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

Tuesday, August 22, 2017

11822 - Privacy as fundamental right: Minding our business

Privacy as fundamental right: Minding our business

August 21, 2017, 11:44 PM IST Economic Times in ET Commentary | Edit Page, India | ET

By Smriti Parsheera

The Supreme Court’s upcoming verdict on whether we have a fundamental right to privacy will be one of the most momentous decisions of our times. It is, however, inopportune that this vital issue has arisen as an offshoot to the Aadhaar litigation.

Both sides are alive to the fact that the decision will take them a step closer or further from proving their stance in the main petition. This has undeniably coloured the arguments in court. The real implications of the nine-judge decision will, however, run much deeper than the immediate questions of Aadhaar.

The term ‘privacy’, while not expressly spelt out under the Constitution, forms the crux of what it means to live a dignified life in a liberal democracy. The concept of a secret ballot, for instance, finds its origin in the need for ‘political privacy’, our ability to vote anonymously, without the promise of reward or fear of persecution. Section 94 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, codifies this right by providing that a person cannot be mandated to disclose for whom she has voted, not even before a court of law.

Then there’s ‘physical privacy’ that guards a person’s body and physical space from unwelcome intrusions. ‘Behavioural privacy’ gives us the freedom to keep private our religious practices, sexual orientation and associations. ‘Informational privacy’ deals with the expectation of privacy in the collection, storage and use of personally identifiable information. ‘Cognitive privacy’ calls for new thinking about the use of technologies that can decipher thoughts and brain activities.

Some of these rights are already covered by existing constitutional provisions, some have been protected under laws, while others are still waiting to be born. A legal right can, however, not be a substitute for a fundamental right. Legal rights can be conferred and withdrawn at will and their validity rests on conformity with the Constitution.

The declaration of privacy as a fundamental right will not imply that it will become an unassailable, paramount right, which can never be undone. The contours of privacy, and the limitations on its scope, will have to evolve through jurisprudence developed by the courts. Even until recently, when we believed privacy to be an integral part of the right to life and personal liberty under Article 21, the Supreme Court had pointed on several occasions that privacy is not an absolute right.

For instance, in Mr X vs Hospital Z ((1998) 8 SCC 296), while dealing with the right to confidentiality of an HIV patient, the court held that in case of a conflict between right to privacy and right to health of another, the latter prevails. In another case, ordering a person to undergo a medical examination was not regarded as being violative of the person’s right to privacy where the test was necessary to determine unsoundness of mind, a recognised ground for divorce. The person could still refuse the medical examination, allowing the court to draw an adverse inference (Sharda vs Dharmpal, AIR 2003 SC 3450).

Conferring privacy with the status of a fundamental right will achieve two key goals. One, it will offer a guaranteed constitutional framework to test against ingressions into the various dimensions of privacy. Two, it will provide courts with greater confidence when comparing the tradeoffs between privacy and other constitutional protections.

The separation of powers between the legislature and the judiciary demands that courts cannot question the wisdom of legislative actions. So, any law, no matter how odious it may appear, cannot be struck down by a court unless covered by certain specific grounds. These grounds, as stated most recently in the Aadhaar-PAN case (WP Civil No. 247 of 2017), are that the legislature did not have the competence to make the law; or the law is void for being in violation of any of the fundamental rights or any other constitutional provisions.

If privacy is not to be a fundamental right, what protection would we have against future transgressions of this right by various laws? Always having to derive this right from other provisions in the Constitution would dilute its efficacy. Relying on political processes to solve the issue would be too little, too late.

The key challenge, therefore, is not just about the privacy implications of the Aadhaar Act, or any other legislation, but the unforeseen laws and practices of the days to come. A few years ago, the Bombay High Court directed the UIDAI to share the biometric information of Aadhaar holders in Goa to aid the CBI in a rape investigation. The UIDAI challenged this before the court on grounds of privacy, which was accepted by the court.

The passage of the Aadhaar Act has now closed the door on such speculative searches, at least so far as biometric data is concerned. If the law were to be subsequently amended to allow biometric data to be shared for investigation and surveillance purposes, one would like to believe that the supporters of the Aadhaar architecture will join the detractors in opposing such a move. What we will need then is a fundamental right to privacy against which the actions of the legislature can be tested.

(From “How Benchmarking can Improve Cost Competitiveness in Steel”)

DISCLAIMER : Views expressed above are the author's own.