In 2009, I became extremely concerned with the concept of Unique Identity for various reasons. Connected with many like minded highly educated people who were all concerned.
On 18th May 2010, I started this Blog to capture anything and everything I came across on the topic. This blog with its million hits is a testament to my concerns about loss of privacy and fear of the ID being misused and possible Criminal activities it could lead to.
In 2017 the Supreme Court of India gave its verdict after one of the longest hearings on any issue. I did my bit and appealed to the Supreme Court Judges too through an On Line Petition.
In 2019 the Aadhaar Legislation has been revised and passed by the two houses of the Parliament of India making it Legal. I am no Legal Eagle so my Opinion carries no weight except with people opposed to the very concept.
In 2019, this Blog now just captures on a Daily Basis list of Articles Published on anything to do with Aadhaar as obtained from Daily Google Searches and nothing more. Cannot burn the midnight candle any longer.
"In Matters of Conscience, the Law of Majority has no place"- Mahatma Gandhi
Ram Krishnaswamy
Sydney, Australia.

Aadhaar

The UIDAI has taken two successive governments in India and the entire world for a ride. It identifies nothing. It is not unique. The entire UID data has never been verified and audited. The UID cannot be used for governance, financial databases or anything. It’s use is the biggest threat to national security since independence. – Anupam Saraph 2018

When I opposed Aadhaar in 2010 , I was called a BJP stooge. In 2016 I am still opposing Aadhaar for the same reasons and I am told I am a Congress die hard. No one wants to see why I oppose Aadhaar as it is too difficult. Plus Aadhaar is FREE so why not get one ? Ram Krishnaswamy

First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win.-Mahatma Gandhi

In matters of conscience, the law of the majority has no place.Mahatma Gandhi

“The invasion of privacy is of no consequence because privacy is not a fundamental right and has no meaning under Article 21. The right to privacy is not a guaranteed under the constitution, because privacy is not a fundamental right.” Article 21 of the Indian constitution refers to the right to life and liberty -Attorney General Mukul Rohatgi

“There is merit in the complaints. You are unwittingly allowing snooping, harassment and commercial exploitation. The information about an individual obtained by the UIDAI while issuing an Aadhaar card shall not be used for any other purpose, save as above, except as may be directed by a court for the purpose of criminal investigation.”-A three judge bench headed by Justice J Chelameswar said in an interim order.

Legal scholar Usha Ramanathan describes UID as an inverse of sunshine laws like the Right to Information. While the RTI makes the state transparent to the citizen, the UID does the inverse: it makes the citizen transparent to the state, she says.

Good idea gone bad
I have written earlier that UID/Aadhaar was a poorly designed, unreliable and expensive solution to the really good idea of providing national identification for over a billion Indians. My petition contends that UID in its current form violates the right to privacy of a citizen, guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution. This is because sensitive biometric and demographic information of citizens are with enrolment agencies, registrars and sub-registrars who have no legal liability for any misuse of this data. This petition has opened up the larger discussion on privacy rights for Indians. The current Article 21 interpretation by the Supreme Court was done decades ago, before the advent of internet and today’s technology and all the new privacy challenges that have arisen as a consequence.

Rajeev Chandrasekhar, MP Rajya Sabha

“What is Aadhaar? There is enormous confusion. That Aadhaar will identify people who are entitled for subsidy. No. Aadhaar doesn’t determine who is eligible and who isn’t,” Jairam Ramesh

But Aadhaar has been mythologised during the previous government by its creators into some technology super force that will transform governance in a miraculous manner. I even read an article recently that compared Aadhaar to some revolution and quoted a 1930s historian, Will Durant.Rajeev Chandrasekhar, Rajya Sabha MP

“I know you will say that it is not mandatory. But, it is compulsorily mandatorily voluntary,” Jairam Ramesh, Rajya Saba April 2017.

August 24, 2017: The nine-judge Constitution Bench rules that right to privacy is “intrinsic to life and liberty”and is inherently protected under the various fundamental freedoms enshrined under Part III of the Indian Constitution

"Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed citizens can change the World; indeed it's the only thing that ever has"

“Arguing that you don’t care about the right to privacy because you have nothing to hide is no different than saying you don’t care about free speech because you have nothing to say.” -Edward Snowden

In the Supreme Court, Meenakshi Arora, one of the senior counsel in the case, compared it to living under a general, perpetual, nation-wide criminal warrant.

Had never thought of it that way, but living in the Aadhaar universe is like living in a prison. All of us are treated like criminals with barely any rights or recourse and gatekeepers have absolute power on you and your life.

