconstitutional, arbitrary, unjust and violates Article 14 of Constitution,” the plea said.

It has sought setting aside of the July 14 communication besides a direction to the government to allow students to apply for national scholarships through offline means.

1350 - Right to privacy not valid in Tata case - Source - The Hoot

Senior Supreme Court advocate Prashant Bhushan speaks about the public’s right to know,  a telephone interview with GEETA SESHU

Posted Monday, Dec 06 22:48:33, 2010

From the Free Speech Hub

The petition filed by the chairman of the Tata Group, Ratan Tata, against the disclosure of the Radia tapes has raised interesting questions about surveillance, privacy and public interest. While Tata believes that his privacy was violated by the disclosures, the senior Supreme Court advocate Prashant Bhushan stoutly maintained that the disclosures were in public interest and must be allowed.

Prashant Bhushan had already filed a public interest litigation to seek the prosecution of the former Union telecom minister A Raja for his role in the 2G scam. He had appended a copy of the tapes to his petition, following which two magazines, ‘Outlook’ and ‘Open’, published transcripts of the tapes and the former uploaded 104 tapes on its website. At least 5861 call intercepts have been recordedfor 120 days each from August 20, 2008 onwards and from May 11, 2009.

In an interview with the Free Speech Hub, he spoke of the privacy issued raised by Tata and the rights of citizens for information.

Q: What do you think of the petition filed by Ratan Tata citing privacy concerns in the tapes disclosures?
Ans: There are two aspects to the matter ??" the right to privacy versus the right of citizens to know and the right of the media to reveal information. Under Sec 8 (1) (j) of the Right to Information Act, 2005, which deals with exemptions, it is clearly stated that there shall be no disclosure of :
 (j) information which relates to personal information the disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or interest, or which would cause unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the individual unless the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer or the appellate authority, as the case may be, is satisfied that the larger public interest justifies the disclosure of such information:
Provided that the information which cannot be denied to the Parliament or a State Legislature shall not be denied to any person.

Now, the subject of the telephone conversations clearly has a vital bearing on public interest. It deals with government policy or decisions or planting stories in the media about government policy. So it is in the public interest. Only a very minor part of the conversation can be considered personal in nature ??" the discussions on the black dress ??"which would probably be material for Page 3!

Q: This reference seems to have cut him (Tata) to the quick...
Ans: No, this is not what has cut him to the quick. What has cut him to the quick is the fear that these tapes that are not yet in the public domain may disclose some of the illegal dealings of the Tatas and are likely to disclose much more...

Q: So how is the right to privacy affected?
The right to privacy is not valid in this instance because we are not talking about personal conversations. These are professional conversations dealing with public affairs and policy. Even if it was dealing with the company affairs of the Tatas, it could perhaps be seen as in the private realm. But these were clearly conversations about policy.
The other part of the exemption of disclosure under the RTI Act is the matter of all information which cause unwarranted invasion of privacy of the individual unless the disclosure is justified in the larger public interest. 2q

Q: The Supreme Court has issued notice to the two magazines that have carried transcripts of the tapes. What do you think will happen now? Will Tata’s petition have a chilling effect on freedom of expression?
Ans: The notices to ‘Outlook’ and ‘Open’ magazines is good and was issued in order to hear their point of view, not merely that of the government. The ‘chilling effect’ could be an unfortunate fallout of this petition but I don’t think the petition (filed by Tata) can stop it altogether. Instead, there is likely to be a healthy debate on issues of privacy and public interest.

Q: Tata has said, in an interview to ‘Indian Express’, that he supports phone tapping for national security and law and order. Can he then claim protection under right to privacy?
Ans: I don’t think Tata is particularly concerned with larger privacy issues. In fact, I don’t think he is particularly concerned that this information is with the government. It is the information getting to the public that he is concerned about. Because he does not fear the government, he thinks he can deal with the government. For an honest businessman, this shouldn’t be the case, fearing the public. It should be the other way round.

Actually, I use the concept of a public whistleblower, where a public official in the course of his duty comes across information and if the disclosure of that information does not compromise any private aspect, it is the right and the duty of that public official to disclose such information to the public. In fact, in the law being drafted to protect the whistleblower must contain a provision that he must go to a public agency.

I go a little further, even if no cover-up is taking place but if the information is of such kind that the citizens have a right to know about it, the whistleblower should disclose it.
 

Q: There have been concerns about privacy in relation to the UID. What is your view on this?
Ans: My own view of UID is that I have no problem if the information contained in the UID is publicly available and that every citizen has a right to know that information. I have a problem if it is selectively available to the government, not to the people.
 

In fact, I feel that one thing that can be done to check corruption is to demonetize notes above Rs 50 so that any payment that is done for over Rs 1000 must be paid by credit card or cheque so that everyone can see this financial transaction. This will greatly reduce black money.

Q: The right to privacy is also seen as part of the right to freedom of expression. But are they in conflict here?
Ans: No. The tapes do raise a very limited issue of freedom of expression. Freedom of expression, as the Supreme Court said, includes the right to information.