Announcing the launch of the # BreakAadhaarChainscampaign, culminating with events in multiple cities on 12th Jan. This is the last opportunity to make your voice heard before the Supreme Court hearings start on 17th Jan 2018. In collaboration with @no2uidand@rozi_roti.

UIDAI's security seems to be founded on four time tested pillars of security idiocy

1) Denial

2) Issue fiats and point finger

3) Shoot messenger

4) Bury head in sand.

God Save India

Showing posts with label Solicitor-General Ranjit Kumar. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Solicitor-General Ranjit Kumar. Show all posts

Saturday, February 7, 2015

7315 - SC seeks Centre's view on plea against Aadhaar scheme - IBN Live


New Delhi: A plea questioning the legality of data collection under the Aadhaar scheme was taken up today by the Supreme Court, which asked the government to make its stand clear on the issue concerning the erstwhile UPA regime's flagship programme.

A bench headed by Chief Justice HL Dattu, which did not issue a notice to the government on the plea, asked Solicitor General Ranjit Kumar to apprise it of the stand of the Centre and fixed the matter for further hearing on February 13.

Senior advocate Gopal Subramanium, appearing for Mathew Thomas who has filed the PIL through lawyer Aishwarya Bhati, said all personal details of citizens were being sought in violation of fundamental rights enshrined in the Constitution.

The PIL sought quashing of the gazette notification of January 28, 2009 by the Planning Commission on the matter.


The PIL sought quashing of the gazette notification of January 28, 2009 by the Planning Commission on the matter. It also sought a direction to the Centre and the Unique Identification Authority of India (UIDAI) to destroy all the information collected pursuant to the notification.

After the notification, the UIDAI, which was not even a statutory body, had rolled out Unique ID (UID) scheme called "Aadhaar" for collection of personal data of Indian citizens, it claimed.

Various government bodies have also made availing of essential services, even withdrawal of salary, contingent upon possession of the Aadhaar card, The plea said. It alleged that collection of data was being done by agencies whose "security credentials are not scrutinized thoroughly" and the Aadhaar card is being issued even to illegal migrants, enabling them to avail services of central government which are meant exclusively for Indian citizens.

"The avowed objectives of UID scheme are itself farcical and the entire exercise is nothing but colossal waste of public money and exposes India's vulnerabilities," it said. The plea maintained that the UID project affected and abridged the rights of citizens, while the government did not have sufficient material to "come to the conclusion that such an incursion on the rights of the citizens was necessary."

The scheme has come under severe judicial criticism in the past, with even the apex court staying the government's decision to link Aadhaar with the grant of subsidy, including that on LPG cylinders. The plea also said that Section 14-A of the Citizenship Act be declared "ultravires" as collection of personal data under the National Population Register was violative of Article 14 and Articles 21 of the Constitution. It is not prescribed as to what extent private information of citizens would be required and this issue has been left to the discretion of executive, the plea said.
The petition said the act of establishment of UIDAI could not have been done by a mere approval of the "Empowered Group of Ministers" which is not even a body recognized under the Constitution.

"All acts affecting rights and liberties of an individual are to be necessarily backed by law, legislated by Parliament. In the instant, neither the creation of the Planning Commission nor the creation of UIDAI under its aegis is products of legislative process," the petition said.

It further said the conduct of Centre, Planning Commission and UIDAI have jeopardized the privacy of citizens. The petition further said that the objective of UID to have a "universal" database of all Indian residents cannot be achieved until and unless the government encroaches upon the fundamental and core private rights, and therefore, UIDAI is required to be statutorily provided.

"There are no provisions in the UIDAI to even apprise the people of India of the consequences of such enrollment and how it affects legal rights of individuals," the petition said. It said that despite the orders of apex court, Centre has not changed its enrollment process to sift out illegal immigrants. Various state governments were also making the enrolment into Aadhaar scheme a mandatory requirement by indirect methods like linking a person's attendance to UID.

"Without checks and balances and utter disregard of Constitutional morality and principle of constitutionalism, the Respondents are proceeding with the Aadhaar Scheme which is wholly unsustainable and laden with fraud on the people of
India," it said.


It has also sought direction for delinking of all the biometric and demographic details linked to the bank accounts under the Aadhaar Scheme and under Section 14-A of the Citizenship Act.

7314 - Aadhaar encroaches right to protect self-information, says PIL - The Hindu

NEW DELHI, February 2, 2015
Updated: February 2, 2015 20:28 IST


KRISHNADAS RAJAGOPAL

The Supreme Court sought a clarification on the Union Government's current position on the issue.

The Supreme Court on Monday asked the government to look into a public interest petition contending that the Aadhaar scheme is “laden with fraud” and a danger not only to the citizen's privacy and dignity, but also to his “right to protect self-information”.

A Bench led by Chief Justice of India H.L. Dattu summoned Solicitor-General Ranjit Kumar to the courtroom and sought a clarification on the government's current position on the issue.
“We heard the government itself is having second thoughts,” Chief Justice Dattu orally observed. Mr. Kumar sought time to study the petition and come back with an answer.

The Bench scheduled the case for hearing on February 13, but did not issue formal notice to the government.

The hearing came on a petition filed by Bangalore-resident and social activist, Mathew Thomas, demanding how the Unique Identification Authority of India (UIDAI), “which is not even a statutory body rolled out Unique ID (UID) scheme called “Aadhaar” Scheme, for collection of personal data of residents of India”.

Mr. Thomas, represented by senior advocate Gopal Subramanium and advocate Aishwarya Bhati, pointed that various governmental bodies have made availing essential services as well as withdrawal of salary contingent upon possession of Aadhaar card.

“It is not mandatory, but yes, there is some insistence,” Chief Justice Dattu orally observed at this juncture.

“To ask anybody information, you should have authority by law. You should have a credible structure,” Mr. Subramanium continued. He argued that enlisting citizens in the Aadhaar scheme is not “exactly a government activity, but outsourced to private contractors”.

“On the surface it (Aadhaar) is a simple document of identity, but it has linkages by means of iris scans and biometricdetails. God forbid if identities are exchanged or mistaken. the Executive's scheme involves private partners. Who are these private partners?” Mr. Subramanium submitted.

Submitting how the ordinary man is now prone to the perils of identity fraud, Mr. Subramanium said the “Sovereign State also has the duty to protect its citizens, to protect his identity, his personal information against possible misuse”.

In this connection, the petition also sought the quashing of Section 14-A of the Citizenship Act, 1955 on the ground that “it does not prescribe to what extent private information of citizens shall be required and leaves it to the discretion of Executive”.


Monday, December 29, 2014

7052 - Aadhaar-based cash transfers: Madras HC notice stokes fear of judicial backlash - Business Standard


An earlier version of the scheme had to be stopped after SC observed Aadhaar numbers could not be made mandatory for availing of benefits

Sudheer Pal Singh  |  New Delhi  December 12, 2014 Last Updated at 00:45 IST

The fear of a judicial backlash against the government’s attempt to revive the Aadhaar-linked direct benefits transfer of LPG (DBTL) subsidy returned on Wednesday, with a division Bench of the Madras High Court issuing notices to the cabinet secretary, petroleum secretary and the Oil and Natural Gas Corporation (ONGC) chairman in this regard.


A public interest suit was filed in the Madurai bench of the court, challenging the central government’s move to link Aadhaar and bank account details with domestic gas cylinder connections, as part of the DBT scheme. The petitioner, Sivakasi-based advocate S M Anantha Murugan, called for restraining the scheme as the Supreme Court had earlier restrained oil companies from demanding Aadhaar card numbers for liquefied petroleum gas (LPG) cylinders.

Business Standard had on October 28 reported that Solicitor-General Ranjit Kumar had advised against resuming cash transfers in cooking gas without taking the Supreme Court’s approval. The government should first place the report of a committee appointed to study the scheme before the court and seek a modification in its ruling, he had advised. A senior petroleum ministry official had recently said the ministry would approach the court if the need arose. An earlier version of the scheme was rolled out by the previous government in June last year which had to be stopped after the Supreme Court observed Aadhaar numbers could not be made mandatory for availing of benefits from the government. The scheme had already been rolled out in 292 districts by then and the government had transacted via Aadhaar about Rs 5,000 crore to beneficiaries.

A modified version of the DBT scheme was launched by the new government in 54 districts across 11 states, covering 23.3 million households, on November 15, to reduce diversion of subsidised domestic cooking gas. The new scheme does not make an Aadhaar number mandatory. Currently, the Aadhaar generation level in the 54 chosen districts stands at 95 per cent. Under the new scheme, consumers without Aadhaar numbers can receive cash directly in their bank accounts. However, they may have to shift to an Aadhaar-based cash transfer system when they get their Aadhaar numbers. Also, consumers not cash transfer-compliant (CTC) get a three-month grace period, during which they receive the cylinders at a subsidised rate.

To ensure LPG consumers have extra cash to pay for the first LPG cylinder at market price, a permanent advance is to be paid to them as soon as they make their first cylinder booking after joining the scheme.